This is not a spoof

Large Hadron Collider broken by bread dropped by passing bird.

Seriously.

Of course, when the same newspaper website also features the headline "New Bra Transforms into a Golf Putting Mat," you just have to figure it's a weird news day.

For those who served, and serve

This is a repost from this day last year.

I am the son of two Navy veterans, the nephew of a third, and the godson of a fourth. One of the earliest things I remember clearly was the time in second grade when I got to go on a Tiger Cruise—they flew us out to Honolulu where we met the carrier as it returned home at the end of the cruise, then we rode the ship back to its homeport in Alameda. I grew up around petty officers and former POWs. When one of our college students here described her chagrin at asking a friend if she would be living "on base" this year—and her friend's complete incomprehension—I laughed, because I know that one; my freshman year in college was the first time I had ever lived anywhere outside that frame of reference.

In short, as I've said before, I'm a Navy brat; for me, "veterans" aren't people I read about, they're faces I remember, faces of people I know and love. They are the people without whom we would all be speaking German, or Russian—or, someday, Arabic—but they're also the people for whom we give thanks every time we see them that they came home, and those we remember who never did. They are my family, and the friends of my family, those who taught and cared for my parents and those my parents taught and for whom they cared in their turn. They are the defenders of our national freedom, and they stand before and around us to lay their blood, toil, tears and sweat at the feet of this country to keep us safe; and for me, and for many like me, their sacrifice and their gift is not merely abstract, it's personal. May we never forget what they have done for all of us; may we never fail to honor their service; may we never cease in giving them the support they deserve.

Dad, Mom, Uncle Bill, Auntie Barb, all of you: thank you.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for one's friends.

—John 15:13

In honor of Remembrance Day

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

—Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Royal Canadian Army

Things good pastors say

The inimitable Jared Wilson has a wonderful post up today titled "10 Things Good Pastors Say" which captures some important truths about ministry. I will note that #1 really does not make one feel like a good pastor—nor, in some cases, does #2, especially when it comes in combination with #1—but that's one of the reasons why they're so critical. You don't say them, you never have the chance to become a good pastor.

Here's the list, and I'll include his comment for #1; if you want the rest, go read the full post.

1. Please forgive me.

Better than "I'm sorry," which can often be followed with an "if" or a "but," these words indicate a humble heart. Bad pastors hide their faults behind the cloak of their authority, practice self-defense against all charges, and basically pretend. Good pastors know they're sinners and admit it.

2. You're right.

3. You're wrong.

4. Jesus loves you.

5. I love you.

6. Me too.

7. Any time.

8. Thank you.

9. Grace is true.

10. You're approved.

Amen.

Reflections on the revolution in Berlin

I’m still feeling awful, but a distinctly better shade of awful than I’ve been the last two days; my sincere thanks for all the good wishes, and I can at least say that I'm heading in the right direction. I still haven’t been up from the horizontal much today, but I had to stop and take note of the anniversary of the most amazing thing I’ve seen in my lifetime so far. From the celebration around the inaugural this past January, I get the feeling that many in this country would put Barack Obama’s election in that slot, but for me, nothing yet tops the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. The Wall didn’t all physically come down on that day twenty years ago, of course, but psychologically, that was the day East Germans forced their way through. It was an amazing victory for the forces of democracy over the forces of tyranny, and a vindication of Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Eastern Bloc could in fact be beaten, and was not simply a fact of life which must be accommodated. It may have been the greatest triumph for human rights that the world has seen in the last half century; I can’t say for sure, but I'm not thinking of anything to top it at the moment.

It was of course a victory won by many; in the West, as John O’Sullivan pointed out, President Reagan was in fact the last of the three great leaders in the fight, joining Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. I think, though, that the psychological moment was President Reagan’s, coming in June of 1987 when he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and threw down a challenge to the leader of the Soviet world: “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Later on in his speech, he declared, “Across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.” For his words, he was mocked by many, and ignored by many more; but in the end, the truth of his words was proved when the wall was torn down, not by Mr. Gorbachev, but by the combined weight of the East German people.

The one thing that amazes me is that our president is not going to Berlin to honor the fall of the Wall and those who brought it down. German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited him, and he said no. He didn’t hesitate to go to Berlin to celebrate himself when he was merely running for president; why would he not go when he is the president to celebrate this great victory for the cause of freedom and human rights? I'm not the only one wondering, either; here, for example, is Rich Lowry:

Wouldn’t Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights—those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world. During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression. In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their “offense against humanity.” Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue.

Pres. Ronald Reagan realized we could meet with the Soviets without conceding the legitimacy of their system. He always spoke up for the dissidents—even when it irked his negotiating partner, Mikhail Gorbachev. Whatever the hardheaded imperatives of geopolitics, we’d remain a beacon of liberty in the world.

Obama has relegated this aspirational aspect of American power to the back seat. For him, we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won’t even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?

