Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Biblical Counseling?

From a forum post:

{{_ BIBLICAL COUNSELING —

{{_ "If churches were functioning biblically, there would be no need for the contemporary biblical counseling movement. Counseling is often a substitute for a church gone wrong. In a church gone right there is no need for biblical counseling as it is commonly practiced and as it poses a threat to the spiritual headship of men…." [2/5 P.A.L.]

{{_ [ CALVARY CONTENDER - April 2005 ]}}

(Unable to find source of quote. Calvary Contender abbreviation page does not list P.A.L and brief Vivisimo search not helpful.)

The objection to counseling as superceding family authorities is quite valid.

Problems in inter-personal relationships have their beginnings in the family of origin and have their worst signs and symptoms in the present family.

A splendid secular attack on psychotherapy and counseling is found in Against Therapy
by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson.

From a review at Amazon.com:

A revised edition of a controversial attack on modern psychological therapy, from Freud to Carl Rogers. The author begins with the premise that the aim of therapy is to change people. He then argues that if the direction of change, indeed the definition of success in therapy, is determined chiefly by the therapist, then therapy is an inherently corrupt interaction. Why? Because the autocratic structure of therapy serves the interests of the therapist, not the patient. [ … ]
Biblical and traditional and natural family authority is too often replaced without due notice by counselors, simply as part of what they do.

Pastors, elders, and Christian self-help groups have similar problems.

But a more central problem for the believer is the lack of support for self-examination, aided or unaided, in the New Testament. The two references are limited. Instead, believers are told:

KJV Phil. 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

This the believer's source of authority. What the spiritually refreshed mind has to tell him of his new identity in Christ Jesus. And the efficacy of this mental focus is stated in:

KJV 2nd Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

And fellow believers are given the duty to assist in certain ways under certain circumstances:

KJV Gal. 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

KJV Titus 23-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Monday, April 25, 2005

Self Examination

From a forum:

\\What's Your Attitude Toward God?\\ - your .1

||What counts is His attitude toward me. || - my .26

{{_Jesus loves you. }} - your .27

Thanks, but I was not expressing doubt about His love toward me.

I was rather expressing doubt on the usefulness of measuring and attempting to improve our attitude toward God.

There are only two quite limited instructions about self examination in the New Testament.

But much instruction about keeping our eyes on Jesus.

Phi. 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

The assurance of God's loving attitude toward the true believer is conveyed in the persistent faith in two impossible things: that one is counted as a child of God despite all one's defects, and that a man rose from the dead.

Rom. 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Rom. 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

If this assurance is present and focus is kept on the Lord, one's attitude will follow.

If this assurance is not present, improvement of attitude may well lead to a false sense of security.

Sanctification

From a forum:
{{_ As Christians, what does being Sanctified mean?}}

Leviticus 19:1-2 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.

The root idea of holiness or sanctity is contained in the emphasized words above.

Some have called it the primary attribute of God: His separateness, His being set apart from the Creation, His being Someone and Something different.

The application to believers today is much stronger than the commandment given to Israel:

John 17:20-21 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Interpreters speak of the sanctification of believers having past, present, and future aspects. These differences of aspect (or tense) may cause confusion.

Past. Before conversion. Believers are said to be foreknown before the Creation (Eph. 1:4). Believers are set apart at conception (Gal. 1:15). Children of believing parents or of just one believing parent are set apart or sanctified in a special temporary way whether they become believers or not (and the unbelieving spouse is similarly sanctified) (1st Cor. 7:14-15).

Past. After conversion. There is assurance of an eternal living relationship with God. The believer knows for certain that he has been set apart as a child of God (Rom. 8:16).

Present. There is a growth in holiness or in being set apart. This is the usual sense of sanctification. But too often perceived holiness of behavior, words, and thought are implied. These may be signs of sanctification, but the process of sanctification itself is increased appreciation of the unmerited favor of God as a result of increased knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (2nd Peter 3:18).

Future. Physical death of the true believer (or resurrection before death) brings about complete sanctification. The old enemies of the world, the flesh, and the devil trouble the believer no more.

How to Love Neighbor and Self

The key to understanding Leviticus 19:18, its quotation by the Lord as part of the great commandment, and the explanatory parable of the good Samaritan is often missed.

Matthew 22:37-39 (KJV) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

How is the second like unto the first?

Our love for God is a passive love. We love Him for what we receive from Him. Including faith in His Son and the good works that He has prepared for us to walk in.

But most would have the love of neighbor and self be the opposite kind of love, a love that gives, an active love, doing things for others as we do things for ourselves.

If the second is like unto the first, it is a passive love, a love of receiving.

We love our neighbors and ourselves because these are channels of God's gifts and His love to us.

We love everything about ourselves because this is the way that God made us.

We love everything about all our neighbors because they are also God's gifts to us, beginning with our parents.

We have faith that the defects in ourselves and in our neighbors are part of God's purpose in which all things work together for good to them that love God and are the called according to his purpose.

There is a seemingly odd phasing in the parable of the good Samaritan that supports this.

Luke 10:36 (KJV) Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

The question is not what the common interpretation of love of neighbor would dictate: "Which regarded the man who fell among thieves as his neighbor (and actively loved him)?"

But the lawyer, like just about everybody, all focused on works religion and guilty of the error of the Galatians answered the substitute question of his imagination.

(And the Lord passed over this error as He did a similar error by the rich young ruler who also believed in works and ignored a similar hint that the Lord gave, " Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." (Luke 18:19) When we think that works are the way to go, often only long sad experience will convince us otherwise. Our Lord realized this and did what He could for these people, leaving an important message for those who will examine these passages prayerfully and carefully.)

Actually the man who fell among thieves should love all three. The priest represented him in the Temple before God. The Levite took on the temple duties that would otherwise be done by his firstborn son. Each in his own way and despite defects (the Samaritan worshiped in the wrong place) was a channel of God's love. Each was a neighbor, placed there by God.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Elite Universities Being Shunned

From a National Review Online article, The Princeton Way by Stanley Kurtz:

April 11, 2005, 8:31 a.m. [/] The Princeton Way [/] There's a real demand out there for alternative programs and points of view on college campuses. [by Stanley Kurtz]

If Steven Roy Goodman is right, the implications for the academy are immense. According to Goodman, who makes his living advising students who are applying to college, many families are now so fed up with campus p.c. that they've started to avoid the most egregiously left-wing schools. That means students are beginning to shun big-name colleges - where politicization is at its worst - in favor of less prestigious, but also less prejudiced, schools. For example, Columbia University seems to be losing applicants in the wake of student charges of political intimidation by Middle East-studies faculty.

