10.11.2008
10.09.2008
Ayers Online
Several MSNBC analysts have made the case that it's a little too late to raise fears in people's minds about Obama's connections to ideological radicals now that people feel comfortable with him. I would probably have to agree with this. The McCain campaign, though, is till going to try. John at Powerline links here to an Internet ad put out by McCain. The ad concludes that Obama's connection to Ayers raises concerns about his judgment, but it fails to say much about the related issue of the Illinois senator's very liberal ideological background.
10.08.2008
Last Night's Debate: A Great Cure for Insomnia
Politico makes an accurate assessment of last night's debate: "The Worst Debate Ever." I am so disgusted at the obvious pandering from both sides, not to mention the obfuscation. If my enthusiasm for McCain was tepid before, it is downright cold now. And about the "nonresponsiveness," Harris and Vandehei make a nice point:
"The candidates are stumped.
When Sarah Palin dodged questions with scripted messages and folksy one-liners in her debate against Joe Biden her nonresponsiveness was often glaringly obvious. With McCain and Obama, you have to print out the transcript and read carefully to fully appreciate how they glided past sharp questions. Because both have gone through dozens of such encounters over the past couple of years, and because Obama in particular is an exceptionally fluent speaker, their answers can sound plausible — even when the fog machine is going full blast."
"The candidates are stumped.
When Sarah Palin dodged questions with scripted messages and folksy one-liners in her debate against Joe Biden her nonresponsiveness was often glaringly obvious. With McCain and Obama, you have to print out the transcript and read carefully to fully appreciate how they glided past sharp questions. Because both have gone through dozens of such encounters over the past couple of years, and because Obama in particular is an exceptionally fluent speaker, their answers can sound plausible — even when the fog machine is going full blast."
10.07.2008
Obama and Ayers, Part 2
Briefly put, there are two main reasons why the Obama-Ayers connection is relevant, and neither one of them has to do with the absurd implication that Obama is a terrorist since Ayers is.
1) It goes to judment. Much has been made of judgment already in this campaign. Obama was mentored by Rev. Wright, a close acquaintance of Farakan. McCain showed poor judgment in continuing the war strategies of George W. Bush. Obama shows poor judgment in wanting to withdraw troops right away. And how about this one, McCain has shown what type of judgment he has (read: bad) in picking Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I argued regarding Obama's Rev. Wright connection, one need not say that the Democratic contender espouses racist ideas or hatred because his pastor does. Similarly, one need not say that Obama is a terrorist because he had multiple interactions with Ayers, a terrorist. However, it does demonstrate his judment. Someone might say that it doesn't reveal much if his interactions were merely accidential of no substance. Perhaps, but that is precisely what needs to be determined. What were the nature of those interactions and what might they reveal about Obama.
2) Maybe even more important, the connection needs to be investigated and explicated because of what it reveals about Obama's chosen narrative for himself. Obama presents himself as a force to bring people together, not as exponent of partisan politics. We have very little to go on in terms of his Illinois Senate voting record (other than "present"); we do, however, have a decidedly liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Now, maybe Obama would not deny that he's liberal; perhaps he would just suggest that his liberal politics are exactly what would bring people together. This would be clever semantics and perhaps convincing to some. However, I think Obama wants people to believe he is not a far-left liberal and that he intends more than anything else to bring people together and to usher in a new era of pragmatic politics. his narrative--which Obama has written--is why it's important to dig further (or better explicate further) into his associations with Ayers. I suspect that at the very least they will reveal what his Senate voting record suggests, namely, that he is a thorough-going commited liberal.
One last comment: I've heard some say that Obama only worked with Ayers because Daley introduced the man as his "point man on education." Perhaps this is true. Again, though, this very fact would dispel the myth that Obama is post-party politics. If Obama were part of the renowned Daley Democratic machinery in Chicago, falling in line as necessary, what would this reveal about his potential as a politician to bring people together? It seems to me that we have on the one hand, Obama's voting record and known associates, and on the other, how he portrays himself. For clarification, I have no problem, necessarily, that Obama has plugged in thoroughly with his party's leadership and walks in line with liberal ideology. It's just that he's trying to present a different case. Obama's "Ayer connection" helps make this case.