For what it’s worth, I think his refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama was far more significant, and far more worrisome, since that concerned an ongoing struggle against tyranny in this world; but this still bothers me, not least because it dishonors the many, many Americans whose service in the cause of freedom contributed to the fall of the Iron Curtain twenty years ago. As president, honestly, you just can’t do that to your people. This also concerns me because it suggests a significant historical tone-deafness on the part of President Obama—and ever since Santayana, we all know what happens to those who don't learn the lessons of history.

I do appreciate the fact, however, that Sarah Palin seems to understand the magnitude of this anniversary:

Twenty years ago, the ultimate symbol of the division between freedom and tyranny was torn down. The Berlin Wall was constructed for one purpose: to prevent the escape of East Germans to the freedom of the West. The Wall’s cold, gray façade was a stark reminder of the economic and political way of life across the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Ronald Reagan never stopped regarding the Berlin Wall as an affront to human freedom. When so many other American leaders and opinion makers had come to accept its presence as inevitable and permanent, Reagan still hammered away at the Wall’s very premise in human tyranny, until finally the Wall itself was hammered down. Its downfall wasn’t the work of Reagan alone. Our president’s actions were joined with the brave acts of many individuals who stood firm and united in facing the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall came down because millions of people behind the Iron Curtain refused to accept the fate of enslavement and their supporters in the West refused to accept that the “captive nations” would remain captive forever.

Though that long, tragic episode in human history had come to a close finally with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it wasn’t the “end of history” or the end of conflict as some had hoped. New conflicts confront us today throughout the world which call for courage and resolve and dedication to freedom. The new democracies and market economies that have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe still require our friendship and alliances as they continue to seek security, prosperity, and self-determination. But as we reflect on present and future challenges, let’s take time to celebrate the anniversary of this awesome victory for freedom. The downfall of that cold, gray concrete Wall should be a lesson to us in hope. Nothing is inevitable. Tyranny is no match for the hope and resolve of those who work and fight for freedom.

—Sarah Palin

Remind me again why it was that he was supposed to be qualified to be president and she was woefully unqualified even to be VP?

Personal note

I'm down with a vicious case of the crud today, including what might be the worst cough I've ever had; I've spent as much of it as possible lying down, which is not conducive to writing (though it can be good for thinking). Catch you later.

Sin and the gospel

When the devil comes and says, ‘You have no standing, you are condemned, you are finished’, you must say, ‘No! my position did not depend upon what I was doing, or not doing; it is always dependant upon the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Turn to the devil and tell him, ‘My relationship to God is not a variable one. The case is not that I am a child of God, and then again not a child of God. That is not the basis of my standing, that is not the position. When God had mercy upon me, He made me His child, and I remain his child. A very sinful, and a very unworthy one, perhaps, but still his child!

And now, when I fall into sin, I have not sinned against the law, I have sinned against love. Like the prodigal, I will go back to my Father and I will tell Him, ‘Father, I am not worthy to be called your son.’ But He will embrace me, and He will say, ‘Do not talk nonsense, you are My child,’ and He will shower his love upon me! That is the meaning of putting on the breastplate of righteousness! Never allow the devil to get you into a state of condemnation. Never allow a particular sin to call into question your standing before God. That question has been settled.

—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Legalism tells us that we are still under the Law, that we must be good enough or we will be rejected. Lawlessness tells us that the Law is gone and we’re free to do as we please. The gospel tells us that when we fall into sin, we have not sinned against the law, we have sinned against love. The Rev. Dr. Lloyd-Jones, in this quote from his book The Christian Soldier, captures the heart of this about as well as it can be captured. We’ve been set free from the fearful, fretful tyranny of being good enough; the point of our sin is no longer that we’ve broken the Law and might be cast out from God’s presence, but rather that we have grieved the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, to whom we owe everything, and have contributed to the weight and agony he bore on the cross.

This is not, it should be noted, an easier truth to bear . . .

HT: John Fonville via Ray Ortlund

Politics and fuzzy math

This from The Hill, off their "Pundits Blog":

According to an Associated Press story about how the administration is over counting stimulus jobs “created or saved” they outline an example where a group that employs 508 people somehow “saved” 935 jobs at their organization.

As the AP story points out, somehow, by giving their employees pay raises with stimulus funds, it counted as jobs “saved.” A government spokesman at the Department of Health and Human Services said, “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job.” Huh? I still can’t really figure that one out. But that’s not even the best part.

You see, the Obama administration gave strict instructions to those receiving stimulus cash about how to figure out how many jobs they were “saving” by handing out raises and other benefits. Just multiply the number of employees by the percent pay raise they got. In the example above the grantee multiplied 508 times 1.84 and arrived at the 935 “jobs saved” figure. The director of the organization told the news outlet, “I would say it's confusing at best, but we followed the instructions we were given.”