Stories of campus political correctness first flared in the mid-1980s. Then, sometime in the '90s, people stopped paying attention. Everyone knew that campuses were bastions of political correctness, but the public wrote off the leftist professorate as a bunch of hopeless, irrelevant cranks. Lately, though, things have changed. As the Left's monopoly on campus has become nearly total, the abuses have grown (think Lawrence Summers and Ward Churchill). At the same time, 9/11, generational change, and the rise of alternative media have produced a more conservative cohort of students. And now a series of empirical studies have provided evidence to back up the widely shared sense that the professorate - particularly at the elite schools - has been monopolized by the Left. (See here and here.) The rebellion against campus p.c. may finally be nearing critical mass. Once prestigious schools actually stand to lose applicants, administrators may finally wake up and do something to balance their one-sided faculties. [ … ]

In fact, Princeton's Madison Program is a model for solving the political-correctness problem in the academy as a whole. We may not be able to do much about tenured humanities and social-science faculties at elite colleges that are liberal by margins of more than 90 percent. But setting up small enclaves of professors with more conservative views is a real possibility. It's amazing how much the presence of even a relatively small alternative program can do to generate debate - and diffuse intimidation. [ … ]

And a reversal of the dietary restriction trend would also help. See an In Two Cities post, The Important Scandal at Harvard .

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Inside a Late 20th Century Woman

It is a great blessing to have others read and report on certain books so that we can avoid tedium and queasiness.

From a WSJ Opinion Journal article, See Jane Run On and On :

See Jane Run On and On [/] Why Jane Fonda's tell-all book isn't likely to fly off the shelves. [\] Friday, April 8, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Reading Jane Fonda's autobiography is similar to watching one of those Roomba robotic vacuums clean a floor. Like the little machine, which careers off in a new direction after each object it hits, the woman at the center of "My Life So Far" seems to be guided mostly by the actions and ideas of others. It makes for a sad story in Ms. Fonda's case, full of emotional drama and addiction demons. In an earlier era, her self-searching (and the grisly details it calls forth) might have been called brave and celebrated as an inspiration. So far, however, that hasn't happened. After years of witnessing public confessionals, have we finally reached the point of revelation fatigue? [my emphasis]

Certainly Ms. Fonda's tale is full of woe: a distant mother who died by slashing her own throat; a cold father; three cheating husbands, one of whom demanded threesomes; decades of bulimia; substance abuse; difficult pregnancies; cruel or misguided medical treatment; all the harassment over her anti-Vietnam War activism. This is a partial list, in a volume that gives new meaning to the old song "Everything Happens to Me." If only half of what Ms. Fonda has been through, or subjected herself to, had occurred, it would still sound pitiably horrendous. [my emphasis]

So why has the reaction to her story been less than gushing? It's not because the book is badly written, although it thuds with lines like "My daughter's home had become a womb in which I was pregnant with myself." It's not because reading it is often a slog, as Ms. Fonda lurches grimly from personal tragedy to political agony. There are some accidental laughs--the author reports straight-faced that she got involved with the Black Panthers at the suggestion of the actor who played Grandpa on the "Munsters." The section of the book where Ms. Fonda regrets the 1972 picture of her sitting at a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun is tinged with unintended black comedy. Ms. Fonda explains that she sat there distractedly: Vietnamese soldiers had just saluted "Uncle Ho" with a song that went, "All men are created equal. They are given certain rights; among those are life, liberty, and happiness" and Ms. Fonda was dazzled with joy. "I began to cry and clap," she writes. "These young men...celebrate the same words Americans do."

[ … ] If her book sells, Ms. Fonda can celebrate. But if it is validation she was seeking, the lesson here may be that the best place to find it is in private circles.

A life in our times. As told by a woman who had all the advantages.

And I am reminded of the advice a psychiatrist gave to clergymen. If a counselee’s story bores you, refer the person to a specialist in emotional and mental illness. Normal people do not tell boring stories when they are honestly asking for understanding and help.

NYT Meltdown in Iraq

From a New York Daily News article, Times' Iraq bureau grief by Lloyd Grove.

(Lloyd Grove is The Daily News' newest gossip columnist, joining us from The Washington Post, where he wrote the widely read 'Reliable Source' column.):

The perils of Iraq have nothing on the nasty fracas erupting between former New York Times Baghdad Bureau Chief Susan Sachs and her ex-colleagues, Times Baghdad correspondents Dexter Filkins and John Burns.

The Gray Lady's management has just fired Sachs, a widely respected and experienced journalist who has tangled bitterly with Burns and Filkins, over allegations that she sent anonymous letters and an E-mail to their wives alleging bad behavior with women in the war zone. [ … ]

Sachs' attorney, Laura Hoguet, added: "Susan does maintain her innocence - and she is innocent. She has passed a polygraph test, and her friends, who are many, believe she could never have done such a thing." [ … ]

I hear that The Times conducted an investigation and linked postmarks on the envelopes to Sachs' purported whereabouts on the dates the letters were apparently sent - and also claimed to have linked an E-mail to Sachs.

I'm told that the evidence is circumstantial.

But there's certainly no love lost between Sachs and her former colleagues in Baghdad. Back in January, The New York Observer reported that relations between Sachs and Burns and Filkins had become so toxic that Times Executive Editor Bill Keller dispatched then-foreign editor Roger Cohen to broker peace. During a meeting at the bureau to quell the antagonism, Sachs demanded the session be tape-recorded.

Soon after the failed effort, Sachs - who loudly complained when Filkins starting carrying a gun - was recalled to New York.

Curiouser and curiouser.

But what is most curious is that many have been depending on these people for accurate reporting of the War in Iraq.

Left with a Loony Berger

The Wall Street Journal seems to have stripped President Clinton's National Security Advisor of any rational, albeit corrupt, motive for cutting up top secret documents with a pair of scissors.

We understand that Mr. Clinton had a good laugh when he first learned that Mr. Berger had smuggled very sensitive documents out of the National Archives, saying, "That's our Sandy", or something of the sort.

Mr. Berger is perhaps the most outlandish presidential appointee since Franklin Delano Roosevelt elevated the National Press Club member with the most noticeable alcohol intake to be one of the three Commissioners in charge of the District of Columbia.

May Providence continue to protect the District and the Nation from such presidential hubris.

From a WSJ Opinion Journal article, The Berger File :

The Berger File [/] Sandy Berger didn't destroy documents with notes in the margin. [/] Friday, April 8, 2005 12:01 a.m.

Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003. [ ... ]

The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.

"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes." Mr. Berger's sentencing is scheduled for July, and Mr. Hillman assures us Justice's sentencing memo will lay out the facts and "make sure Mr. Berger explains what he did and why he did it." Meanwhile, conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left.

So, if we do not want to be like the loony left, we are left with a loony Berger.

And Mr. Clinton's legacy is left with a loony National Security Advisor.

John Paul II

One towering achievement of the man is beautifully described by Peggy Noonanin a WSJ Opinion Journal article, 'We Want God' :

'We Want God' [/] When John Paul II went to Poland, communism didn't have a prayer. [/] Thursday, April 7, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT [by Peggy Noonan]

Everyone has spoken this past week of John Paul II's role in the defeat of Soviet communism and the liberation of Eastern Europe. We don't know everything, or even a lot, about the quiet diplomatic moves--what happened in private, what kind of communications the pope had with the other great lions of the 1980s, Reagan and Thatcher. And others, including Bill Casey, the tough old fox of the CIA, and Lech Walesa of Solidarity.

But I think I know the moment Soviet communism began its fall. It happened in public. Anyone could see it. It was one of the great spiritual moments of the 20th century, maybe the greatest.

It was the first week in June 1979. Europe was split in two between east and west, the democracies and the communist bloc--police states controlled by the Soviet Union and run by local communist parties and secret police.

John Paul was a new pope, raised to the papacy just eight months before. The day after he became pope he made it clear he would like to return as pope to his native Poland to see his people.

The communists who ran the Polish regime faced a quandary. [ ... ] They wagered that he would understand he was fortunate to be given permission to come, and understand what he owed the government in turn was deportment that would not threaten the reigning reality. They announced the pope would be welcome to come home on a "religious pilgrimage."

John Paul quickly accepted the invitation. He went to Poland.

And from the day he arrived, the boundaries of the world began to shift.

Two months before the pope's arrival, the Polish communist apparatus took steps to restrain the enthusiasm of the people. They sent a secret directive to schoolteachers explaining how they should understand and explain the pope's visit. "The pope is our enemy," it said. "Due to his uncommon skills and great sense of humor he is dangerous, because he charms everyone, especially journalists. Besides, he goes for cheap gestures in his relations with the crowd, for instance, puts on a highlander's hat, shakes all hands, kisses children. . . . It is modeled on American presidential campaigns. . . Because of the activation of the Church in Poland our activities designed to atheize the youth not only cannot diminish but must intensely develop. . . In this respect all means are allowed and we cannot afford any sentiments." [/] The government also issued instructions to Polish media to censor and limit the pope's comments and appearances.

On June 2, 1979, the pope arrived in Poland. What followed will never be forgotten by those who witnessed it.

He knelt and kissed the ground, the dull gray tarmac of the airport outside Warsaw. The silent churches of Poland at that moment began to ring their bells. The pope traveled by motorcade from the airport to the Old City of Warsaw. [ ... ]

By the end of the day, with the people lining the streets and highways plus the people massed outside Warsaw and then inside it--all of them cheering and throwing flowers and applauding and singing--more than a million had come.

In Victory Square in the Old City the pope gave a mass. Communist officials watched from the windows of nearby hotels. The pope gave what papal biographer George Weigel called the greatest sermon of John Paul's life.

Why, the pope asked, had God lifted a Pole to the papacy? Perhaps it was because of how Poland had suffered for centuries, and through the 20th century had become "the land of a particularly responsible witness" to God. The people of Poland, he suggested, had been chosen for a great role, to understand, humbly but surely, that they were the repository of a special "witness of His cross and His resurrection." He asked then if the people of Poland accepted the obligations of such a role in history. [/] The crowd responded with thunder.

"We want God!" they shouted, together. "We want God!"

What a moment in modern history: We want God. From the mouths of modern men and women living in a modern atheistic dictatorship.

The pope was speaking on the Vigil of Pentecost, that moment in the New Testament when the Holy Spirit came down to Christ's apostles, who had been hiding in fear after his crucifixion, filling them with courage and joy. John Paul picked up this theme. What was the greatest of the works of God? Man. Who redeemed man? Christ. Therefore, he declared, "Christ cannot be kept out of the history of man in any part of the globe, at any longitude or latitude. . . . The exclusion of Christ from the history of man is an act against man! Without Christ it is impossible to understand the history of Poland." Those who oppose Christ, he said, still live within the Christian context of history.

Christ, the pope declared, was not only the past of Poland--he was "the future . . . our Polish future."

The massed crowd thundered its response. "We want God!" it roared.

That is what the communist apparatchiks watching the mass from the hotels that rimmed Victory Square heard. Perhaps at this point they understood that they had made a strategic mistake. Perhaps as John Paul spoke they heard the sound careen off the hard buildings that ringed the square; perhaps the echo sounded like a wall falling.
The pope had not directly challenged the government. He had not called for an uprising. He had not told the people of Catholic Poland to push back against their atheist masters. He simply stated the obvious. In Mr. Weigel's words: "Poland was not a communist country; Poland was a Catholic nation saddled with a communist state."

The next day, June 3, 1979, John Paul stood outside the cathedral in Gniezno, a small city with a population of 50,000 or so. Again there was an outdoor mass, and again he said an amazing thing. [/] He did not speak of what governments want, nor directly of what a growing freedom movement wants, nor of what the struggling Polish worker's union, Solidarity, wanted. [/] He spokeof what God wants.

"Does not Christ want, does not the Holy Spirit demand, that the pope, himself a Pole, the pope, himself a Slav, here and now should bring out into the open the spiritual unity of Christian Europe . . .?" Yes, he said, Christ wants that. "The Holy Spirit demands that it be said aloud, here, now. . . . Your countryman comes to you, the pope, so as to speak before the whole Church, Europe and the world. . . . He comes to cry out with a mighty cry."

What John Paul was saying was remarkable. He was telling Poland: See the reality around you differently. See your situation in a new way. Do not see the division of Europe; see the wholeness that exists and that not even communism can take away. Rhetorically his approach was not to declare or assert but merely, again, to point out the obvious: We are Christians, we are here, we are united, no matter what the communists and their map-makers say.

It was startling. It was as if he were talking about a way of seeing the secret order of the world. [/] That day at the cathedral the communist authorities could not stop the applause. They could not stop everyone who applauded and cheered. There weren't enough jail cells.

But it was in the Blonie Field, in Krakow--the Blonia Krakowskie, the fields just beyond the city--that the great transcendent moment of the pope's trip took place. It was the moment when, for those looking back, the new world opened. It was the moment, some said later, that Soviet communism's fall became inevitable. [/] It was a week into the trip, June 10, 1979. It was a sunny day. The pope was to hold a public mass. The communist government had not allowed it to be publicized, but Poles had spread the word. [ ... ]

They started coming early, and by the time the mass began it was the biggest gathering of humanity in the entire history of Poland. Two million or three million people came, no one is sure, maybe more. For a mass.