Now, I famously took college algebra five times (and dropped it multiple times) before finally passing it and graduating. But even I know that 1.84 percent would be expressed as .0184. If you were to multiply .0184 times the 508 employees—rather than 1.84 times 508—you would find that, according to the fuzzy math of the administration, they “saved” nine jobs, not 934.

I had to laugh at his closing snark:

At this rate, I wonder how many jobs the $165 million in AIG bonuses would have “saved”?

Great post.

Peter Wehner on the significance of the political moment

His piece in Commentary, “Some Thoughts on Barack Obama’s Awful Evening,” is I think the best reflection on Tuesday’s elections that I’ve yet read. Though one must be careful not to draw too much from limited electoral data, I think Wehner is right to say that the New Jersey results, at least, reflect on the White House to some significant degree.

Because of the economic state of the country, and the scope, reach, and ambition of Obama’s domestic programs, the president was more of a factor than would usually be the case. What we witnessed last night has to be interpreted at least in part as a repudiation of President Obama's policies (the president himself remains fairly popular personally). The efforts by the White House to pretend otherwise are silly. In New Jersey in particular, a full-court press was put on—from repeated Obama visits to the state, to pouring in huge financial resources (Governor-elect Christie was outspent by a margin of around 3-to-1), to a barrage of relentlessly negative attacks by Jon Corzine against Christie. To have done all that and to still have lost New Jersey is quite amazing.

I particularly appreciate this, from his final point (of seven):

“Today,” proclaimed the Democratic strategist James Carville earlier this year, “a Democratic majority is emerging, and it’s my hypothesis, one I share with a great many others, that this majority will guarantee the Democrats remain in power for the next 40 years.” Added Michael Lind after last November’s campaign: “The election of Barack Obama to the presidency may signal more than the end of an era of Republican presidential dominance and conservative ideology. It may mark the beginning of a Fourth Republic of the United States.” That 40-year, beginning-of-the-Fourth-Republic reign on power seems to be in a good deal of trouble after only nine months.

Democrats still hold power, however, and Republicans still have ground to make up for. Things can change quickly again. Nothing is set in stone. Still, last night was a significant political moment, one that might be a harbinger for much worse things for Obama and Obamaism.

Is this the beginning of the end for that Democratic majority? Not hardly. It may no longer be true that all politics is local, but it remains true that all politics is of the moment, and the moment of November 2010 will no doubt be very different than this moment; it could easily be very different in ways which significantly favor the Left. But this past Tuesday does make it clear that last November wasn’t the beginning of the end for the GOP, either. Instead, whether we wish it so or otherwise, the self-balancing, cyclical two-party system is still very much alive and well. Taken all in all, though I’m not terribly fond of either party, there are worse things.

The joy of the faith

There is a perception among a lot of folks that Christianity is a no-fun religion, that being a serious Christian is all about finding anything enjoyable and forbidding it. The great wit Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil’s Dictionary, defined Puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy”—a base slander on the real Puritans, incidentally, but one which has attached itself to them, and also to their descendants, the Presbyterians. To take one example, the 20th-century American novelist Ellen Glasgow described her father (a Presbyterian elder) this way in her autobiography: “He was entirely unselfish, and in his long life he never committed a pleasure.”

Now, to some extent, you can see where people, even Christians, might get this idea; it’s not easy being a disciple, and it often isn’t comfortable. If we’re serious about following Jesus Christ, there are pleasures and desires that we have to set aside; try telling someone that they can’t have sex with whomever they want or make money however they want or do whatever they think is going to make them happy, and there’s a good chance you’re going to get called a killjoy, or worse. After all, we’re Americans—don’t we have a constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness? (Actually, that phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, but that still makes it part of our national DNA.) Where the world goes awry, though, is in its belief that that sort of thing—unrestricted sex, lots of money, “follow your bliss,” and so on—is the best way to pursue happiness. It does seem logical, to be sure—find something that gives you pleasure and do it—but that doesn’t make it the best option for a good life in the long run, and it isn’t.

That might seem like an odd statement, but there are two reasons to say it. The first is that pursuing happiness through pleasure produces a form of happiness which is highly dependent on your circumstances: if you find your circumstances pleasurable, you’re happy, and if your circumstances aren’t providing you pleasure, you’re unhappy. There are things you can do to ease that a little, which is why we have the common emphasis on keeping a positive attitude and phrases like “the power of positive thinking,” and there’s some truth in that approach; to quote Ellen Glasgow again, “Nothing in life is so hard that you can’t make it easier by the way you take it.” Still, as the Cowardly Lion found out—for all his efforts to encourage himself, he wound up muttering, “I do believe in ghosts, I do believe in ghosts, I do I do I do I do I do believe in ghosts”—positive self-talk only goes so far to help you rise above your circumstances. To really get free of them requires more.