And it was there, at the end of his trip, in the Blonie field, that John Paul took on communism directly, by focusing on communism's attempt to kill the religious heritage of a country that had for a thousand years believed in Christ.

This is what he said: [/] Is it possible to dismiss Christ and everything which he brought into the annals of the human being? Of course it is possible. The human being is free. The human being can say to God, "No." The human being can say to Christ, "No." But the critical question is: Should he? And in the name of what "should" he? With what argument, what reasoning, what value held by the will or the heart does one bring oneself, one's loved ones, one's countrymen and nation to reject, to say "no" to Him with whom we have all lived for one thousand years? He who formed the basis of our identity and has Himself remained its basis ever since. . . .[/] As a bishop does in the sacrament of Confirmation so do I today extend my hands in that apostolic gesture over all who are gathered here today, my compatriots. And so I speak for Christ himself: "Receive the Holy Spirit!"

I speak too for St. Paul: "Do not quench the Spirit!" [/] I speak again for St. Paul: "Do not grieve the Spirit of God!" [/] You must be strong, my brothers and sisters! You must be strong with the strength that faith gives! You must be strong with the strength of faith! You must be faithful! You need this strength today more than any other period of our history. . . .[/] You must be strong with love, which is stronger than death. . . . When we are strong with the Spirit of God, we are also strong with the faith of man. . . . There is therefore no need to fear. . . . So . . . I beg you: Never lose your trust, do not be defeated, do not be discouraged. . . . Always seek spiritual power from Him from whom countless generations of our fathers and mothers have found it. Never detach yourselves from Him. Never lose your spiritual freedom.

They went home from that field a changed country. After that mass they would never be the same. [ ... ]

So it was a redeclaration of the Polish spirit, which is a free spirit. And those who were there went home a different people, a people who saw themselves differently, not as victims of history but as strugglers for Christ.

Another crucial thing happened, after the mass was over. Everyone who was there went home and turned on the news that night to see the pictures of the incredible crowd and the incredible pope. But state-controlled TV did not show the crowds. They did a brief report that showed a shot of the pope standing and speaking for a second or two. State television did not acknowledge or admit what a phenomenon John Paul's visit was, or what it had unleashed.

The people who had been at the mass could compare the reality they had witnessed with their own eyes with the propaganda their media reported. They could see the discrepancy. This left the people of Poland able to say at once and together, definitively, with no room for argument: It's all lies. Everything this government says is a lie. Everything it is is a lie.

Whatever legitimacy the government could pretend to, it began to lose. One by one the people of Poland said to themselves, or for themselves within themselves: It is over.

And when 10 million Poles said that to themselves, it was over in Poland. And when it was over in Poland, it was over in Eastern Europe. And when it was over in Eastern Europe, it was over in the Soviet Union. And when it was over in the Soviet Union, well, it was over. [ ... ]

Friday, April 08, 2005

Lucianne Views Eclipse

From Lucianne.com, Lucianne's reply 31 on the Official Ldotter Funeral Services Thread:

Reply 31 - Posted by: Lucianne, 4/8/2005 6:55:21 AM

As they carried John Paul into the [basilica,] here on the East coast the sun disappeared and it grew dark. The eclipse has started.

Santo Subito - very prophetic signs in the crowd - Sainthood now.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Krugman: The Wrongest in The Wrongest?

I suppose there is a wronger newspaper and a wronger columnist somewhere, but, fortunately I am not familiar with them.

It was only the wrongness trifecta in today’s column that compelled me to keep reading in sheer wonderment.

From a New York Times article, An Academic Question by Paul Krugman:

It's a fact, documented by two recent studies, that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities. But what should we conclude from that?

Conservatives see it as compelling evidence of liberal bias in university hiring and promotion. And they say that new "academic freedom" laws will simply mitigate the effects of that bias, promoting a diversity of views. But a closer look both at the universities and at the motives of those who would police them suggests a quite different story.

Claims that liberal bias keeps conservatives off college faculties almost always focus on the humanities and social sciences, where judgments about what constitutes good scholarship can seem subjective to an outsider. But studies that find registered Republicans in the minority at elite universities show that Republicans are almost as rare in hard sciences like physics and in engineering departments as in softer fields. Why?

One answer is self-selection - the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

It may be that Krugman has stumbled on to the cause of the decline in the number of young Americans following scientific and engineering careers. The soft headedness of liberals does not exactly recommend them for teaching anything. But perhaps it is the old truism having its effect, “Those that can, do; those that can’t, teach.”
But there's also, crucially, a values issue. In the 1970's, even Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan conceded that the Republican Party was the "party of ideas." Today, even Republicans like Representative Chris Shays concede that it has become the "party of theocracy."
And liberals generally are still lamenting the dearth of new ideas among them. And who really believes that Republicans are promoting theocracy.
Consider the statements of Dennis Baxley, a Florida legislator who has sponsored a bill that - like similar bills introduced in almost a dozen states - would give students who think that their conservative views aren't respected the right to sue their professors. Mr. Baxley says that he is taking on "leftists" struggling against "mainstream society," professors who act as "dictators" and turn the classroom into a "totalitarian niche." His prime example of academic totalitarianism? When professors say that evolution is a fact.

In its April Fools' Day issue, Scientific American published a spoof editorial in which it apologized for endorsing the theory of evolution just because it's "the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time," saying that "as editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence." And it conceded that it had succumbed "to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do."

Actually, as a theory of the origins of life, undesigned “evolution is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century”. As Behe and others in Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute) point out. It is lamentable that the Scientific American has not done its homework either.

Think of the message this sends: today's Republican Party - increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research - doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general. It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.

Conservatives should be worried by the alienation of the universities; they should at least wonder if some of the fault lies not in the professors, but in themselves. Instead, they're seeking a Lysenkoist solution that would have politics determine courses' content.

And it wouldn't just be a matter of demanding that historians play down the role of slavery in early America,

The demand is that other aspects of colonial America be respected. And that slavery in early America be set in the perspective of contemporary slavery in the Carribean, and the history of slavery in non-Christian cultures.
or that economists give the macroeconomic theories of Friedrich Hayek as much respect as those of John Maynard Keynes. [ … ]
Actually, even PBS with its great liberal bias, recently ran a special showing that recent events such as the failure of Communism, socialism, and the welfare state, have shown Hayek to be much more prescient than Keynes.
If it got that far, universities would probably find ways to cope - by, say, requiring that all entering students sign waivers. But political pressure will nonetheless have a chilling effect on scholarship. And that, of course, is its purpose.
Are we to suppose that the current political correctness fad does not have a chilling effect on scholarship? When the President of Harvard has just been publicly and officially dissed in an unprecedented no-confidence resolution by the Science and Arts Faculty for a minor misdemeanor against the canons of feminism.

I do not know how the odds of such an exhibition of wrongness match the odds for winning a trifecta , but it seems worthy of some sort of award.

(I have not defended the Republican Party in the above. Despite Krugman’s assertions, they are quite obviously capable of defending themselves. Both intellectually and at election time.)

Axis of Bias: MSM & DNC

The blogosphere, source of much contemporary wisdom, has produced a definitive description of that Axis of Bias that is so obvious to all the discerning that we neglect to draw up an appropriate indictment of the major nodes, the mainstream media (MSM), and the Democratic Party National Committee (DNC). This is a long post, but it is a very important post.

From an Cassandra Page post, Top 10 categories of MSM/DNC bias. :

Saturday, April 02, 2005 [/] Top 10 categories of MSM/DNC bias.

Bias in the MSM/DNC takes many forms. I am forced to compare these forms each time I catalogue another "lie" for the 2005 list. Much of the MSM/DNC behavior constitutes mere spin or bias, slanted headlines or failure to report opposing points of view. Those items, while reprehensible, do not constitute "lies." For the sake of clarity and so that we can more easily discuss the tactics of the MSM/DNC, I have categorized here some of those MSM/DNC tactics:

1) The Lie. Often, but not always, the MSM/DNC will resort to an outright lie. This lie will involve some very specific fact, like a forged memo, false reports of a crowd booing when the crowd actually applauded, false claims that Sandy Berger returned the "original" documents, false attribution of statements to public figures, false charges that American soldiers are targeting journalists, etc.

These lies also include preparation of headlines or stories in advance of the actual events, as MSM/DNC did with the Iraqi elections and the death of Terri Schiavo.

I have also categorized as lies instances where the MSM/DNC has an agreement with newsmakers that certain facts will be kept hidden. This one is a much closer call (as between a lie and some other kind of atrocity).

The ultimate goal is that the lie take on status as a historical fact - "Bush was a draft dodger", "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." The MSM/DNC has failed in the first example, but may yet succeed in the second.

2. The memory hole. The tactic here is to forget that certain events occurred and hope that everyone else does also. This tactic requires that the MSM/DNC not only stop talking about some fact, but actually help it to disappear.

The MSM/DNC never talks about the WMD's that we actually did find in Iraq.

Just before the election, NBC interviewed John Kerry and asked about his military IQ test. Kerry stated that this record was not public (a blatant contradiction of Kerry's story that he has released ALL of his military records). The next day, excerpts of this interview appeared on another NBC program, with the damning admission excised. The actual editing out of inconvenient facts provides a great example of a memory hole maneuver (although Powerline disagrees with the significance of that particular example).

Usually, we don't have that kind of easy proof. We just have to remember the facts that MSM/DNC doesn't like and document the absence of any recent MSM/DNC reference to those facts. Any time that we can't find a MSM/DNC reference to some serious news item (like the Washington State elections) it is an example of the memory hole at work.

3. Ventriloquist journalism. A common tactic of the MSM/DNC is to get others to do its dirty work. Let it appear as if someone else is doing the talking so that "media bias" won't be so obvious. [Update] MSM/DNC often uses phrases like "critics say" "some say" "experts say" "sources have told CBS news" . . . .

4. Polls. An offshoot of ventriloquist journalism is the MSM/DNC's reliance upon polls. The polls that the MSM/DNC uses are either (1) unreliable or blatantly false and/or (2) self-fulfilling prophecies. It is a common tendency among humans (especially those who have been softened by 70 years of the welfare state) to want to be on the winning side. When the MSM/DNC releases its polls showing some Democrat with a lead or that the "public" thinks that Social Security is just fine, those who might otherwise harbor doubts are intimidated into going along with the majority. I am sure that the MSM/DNC will continue their efforts to bully the public into acquiescing in the status quo on social security with just this tactic.

5. Buzzwords. The MSM/DNC will repeat a word or phrase often enough that the word itself will take on a life of its own and give those that pay little attention to the news a point of reference. Words like "Halliburton", "Soccer mom", "gravitas" are designed to serve as signposts for the semi-conscious on the otherwise deserted MSM/DNC highway. They are not arguments by themselves, so we can't refute them. But these words act like arguments by force of repetition.

6. Coordination with the Democratic candidates. This tactic seems somewhat new (unless we just couldn't tell before the new media revolution). An example is Rathergate, where CBS timed the release of the fake memos to coincide with the Democrats' "fortunate son" campaign/meme. The October Surprise is another example. It may seem a little odd to accuse the MSM/DNC of coordinating with itself, but that is what happens. Exposing the tactic helps prove the point that the MSM/DNC acts as one entity.

7. The smear/personal attack/outrage. This one is not as recent as it seems. In the 1950's, that overrated hack Edward R. Murrow smeared Joe McCarthy by careful editing of film, a tactic that caused Bobby Kennedy to walk out on a dinner in honor of Murrow because of what he did to "my friend Joe."

In recent years, we have seen so called "journalists" (MSM/DNC hacks) shout down those with whom they disagree, accuse grieving families of having a good time, attack the facial features of those who dare expose governmental misconduct (Paula Jones, Linda Tripp) and "necklace" minority conservatives by calling them stupid.

The smear is designed to intimidate. If that doesn't work, it is designed to so befoul the political discourse that honest people won't want to take part.

8. Euphemisms. MSM/DNC often uses euphemisms to downplay otherwise serious stories. Here is a perfect example from Reuters regarding the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, courtesy of the Captain.

9. False appearance of evenhandedness. The MSM/DNC often appears to treat a story evenhandedly, interviewing individuals from both sides of the debate. But this tactic is just as phony as the rest of the MSM/DNC. The MSM/DNC (news broadcast, for example) will give 5 seconds to the conservative while letting the leftist drone on for thirty seconds. The MSM/DNC will edit the film to exclude the conservative's strongest points. The MSM/DNC will interview only moderate Republicans who have little of substance to say. Or the MSM/DNC will interview only uneducated fringe individuals for the purpose of discrediting the conservatives. The reader or viewer will never receive a true clash of ideas through the filter of the MSM/DNC.

10. Opinion as fact. This one is the most generic and the most common. It includes many of the other tactics. It includes the insertion of opinions into news stories instead of the editorial page. The insertion of these opinions has to be somewhat clever so as not to be obvious. That is why the MSM/DNC uses ventriloquism tactics, polls, the memory hole, the occasional lie, euphemisms and buzzwords. MSM/DNC cannot simply use the words "Bush is a bad president" in a news story. That would be too obvious.
--------------------------
Update

I should have known there would be more than 10 categories.