The second reason is that we were made for more than just seeking pleasure and pursuing happiness. A lot of folks don’t believe that; even among Christians, we see people justifying affairs, divorce, and other quite sinful behavior with the line, “You want me to be happy, don’t you?” Whether anyone believes it or not, though, it’s true. As such, while the pursuit of pleasure may be enjoyable for a while, ultimately, it won’t satisfy. Pleasure by itself just isn’t enough for us; we were made for pleasure, but we were also made for something deeper—joy—and pleasure without joy ultimately palls. Without joy, pleasure isn’t any more substantial than cotton candy, and how long could you eat nothing but cotton candy without getting heartily sick of it? Our bodies were made for real food, not just spun sugar; in the same way, our souls were made for real food, not just empty pleasure—which requires discipline in our spiritual diet, just as in our physical diet, and developing a taste for more than just the sweet stuff.

This is not without its rewards, either. After all, it’s not like Jesus’ motto is “Pain, no gain”; just like physical disciplines of diet and exercise, which bring real and worthwhile benefits for those who practice them—I’ve never met anyone who succeeded in getting in shape and then said, “You know, I think I liked being out of shape better”—so does spiritual discipline, and the benefits are part of the point. It’s not that Jesus tries to bribe us into holiness, but there were many times that he promised great rewards for those who follow him, and the rest of Scripture does much the same. Among those rewards—and there are many—one of the greatest is joy, which is rooted much deeper than our circumstances; joy is rooted in the presence and the character and the faithfulness of God, and the work of his Holy Spirit. Thus it can endure and even grow in hard times just as in good times, because it’s able to draw on the things God has done in the past and look forward in confidence to the things he’ll do in the future.

Remember, remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder, treason and plot;
We see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

So runs an old, old jingle (one variant, anyway) about the Gunpowder Plot, a conspiracy on the part of a number of English Catholics to blow up the King in Parliament on November 5, 1605. When the plot was foiled, Parliament declared the day a national religious (Protestant) holiday.

When Parliament met in January 1606 for the first time after the plot they passed an Act of Parliament called the "Thanksgiving Act" which made services and sermons commemorating the Plot a regular annual feature on 5 November.^[22] The act remained in force until 1859.^[5] On 5 November 1605, it is said that the populace of London celebrated the defeat of the plot with fires and street festivities. The tradition of marking the day with the ringing of church bells and bonfires started soon after the Plot and fireworks were also included in some of the earliest celebrations.^[22] In Britain the fifth of November is variously called Bonfire Night, Fireworks Night or Guy Fawkes Night.^[5]

It remains the custom in Britain, on or around 5 November, to let off fireworks. Traditionally, in the weeks running up to the 5th, children made "guys"—effigies supposedly of Fawkes—usually formed from old clothes stuffed with newspaper, and equipped with a grotesque mask, to be burnt on the 5 November bonfire. These effigies would be exhibited in the street, to collect money for fireworks, although this practice is becoming less common.^[23] The word guy came thus in the 19th century to mean an oddly dressed person, and hence in the 20th and 21st centuries to mean any male person.^[5]

It's interesting that the day came to be associated primarily with Guy Fawkes, since he wasn't the leader of the plot; he was just the "wet work" man, the chap responsible for setting the explosives and carrying out the bombing. Of course, unlike the nobles for whom he was working, Fawkes actually knew what he was doing—had the plot gone off, it would have blown a most remarkable hole in Westminster; insofar as the commemoration is any sort of honor, he probably deserves it more than any of them do.

Thoughts on the off-year races

Sarah Palin called last night’s elections “A Victory for Common Sense and Fiscal Sanity”, and on the whole, I’m inclined to agree with her:

Congratulations to the new Governors-Elect of Virginia and New Jersey! I’d also like to offer a special word of support to the new Lieutenant Governor-Elect of New Jersey, Kim Guadagno, the first woman to hold that office.

Of course, the real victors in this election are the ordinary men and women who voted for positive change and a return to fiscal sanity. Your voices have been heard.

The race for New York’s 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010. The issues of this election have always centered on the economy—on the need for fiscal restraint, smaller government, and policies that encourage jobs. In 2010, these issues will be even more crucial to the electorate. I commend Doug Hoffman and all the other under-dog candidates who have the courage to put themselves out there and run against the odds.

To the tireless grassroots patriots who worked so hard in that race and to future citizen-candidates like Doug, please remember Reagan’s words of encouragement after his defeat in 1976:

The cause goes on. Don’t get cynical because look at yourselves and what you were willing to do, and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way, that want it to be a shining city on a hill.

The cause goes on.