11. The race card. A commenter asked about the use of "PC." The MSM/DNC uses the race card in many situations. By pretending to speak for minorities, MSM/DNC is engaging in ventriloquist journalism. MSM/DNC also uses the race card as a smear tactic. When any conservative politician begins to gain acceptance, the MSM/DNC immediately begins a race card/PC attack. When a minority happens to be conservative, such minority conservatism is flushed down the memory hole or, if that doesn't work, results in a necklacing smear. Even though this category overlaps the others, I believe it deserves its own separate number.

12. Issue exclusion/false alternatives. This one is a form of the phony even handedness that appears in category # 9. The MSM/DNC will present most issues as a choice between two alternatives - the moderate wishy washy approach is presented as the Republican/right wing approach, while the leftist approach is heralded as the only alternative. No mention is made of true conservative alternatives. The Vietnam war is a prime example. We were presented with the MSM/DNC approved choice of surrender or endless no-win tactics. Goldwater's suggested approach was never considered. Every time the minimum wage becomes an issue, we are presented with the choice of raising the minimum wage by a large amount or a small amount. MSM/DNC never presents the voluminous economic research that suggests that the very existence of the minimum wage is harmful. Tax cuts are always presented as a choice between a small Republican cut or a Democrat proposal for an increase. The burdensome nature of taking more than 1/3 of our earnings is never considered. In the war on terror (or any recent war) the MSM/DNC presents the issue as peace v. war instead of victory v. defeat.

When the MSM/DNC defines the issues, the MSM/DNC cannot lose, no matter which side the public takes.

--------------------
Monday update - I should have known that 10 or 12 would be woefully inadequate. I am grateful to all of the commenters who have provided examples of additional categories (even the site pests). I have also added to some of the first 12.

13. "Both sides are guilty." The MSM/DNC does not so much openly advocate leftist positions or the positions of America's enemies as it finds subtle ways to undermine the American position. Throughout the cold war, MSM/DNC focused as much or more on American "imperialism" as it did on Soviet aggression. For every conservative who cautioned that the Soviets had a history of breaking treaties, a MSM/DNC mouthpiece would claim that America had violated some Indian treaty 200 years ago. Today, MSM/DNC figures remind us of the Crusades or Abu Graib whenever we discuss homeland security or the need to hunt down terrorists. When we discuss MSM/DNC bias, the MSM/DNC whines about "Fox News" (thank you site pests for reminding me about that one by your example in the comments). In the 1990's, every eruption of Whitewater or Monicagate resulted in repeated MSM/DNC references to Thomas Jefferson's slaves or Watergate. That is why Watergate will forever remain a current issue, while Whitewater is now wedged at the top of the memory hole (see #2) with MSM/DNC editors stomping on it in a desparate attempt to force it the rest of the way down.

14. Whitewash/Softball criticism of leftist public figures. Whenever the MSM/DNC is forced to acknowledge some scandal that reflects badly on one of their own, MSM/DNC pretends to investigate and criticize for all of the wrong reasons. The CBS/Rathergate report criticized CBS for trying to be first instead of for biased reporting. Some MSM/DNC spokesman eventually were forced to criticize Bill Clinton for committing adultery and lying instead of for trading high tech ICMB delivery systems to China. MSM/DNC hacks grudgingly admitted that Jimmy Carter was "naive" "inexperienced" or "lacked savvy" instead of pointing out his real fault - nearly losing the cold war. These softball whitewashes provide cover for the real crimes/faults of those on the left. They are the equivalent of the getaway driver throwing some of the robbery loot out the window to distract the pursuing police. We should rarely expect a real investigation from the MSM/DNC about one of their own. And we should never let the MSM/DNC investigation cause us to hold back our own criticism.

15. Strawman arguments. This one almost speaks for itself. The MSM/DNC frequently discusses only a completely wrong version of the conservative argument. Conservatives hardly ever have a true opportunity to present their own case through the MSM/DNC. When the Senate committee released its Whitewater report in the mid-1990's, I can recall that the Rush Limbaugh TV show provided more air time to the Democratic response than the MSM/DNC news outlets allowed for the majority report. Rush Limbaugh was fairer to the left than the MSM/DNC was to the actual newsmakers (the majority of the committee). The MSM/DNC viewing public never knew the real nature of the Whitewater charges. MSM/DNC also presents conservative arguments in terms of vaguely referenced "witchunts" or other motivations having nothing to do with the actual argument. The worst part of this category is that the MSM/DNC presents the strawman argument in the "news" section instead of the editorials. (See also #12 and #9).

16. Government solution assumption. Whenever the MSM/DNC discusses any problem, it speaks in terms of government solutions. The MSM/DNC assumes that the only solution to any problem is more government. This assumption is unspoken, but it underlies every report. MSM/DNC never entertains the possibility that there may be some nongovernmental solution.

17. The label game. During the cold war, MSM/DNC referred to Communist dictators as the "Russian leader" or the "Chinese leader." MSM/DNC never referred to an opponent of Communism as a "leader" - only as a strongman, dictator, etc. Communists were never "dictators" and opponents of Communism were never "leaders."

In reporting today's issues, experts are either (1) "experts" (if they support the MSM/DNC view) or (2) "conservative lobbyists", "conservative fundraisers", "conservative activists" or "conservative" something else.

Islamic terrorists are "insurgents", "militants", "freedom fighters" "guerrillas" or "rebels" but never "terrorists."

18. Hypocrisy. MSM/DNC will investigate (or invent) Republican scandals while ignoring Democrat scandals as long as they can. E.G. The Swift Boat vets are ignored or vilified while CBS goes to the extreme of using forged documents to smear Bush. Also, Watergate vs. Whitewater. Compare this category with the memory hole (#2), the whitewash (#14), etc.

19. Scare tactics. MSM/DNC presents many stories on the end of the planet, the end of social security, Republican attempts to starve children, the health care crisis, etc. Panic-driven mob action is not a pretty site. But what can you say about someone who would purposely induce panic for political gain? This tactic is as old as the New Deal. Compare with the "government solution assumption" (#16) and "coordination" (#6).

20. Selective film editing. This one is hard to spot, but it happens. The camera angle, the inclusion of film clips having nothing to do with each other, the deletion of explanatory comments from a news subject, etc. CBS did this to General Westmoreland and got away with it in the pre-blogosphere era. Compare with the Lie (#1) and False Evenhandedness (#9).

It is great that so many blogs talk about media bias. But we need more discussion about how they do it and the categories into which the bias falls. Identification is the first step toward solving the problem. Watch the evening news and see how many of these categories you can spot.

Dissonance Narrowly Avoided

“Ah, there is good news today.”

As Gabriel Heater, of happy memory, used to say on the radio.

From a Yahoo! AP article, Gibson Guitar Buys Venue Naming Rights :
LOS ANGELES - Universal Studios has sold naming rights to its Universal Amphitheatre concert venue to Gibson Guitar Corp. in a 10-year deal valued at more than $14 million, the companies announced Monday.
I could immediately foresee the announcement of a performance of the Verdi’s Requiem Mass in the Gibson Guitar Amphitheatre. A dissonant sound, undoubtedly.

The 33-year-old theater will be called "The Gibson Amphitheatre at Universal Citywalk" for an 18-month transition period, after which the name will be shortened to "The Gibson Amphitheatre."
Every now and then, the titans of our great entertainment industry show some sense.

A Gibson Guitar Garden will also be built and be used to honor artists and host visitors.
We rejoice that the Gibson Guitar, the foundation of the great Gibson Nashville music empire, is not forgotten.

Shaper of Arab Opinion Complains

About the shape of Arab opinions.

From a Washington Post article, Listen To Arab Voices :

Listen To Arab Voices [/] By Marina Ottaway [/] Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A23

The third Arab Human Development Report, finally released by the U.N. Development Program after a lengthy controversy, should be required reading for Bush administration officials and for anyone interested in promoting Middle East democracy. The report reveals a complete acceptance of democratic principles and a complete mistrust of the Bush administration's efforts to promote democracy. This mixed message is at the heart of the conundrum the United States faces in pursuing a policy of political change in the Mideast. [my emphasis]

The report, authored by a group of prominent Arab intellectuals (many of whom embraced Arab nationalism and Arab socialism in the past), represents an unambiguous embrace of liberal democratic ideals. There are no "buts" and "ifs" in the report, no claim that Arab countries need to develop their own form of democracy in keeping with the cultural specificity and conditions of the region. There is no claim that each country must be allowed to proceed toward democracy at its own pace and in its own time, or that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must be settled first. On the contrary, the report addresses and rebuts all such claims, concluding instead that liberal democratic values are not Western but universal, and that change must come now. [my emphasis]

Very interesting. Particularly since the efforts of the Bush administration to promote democracy in the Middle East have been characterized as ignorant and unnuanced by our cultural elites, including, I expect,the Washington Post and the writer.
This part of the report will be music to the Bush administration's ears, but it will be soured by the strident anti-Americanism of other sections. The report is critical of U.S. policies, denouncing the occupation of Iraq and the unstinting support for Israel as setbacks for Arab human development. Furthermore, the report exudes mistrust and hostility toward the Bush administration, doubting the sincerity of its commitment to democratization in the Arab world. [my emphasis] [ … ]
How much of the “mistrust and hostility toward the Bush administration” is a mere reflection of the greater mistrust and hostility bordering on hatred that is found in the elites of the United States: academia, the mainstream media (including the Washington Post), the foundations (including the writer’s affiliation), etc.
It is important that the Bush administration recognize this reluctant admission that something good could come from U.S. policy as a real change on the part of Arab reformers, and that it not jeopardize chances for cooperation by attacking the report and punishing the U.N. Development Program for allowing its publication. [my emphasis] [ … ] [/] The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The reluctance of the authors of the U. N. report to admit that anything good has come from the Bush administration is probably a bit less than the reluctance of the publisher and author of this article to propagate the admission.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Down With the Income Tax!

A national sales tax is being considered by some of the best minds and ablest politicians among us.

What is striking about the arguments, however, is just how atrocious the income tax has become.

From a Town Hall article, A national sales tax by George Will:

A national sales tax [/] George Will [/] March 31, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The power to tax involves, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, the power to destroy. So does the power of tax reform, which is one reason why Rep. John Linder, a Georgia Republican, has a 133-page bill to replace 55,000 pages of tax rules.

His bill would abolish the IRS and the many billions of tax forms it sends out and receives. He would erase the federal income tax system -- personal and corporate income taxes, the regressive payroll tax and self-employment tax, capital gains, gift and estate taxes, the alternative minimum tax and the earned income tax credit -- and replace all that with a 23 percent national sales tax on personal consumption. That would not only sensitize consumers to the cost of government with every purchase, it would destroy K Street.

``K Street'' is shorthand for Washington's lawyer-lobbyist complex. [ … / ] Under his bill, he says, all goods, imported and domestic, would be treated equally at the checkout counter, and all taxpayers -- including upward of 50 million foreign visitors annually -- would pay ``as much as they choose, when they choose, by how they choose to spend.'' And his bill untaxes the poor by including an advanced monthly rebate, for every household, equal to the sales tax on consumption of essential goods and services, as calculated by the government, up to the annually adjusted poverty level.

Today the percentage of taxpayers who rely on professional tax preparers is at an all-time high. The 67 percent of tax filers who do not itemize may think they avoid compliance costs, which include nagging uncertainty about whether one has properly complied with a tax code about the meaning of which experts differ. But everyone pays the cost of the tax system's vast drag on the economy.

Linder says Americans spend 7 billion hours a year filling out IRS forms and at least that much calculating the tax implications of business decisions. Economic growth suffers because corporate boards waste huge amounts of time on such calculations rather than making economically rational allocations of resources. Money saved on compliance costs would fund job creation.

Corporations do not pay payroll and income taxes and compliance costs, they collect them from consumers through prices. So the 23 percent consumption tax would allow taxpayers to stop paying the huge embedded cost of corporate taxation. Linder says the director of the Congressional Budget Office told him it costs individuals and businesses about $500 billion to remit $2 trillion to Washington. And studies show that it costs the average small business $724 to collect and remit $100.

In 1945, corporations paid more than one-third of the government's revenues. Now they pay only 11 percent because corporations, especially multinationals, are voluntary taxpayers. In a world increasingly without borders that block capital movements, corporations pay where the burden is lowest. Linder says $6 trillion in offshore accounts would have an incentive to come home under his plan.

Furthermore, by ending payroll and corporate taxes, America would become the only nation selling goods with no tax component -- such as Europe's value added tax -- in their prices. With no taxes on capital and labor, multinationals would, Linder thinks, stampede to locate here, which would be an incentive for other nations to emulate America. ``This,'' Linder says, ``would unleash freedom around the globe.'' [ … ]

Origins of the Two Cities

Both the City of Man and the City of God have their origins in the book of Genesis, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 respectively.

Cain, the first human murderer (4:8) and the first human liar (4:9), built the first City of Man and named it after his firstborn son, Enoch (4:17),

Another Enoch, seventh from Adam in the godly line, walked with God for three hundred years (5:22) and then did not die, but was taken by God (5:24).