—Sarah Palin

In retrospect, it’s nothing short of amazing that Hoffman came within two points of winning in NY-23; from a conservative point of view, he was clearly the best candidate in the race, but that doesn’t mean he was a particularly effective candidate. Certainly, having the GOP machine working against him and spending close on a million dollars to the ultimate benefit of Democrat Bill Owens didn’t help, but an even bigger issue is that he ran a poor campaign, while Owens ran a far better one. That he came that close despite the weakness of his campaign and Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens (which packed considerable punch, given her far greater name recognition and the Hoffman campaign’s low profile in much of the district) shows the appeal of conservative ideas. Michelle Malkin is right to say,

NY-23 is a victory for conservatives who refuse to be marginalized in the public square by either the unhinged left or the establishment right. A humble accountant from upstate New York exposed the hypocrisy of GOP leaders trying to solicit funds from conservatives by lambasting Pelosi and the Dems’ support for high taxes, Big Labor, and bigger government—while using conservatives’ money to subsidize a high-taxing, Big Labor-pandering, bigger government radical. The repercussions will be felt well beyond NY-23’s borders. Conservatives’ disgust with the status quo has been heard and felt. They have been silent too long. They will be silent no more.

The GOP leadership knows it cannot afford to rest on its laurels, continue business as usual, and bask in yesterday’s electoral victories without confronting its abysmal abdication of principled conservative leadership in NY-23.

As Hoffman said in his concession speech, “This is only one fight in the battle.”

Onward. Upward. Rightward.

The truth is, while it’s definitely a downer that Hoffman’s half-court shot rimmed out at the buzzer, he was a JV player called up as a fill-in; had the varsity been doing its job, someone with a better shot would have been out there. His defeat is an indictment of the GOP establishment in New York, not of the principles he espoused—and compared to what the varsity did in New Jersey and Virginia, it’s ultimately far less significant.

As C. Edmund Wright says, the fact that the NY GOP screwed up the playcalling in their race only changes the dimensions of the overall rout, not the fact that the Democrats got routed. Bob McDonnell blew out Creigh Deeds for the governor's office in supposedly-blue Virginia (perhaps scaring three Democratic first-termers in the House in the process), and Chris Christie won his gubernatorial race in true-blue New Jersey by an unexpectedly comfortable margin, despite the presence of an independent candidate. While these races weren’t referenda on the President, Michael Barone points out that they’ve served as useful indicators of national political trends before, and the voting patterns in these races suggest that they may do so again. Along with that, Maine(!) voted down same-sex marriage by a solid (though not overwhelming) margin, making defenders of the traditional definition of marriage a perfect 31 for 31 in state referenda.

Jay Cost makes an important point when he says one must be careful not to over-interpret electoral results, but the conclusions he does draw seem to jibe with the results of Gallup’s latest polling: having swung to the left in reaction to George W. Bush’s second term, giving the Democrats their big victories of 2006 and 2008, the electorate now appears to be swinging back to the right in reaction to the opening of Barack Obama’s time in office. Will this add up to a big year for the Republicans in 2010? Who knows? It could, though. If it does, I just hope those who profit from the swing are true Republicans, conservatives with integrity, not more of the same elite/establishment types who led the party to the debacle of the last two election cycles.

The gracious jealousy of God

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives more grace. Therefore it says,
“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

—James 4:4-6 (ESV)

Literally, James roars, “You adulteresses!” This is the language of Hosea, of Israel as God’s adulterous wife; it’s the same language Paul draws on when he calls the church the bride of Christ. It’s language that makes clear that God isn’t just after religious observance when he saves us and calls us to be his people—a point too many in Israel never understood. It’s not enough just to give God an hour or two a week, especially if we grudge him the last fifteen or twenty minutes; it’s not enough just to show up and go through the motions. What God wants from us is what he offers us: love, loyalty, commitment, faithfulness. He invites us, in Christ, to be not just his servants but his friends; what he wants is for us to respond accordingly.

That’s why James compares this to the highest form of friendship we know on Earth: the marriage relationship. If you’re married to someone, that person is supposed to be your first priority ahead of all other people and all other things. What God claims is that first place in our hearts and in our lives, ahead of all other people—even husbands and wives. If anyone or anything else draws our hearts away from him, that’s spiritual adultery; that’s idolatry, and it makes us an enemy of God.

This is why verse 5 reminds us of a common biblical theme: God is jealous for his people. He is the one who created us and breathed life into us; he is the one who made us spiritual beings, not merely animals, capable of consciously knowing and loving him and being his friends, not merely his adoring servants. He has given us every gift and every good thing we have, and created our capacity for joy and pleasure. He wants our absolute allegiance ahead of all others—he wants to be our unquestioned and unquestionable top priority—and he has every right to expect that from us.

The thing is, of course, we can’t meet his expectations on our own; our love, our loyalty, our faithfulness, our commitment, just aren’t up to that standard. That’s why James follows up by saying, “But he gives more grace.” God by his grace enables us to do in his power what we cannot do on our own. He gives us the faith we need to please him, and the wisdom to live out that faith day by day in the works that demonstrate and realize our faith and bring it to life; he gives us his love, that we may learn to love him, and to love each other, as he loves us. He frees us from slavery to our desires, from the bottomless hunger for more of things that cannot possibly satisfy, and gives us his peace by teaching us to find our satisfaction in him.