It would seem that he was the first human inhabitant of an eternal, heavenly city, the City of God.

Hebrews, Chapter 11 gives us some idea of the early existence of the City of God.

Abraham looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (11:10). The patriarchs desired a heavenly country, and God had prepared a city for them (11:16).

And Enoch who did not see death, but was translated, is mentioned in this chapter with the patriarch and the other great men of old saved by faith (11:5).

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Terri: A Biblical Parallel

{{_ Yes; and, I will never understand why everyone acted as they had.}}

They acted normally.

To do otherwise would have required more time and effort than they judged to be appropriate.

Important officials must prioritize.

Like the priest and the Levite, who judged it sufficient to change lanes and to pass by on the other side of the road.

Luke 10:30-33 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

And if relatives of the man who fell among thieves had called upon the priest or the Levite to reverse a court order restraining the Samaritan, might they not be tempted to stand by their earlier decisions?

Friday, April 01, 2005

A Certain Sound About Syria

1 Corinthians 14: (KJV) 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

From a Town Hall article, The Arab spring continues in Lebanon by Charles Krauthammer :

[ … ] Then there is this week's public admission by a captured Hamas terrorist in Israel that he was trained in Syria. This is the first direct account of such active involvement by Syria, although everyone knows that the Palestinian terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad are headquartered in, and assisted by, Syria. Everyone also knows that Syria is abetting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq.

Syria made its intentions unmistakable when Assad sent his prime minister to Tehran to declare an alliance with Iran when world pressure began to build on Damascus following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

All this regional mischief-making is critical because we are at the dawn of an Arab Spring -- the first bloom of democracy in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine and throughout the greater Middle East -- and its emerging mortal enemy is a new axis of evil whose fulcrum is Syria. The axis stretches from Iran, the other remaining terror state in the region, to Syria to the local terror groups -- Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- that are bent on destabilizing Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and destroying both Lebanese independence and the current Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement.

Iran is the senior partner of this axis of evil. Syria is the crucial middle party allowing a non-Arab state to reach into the heart of the Middle East. For example, Hezbollah receives its weapons from Iran, shipped through Syria. And Iranian Revolutionary Guards are stationed today in the Bekaa Valley, under Syrian protection.

The alliance goes back a long way. Syria under the Assad dynasty was the only major Arab country to support Persian Iran against Arab Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. They form a true axis because, unlike the 2002 State of the Union axis, all of the parts are connected and working with each other. The last axis of evil -- Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq -- was evil but no axis. They were more like points of evil with North Korea included, as I wrote at the time, as a concession to ethnic diversity.

Today the immediate objective of this Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas-Islamic Jihad axis is to destabilize Syria's neighbors (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian Authority) and sabotage any Arab-Israeli peace. Its strategic aim is to quash the Arab Spring, which if not stopped would isolate, surround and seriously imperil these remaining centers of terror and radicalism.

[ … ] But Syria is different. Being a state, it has an address. The identity and location of its leadership, military installations and other fixed assets are known. Unlike Iran, however, it has no oil of any significance. It is poor and the regime is weak, despised not only for its corruption and incompetence, but also because of its extremely narrow ethnic base. Assad and his gang are almost exclusively from the Alawite sect, a Shiite offshoot considered heretical by many Muslims and representing about 10 percent of the Syrian population.

Syria is the prize. It is vulnerable and critical, the geographic center of the axis, the transshipment point for weapons, and the territorial haven for Iranian and regional terrorists.

If Syria can be flipped, the axis is broken. Iran will not be able to communicate directly with the local terrorists. They will be further weakened by the loss of their Syrian sponsor and protector. Prospects both for true Lebanese independence and Arab-Israeli peace would improve dramatically.

As Iraq, in fits and starts, begins finding its way to self-rule, the center of gravity of the Bush Doctrine and the American democratization project shifts to Lebanon/Syria. The rapid evacuation and collapse of the Syrian position in Lebanon is crucial not just because of what it will do for Lebanon, but because of the weakening effect it will have on the Assad dictatorship.

We need therefore to be relentless in insisting on a full (and as humiliating as possible) evacuation of Syria from Lebanon, followed by a campaign of economic, political and military pressure on the Assad regime. We must push now and push hard.

The Greatness of Sadaam Hussein

By far the biggest failure of the Bush (43, W. that is, not 41, H. W.) administration is the complete failure to give credit where credit is due, and to do so promptly and publicly.

Two years ago, as it began to become apparent that Sadaam Hussein had been bluffing, the President should have begun to admit tentatively what now seems to have been the case. What would have been the harm in saying something like the following?

Now it is possible that Sadaam Hussein has successfully pulled off one of the biggest bluffs in the history of warfare, convincing the intelligence services of the world and his own top generals and officials that he had horrific Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) hidden away but ready to go. And even more horrific WMD development programs ready to bear their terrifying fruit in the imminent future. When, in fact, this was all a con.

Now, if this is true, and today we cannot say that it is even likely, I would like to send my personal congratulations.

As you know, I have not been enthusiastic about his record as the leader of Iraq, but it may be that he would have made a world class poker player.

And it is not too late to make amends by sending this message.

It is even easier today, now that Mr. Bush knows Sadaam’s address.

And according to a Guardian (U. K.) article, US intelligence on Iraq chaotic and incompetent, says Bush commission :

A presidential commission investigating the intelligence debacle that preceded the Iraq invasion reported yesterday that the damage done to US credibility would "take years to undo".

American intelligence was described by the report as being in chaos, often paralysed by the rivalry of 15 different spy agencies and affected by unchallenged assumptions about Baghdad's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

The incompetence described in the report occasionally descends into farce, [ … ]

The “damage done to US credibility” will be repaired more quickly if due recognition is given to the Greatness of Sadaam Hussein.

Clintons Still At Large

Loyal soldier “Bumble” Berger cops a plea after tampering with evidence connected to Clinton Scandal #492 – “Gross culpable neglect of Islamic terrorism threat”.

[N.B. Various Clinton Scandal numbering systems have been devised. Some run to the thousands, those counting only capital offenses, such as treason, murder, and rape, are usually less than a hundred. The science of criminology would be greatly improved by the development of standardized numbering for major alleged perpetrators. Much as the science of musicology has been greatly improved by standard numbering systems for the works of Mozart and others.]

From a Power Line article, Another Successful Cover-Up:

March 31, 2005 [/] Another Successful Cover-Up [/] Posted by Hindrocket at 09:36 PM

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger got away with a criminal cover-up today when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor in connection with his theft of sensitive documents from the National Archives.

It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know.


Bill and Hillary Clinton are still at large.