All that he asks is that we draw near to him and submit ourselves to him—that we accept his will for our lives and his way rather than insisting on our own. That’s why Proverbs 3 says, as James quotes, that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Pride, at its core, is insisting on our own primacy, that we are first in our own lives and should be first in the lives of others; it is the attitude of active resistance to the claims of God in our lives. As such, it’s also the act of denying that we need his grace—for why would we need his grace to meet expectations which we refuse to accept? Pride tells us that we’re good enough already, and that anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about and has no right to say so. God opposes the proud because pride is, in its very essence, opposed to him—and unlike some politicians, he recognizes essential opposition when he sees it. He gives grace to the humble because the humble are those who are wise enough to know they need grace.

(Excerpted, edited, from “Choose Your Side”)

Sarah Palin, authentic feminist

There’s been a fair bit of commentary since Gov. Palin’s abrupt arrival on the national scene about whether or not she’s a feminist (or even, on the part of certain wack jobs, whether or not she really qualifies as a woman); she’s never been shy about saying she is, while of course folks on the Left have coronaries at the idea and denounce her as a traitor to her gender. Why? Well, abortion of course is the key issue, but more specifically, William Jacobson was right to point out that the nubbin of the Left's hatred of Gov. Palin comes down to four little words: Trig Paxson Van Palin.

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, the left would have been okay with it. If she hid Trig offstage and out of sight, all would be good. But treat the child as you would any other child, and that cannot be tolerated.

There is something about a Down syndrome child in plain view which has exposed the moral and emotional bankruptcy of the left-wing of the Democratic party. And they hate Sarah Palin because deep down, they hate themselves for being who they are.

The modern leftist-feminist orthodoxy is completely sold out to the abortion industry, and so cannot tolerate the suggestion that Sarah Palin, pro-life mother of a Down Syndrome baby, could possibly be considered a feminist; and so the discussion of her feminist views has raged on. Notably absent in the conversation has been much of a deep historical perspective on the meaning and essence of feminism.

Fortunately, that has now changed, courtesy of a young woman named Jedediah Bila, who is actually a scholar of feminism. In an essay published in six parts entitled “I’m a Feminist. Now What?” (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6), she writes on “Authentic Feminism: The Founders, The Distortions, and An Exemplary Modern Icon”—that modern icon being, quite rightly, Gov. Palin. Don't let the number of parts fool you, it’s really not all that long a piece; indeed, my only real complaint with it is that it’s broken up so many times without proper internal linkage. If you’re not an historian or a history buff, you’ll learn a lot from it—and even if you are, you’ll still learn a fair bit, because Bila is thoroughly steeped in her subject. I certainly did (though my area of knowledge is much more 17th-c. America than 19th-c.).

Of particular interest and importance is Bila’s point that the founders of feminism were united by, among other things, “their harmonious, fervent opposition to abortion.”

In her publication The Revolution, Susan B. Anthony states: “. . . Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death…” In the very same publication, Elizabeth Cady Stanton affirms, “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” In Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, Victoria Woodhull asserts, “The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.” Alice Paul’s assertion that “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women” has long been echoed by modern pro-life activists, and our “mother of feminism,” Mary Wollstonecraft’s doctrine with respect to abortion is clearly reflected through her Vindication, leaving little open to interpretation: “Women becoming, consequently weaker in mind and body, than they ought to be . . . either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in everything demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.” . . .

So ultimately, what do we have here? We have a founding movement in which women devoted their days and nights to the acquisition of women’s rights, systematically struggled for the application of Rousseau’s Enlightenment fundamentals to both genders, and maintained that a woman’s choice of abortion reflected a weakness she’d come to inhabit (thanks to exploitation, sexual objectification, and a society that repeatedly indoctrinates women with the notion that abortion is their ticket to liberty). Who, in our current political society—more specifically, what woman—most closely echoes the convictions of these very brave, never forgotten heroes of herstory?

With that question, as you can probably guess, Bila comes to Gov. Palin. She lays out the significance of Gov. Palin’s membership in Feminists for Life, giving a brief history of that organization, which was founded in fairly early resistance to the hijacking of the feminist movement by the population-control/eugenics movement. She then exposes (and nicely fisks) some of the irrational and unhinged vitriol that’s been spewed at Gov. Palin by many on the Left who consider themselves feminists. In so doing, she sets up a telling contrast between the founders of American feminism and those who claim to be carrying their banner now—a contrast that does not flatter Gov. Palin’s hysterical critics. And then, magnificently, Bila closes with this:

So what does all of this mean for women, for feminism, and for the future of our country? Upon revisiting Sarah Palin’s statement that, “I am a feminist, whatever that means,” I can’t help but wonder if I’d have said the same thing. After all, what does it mean these days? Does it mean that one must condone abortion? Has a movement whose birth was so profoundly inspirational, whose leaders possessed uplifting intellectual and moral fortitude, been reduced to a single-issue agenda? Does it mean that a pro-life woman will be labeled an anti-feminist simply by nature of her pro-life ideology, which happens to be directly in line with that of the founding feminists? . . .

I can only hope in the months and years to come that women of all walks of life, of all parties and families, of all economic and social classes, take a moment to revisit what so many courageous women risked their reputations, their comfort, and sometimes their lives, to fight for. I pray that they see to it that the authenticity of their purpose and selfless beauty of their vision remain unscathed by the countless revisionists determined to corrupt that pure, righteous movement to suit their party or personal platforms.

Sarah Palin, I stand by your belief in women. I stand by your faith in the magnanimous potential of all human life. And, most importantly, I stand by your Wollstonecraftian integrity and unapologetic homage to the foundations of one of the greatest movements to grace our country’s history.

Through her essay, Bila offers and substantiates a pointed assertion, one that will no doubt infuriate the Left: the true representatives of authentic feminism are not the likes of Gloria Steinem. Rather, they are Sarah Palin and those who stand with her. She is the true heir of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the one who carries their mantle. My thanks to Jedediah Bila for making the case, and for substantiating the fact that when Gov. Palin calls herself a feminist, she’s only telling the truth.

(Cross-posted from Conservatives4Palin)

Sarah Palin's second act

This is not something I would have expected to find in the Washington Post:

He was called a dumb actor—a mere mouthpiece for wealthy controllers on the right, who fed him lines and pointed him toward a lectern to deliver them. He communicated well and knew how to act the part, having trained in those arts. But he was really an empty suit.

Today, many rank that man—Ronald Reagan—among our greatest presidents.

That he was not the derogatory things he had been called was a matter of record. Well before running for the presidency he had wedded himself to the core ideas he espoused in that office—anticommunism, smaller government and lower taxes. For years, he had spoken and written about them. Yet, even some who served in Reagan's administration were surprised when, in his twilight years, the treasure trove of documents in his own hand emerged, demonstrating his long involvement with these issues.

Now, Sarah Palin faces a similar challenge. . . .

Supposedly, there are no second acts in American life. But history refutes that notion. Presidential candidates who have lost earlier races, including Reagan, have returned victorious. Americans love an underdog—especially one they suspect was treated unfairly.

Sarah Palin may fit that bill.

Palin's activities indicate that she intends to remain in public life. There are signs that her viability remains strong. That her new book is ranked among Amazon's bestsellers, even before its publication later this month, reflects that Palin still commands interest.

To strengthen her viability, Palin must seize this momentum and mobilize her supporters. Developing and espousing a small set of conservative values that become her "brand"—as did Reagan—will be critical. She has time.

The chap who wrote that, Darryl Jackson, is a former federal prosecutor and assistant secretary of commerce who's competing for a slot as a columnist with the Post. As such, I have to salute his courage here, because this isn't the sort of thing that newspaper's readers generally want to hear; it didn't impress the judges, either (though they had some valid criticisms of Jackson's writing style). Even so, he has a point: those who thought they'd buried Gov. Palin—and who are now whacking her with spades trying to get her to cooperate and stay dead—did so far too prematurely to be credible.

Fisking the DNC

Last week the DNC released a rather oddly-timed attack ad against Sarah Palin, going after statements she made some time ago about the Democrats' plans to take over our national health care system. Not being ones to let such things go unnecessarily unchallenged, Conservatives4Palin decided to fact-check the DNC. Here's what Sheya and the rest of my honored colleagues who took up that task discovered:

Great fun from xkcd

Click on the image to see it full-sized.

The 2008 campaign as "reality TV"

Looking back through my archives for something else, I ran across this piece from Dr. Violet Socks that I'd intended to post some time ago. Apparently, I managed to forget about it, which even for me is a bit on the absent-minded side. It's a few months old now, but I think it's still worth posting as a feminist perspective on Sarah Palin. Dr. Socks is hard-left, strongly pro-abortion and strongly anti-Christian; she's also as fair-minded as you can reasonably expect anyone to be, and recognizes the horrible irony of those who call themselves feminists trying to destroy one of this country's leading female politicians. It's a great post, and I encourage you to go read it; Dr. Socks gets off some beautiful observations about Barack Obama and the media caricatures of the last campaign:

[Gov. Palin's] speech also delivered some welcome punctures to the national gasbag known as Obama. And that’s another thing: it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

So: are we back to Obama after all? Is this a transference thing? Are people subconsciously frustrated by the fact that Obama is an empty suit, and are they transferring that rage to Palin? . . .

One other observation, and then I’ll quit: it is striking to me how much of the political discourse in 2008 revolved around people who don’t exist. The main players last year, if you recall, were Obama, the genius messiah whose perfection and purity would save the planet; Hillary, the evil racist lesbian who killed Vince Foster with her bare hands before plotting the Iraqi invasion and then attempting to have Obama assassinated; and Sarah Palin, a crazed dominionist who hates polar bears and personally arranges for Christian girls to be raped by their fathers just so she can charge them for their rape kits.

None of these characters are real, of course. Yet, weirdly, people were much more interested in these fictional beings than they were in the real individuals who were vying for political office last year. There were times in 2008 where I felt that the entire national discourse had become one of those scripted faux-reality shows, where nothing is real and the producers edit everybody into barking stereotypes. And the people at home just watch and point and snicker. We’re actually having an election here, I kept wanting to say. These are the people who want to run the country. Don’t you want to know who they really are?

We are all New Yorkers now

Writing in American Thinker, C. Edmund Wright makes a point about the NY-23 race that I hadn't considered:

That we all know—let alone care—about the goings-on in New York's 23rd Congressional District speaks volumes about how far away from our founding principles we have drifted. We should not know or care about NY 23 under our founding model, but make no mistake: we do know. We do care. We have drifted a long way.

His argument is essentially that the explosive growth of government over the past century and more has broken the practical and philosophical foundation and justification of that government.

The idea—quaint as it sounds now—is that any problem you might have with a tiny government could be solved by simply sitting down with some local citizen legislator and working it out. Think Mayberry, where you could hash anything out with Andy, Barney, and the mayor at Floyd's Barbershop.

If that didn't work, you could simply run for office in a fair fight in a couple years. The incumbent would probably have tired of government "service" by then anyway. What a process!

The Feds? Oh, they were just a few guys to handle the Barbary Pirates and such. The idea was that you could live your life and never have to see, let alone deal with, anyone from a strong centralized government if you chose not to. You sent them a few bucks to fund the military each year and everything was fine. Thus the once-true cliché: all politics are local.

Now, as he points out, that's no longer true:

Most of the key people who are pushing this health care legislation are extreme liberals from parts of the country that will never fail to reelect them. The vast majority of the people they will affect, however, have no say in whether or not they get reelected.

This allows them to stay in the halls of power for so long that they accumulate power over years and years of simply being in Washington. Thus, the longer they are isolated from reality, the more power they have to change reality. Gee, what could go wrong with that scenario?

And this is exactly what our Founding Fathers did not want. King George was 5,000 miles away geographically, and even farther apart experientially from the colonies. Our country was founded precisely because the British model was deemed so unworkable and evil that it demanded we spill blood and treasure to stop it. Among the war cries were "Don't Tread on Me" and "No Taxation Without Representation." . . .

Consider that Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel can heap oppressive taxation on hundreds of millions of us, yet we have no say in their "representation" status. In Rangel's case, he casually avoids living under those same tax rules. Now I consider this a slight violation of that "Don't Tread on Me" concept.

The logical consequence of that is that the old cliché is inverted, and now all politics is national; the race in New York's 23rd Congressional District will affect the whole country, and thus we all have a stake in it, far beyond the folks who can actually vote there. Which, I agree with Wright, is not the way this ought to work. Read the whole thing—he's on to something important here.

In praise of humility

There's a fascinating piece up on Time's front page entitled, "The Case for Modesty, in an Age of Arrogance," by one Nancy Gibbs. Gibbs begins,

Virtues, like viruses, have their seasons of contagion. When catastrophe strikes, generosity spikes like a fever. Courage spreads in the face of tyranny. But some virtues go dormant for generations, as we've seen with thrift, making its comeback after 40 years in cold storage. I'm hoping for a sudden outbreak of modesty, a virtue whose time has surely come.

In truth, what she really wants to talk about is not modesty but humility (which, as she notes, can be practiced in many ways: "Try taking up golf. Or making your own bagels. Or raising a teenager"); but I don't have a problem with that, especially as she has good things to say about humility and its importance.

Modesty in private life is attractive, but in public life it is essential, especially now, when those who immodestly claimed to Know It All have Wiped Us Out. The problems we face are too fierce to accommodate arrogance. Humility leaves room for complexity, honors honest dissent, welcomes the outlandish idea that sweeps past ideology and feeds invention. We want to reimagine the health-care system, confront climate change, save our kids from a financial avalanche? The odds are much better if we come to the table assuming we don't already have all the answers. . . .

Humility and modesty need not be weakness or servility; they can be marks of strength, the courage to confront a challenge knowing that the outcome is in doubt. Ronald Reagan, for all his cold-warrior confidence, projected a personal modesty that served his political agenda well. I still don't know what President Obama's core principles are, but the fact that he even pays lip service to humility as one of them could give him the upper hand in the war for the souls of independents—a group that's larger now than at any time in the past 70 years. . . .

But I heed Jane Austen's warning that "nothing is more deceitful than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast." If Obama appears proud of how humble and open-minded he is, if he demonizes opponents instead of debating them, if his actual choices are quietly ideological while his rhetoric flamboyantly inclusive, he will be missing a great opportunity—and have much to be modest about.

Interesting closing comment, that.