1) It goes to judment. Much has been made of judgment already in this campaign. Obama was mentored by Rev. Wright, a close acquaintance of Farakan. McCain showed poor judgment in continuing the war strategies of George W. Bush. Obama shows poor judgment in wanting to withdraw troops right away. And how about this one, McCain has shown what type of judgment he has (read: bad) in picking Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I argued regarding Obama's Rev. Wright connection, one need not say that the Democratic contender espouses racist ideas or hatred because his pastor does. Similarly, one need not say that Obama is a terrorist because he had multiple interactions with Ayers, a terrorist. However, it does demonstrate his judment. Someone might say that it doesn't reveal much if his interactions were merely accidential of no substance. Perhaps, but that is precisely what needs to be determined. What were the nature of those interactions and what might they reveal about Obama.
2) Maybe even more important, the connection needs to be investigated and explicated because of what it reveals about Obama's chosen narrative for himself. Obama presents himself as a force to bring people together, not as exponent of partisan politics. We have very little to go on in terms of his Illinois Senate voting record (other than "present"); we do, however, have a decidedly liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate. Now, maybe Obama would not deny that he's liberal; perhaps he would just suggest that his liberal politics are exactly what would bring people together. This would be clever semantics and perhaps convincing to some. However, I think Obama wants people to believe he is not a far-left liberal and that he intends more than anything else to bring people together and to usher in a new era of pragmatic politics. his narrative--which Obama has written--is why it's important to dig further (or better explicate further) into his associations with Ayers. I suspect that at the very least they will reveal what his Senate voting record suggests, namely, that he is a thorough-going commited liberal.
One last comment: I've heard some say that Obama only worked with Ayers because Daley introduced the man as his "point man on education." Perhaps this is true. Again, though, this very fact would dispel the myth that Obama is post-party politics. If Obama were part of the renowned Daley Democratic machinery in Chicago, falling in line as necessary, what would this reveal about his potential as a politician to bring people together? It seems to me that we have on the one hand, Obama's voting record and known associates, and on the other, how he portrays himself. For clarification, I have no problem, necessarily, that Obama has plugged in thoroughly with his party's leadership and walks in line with liberal ideology. It's just that he's trying to present a different case. Obama's "Ayer connection" helps make this case.
The Legitimacy of the Obama and Ayers Discussion, Part 1
Just got back from running and wanted to post a few thoughts on political matters before I drop dead. Here goes.
On the question of whether it's appropriate for McCain and Palin to raise questions about Obama's "Ayers" connection. My answer is . . .
Most assuredly yes! Now, before I offer a rationale, let me make an initial observation. I completely understand how, because of the often-times acrimonious nature of politics, those who hear McCain and Palin's attack on Obama as "Palling around with terrorists" get turned off. There are likely several types of people who dislike these attacks:
1) Those who are democrats through and through and at heart just don't want their candidate to be "smeared" in this fashion.
2) Those who pay little attention to politics through disinterest or because of "partisan bickering."
3) Those who used to fall into camp 2 but now are more attracted to the political process because of the hope that Obama seems to hold out for "post-partisan" politics.
4) Neutrals who have investigated the evidence for anything more than a "passing" connection and have come away convinced that Obama's past in this regard is above repute.
5) Those who are Republicans and may think there is a serious connection to be investigated but take issue with the strident terminology in which the subject is broached.
[I, of course, tend more toward 5), but owing to a somewhat realist (cynical?) streak, have come to see politics as a hard-nosed contest. I have to give Obama credit in this respect--though he has had the sore Bush legacy as an ally--because he has managed to establish the national and media narrative for the race in such successful fashion that any serious investigation of his represents smear tactics and a desire for the old partisan bickering that Washington has come to represent and that people want to move past. He's done a great job of this and has taken the arrows out of McCain's quiver.]
Now, I think those who hold to position 1) can be fairly easily dismissed. If Tom Delay was running for president, you can bet that Democrats would be raising as an issue even the remotest of dangerous or rabid ideological acquaintances that he might have had in the past--and rightly so. Someone might say, though, that this is because of Delay's established reputation, he penchant for ideologicaly or power-hungry politics. Well, but that's precisely what is at issue here, one's actual
belief system and tendencies. We don't know much about Barak Obama other than his voting record in the Senate (which speaks against his own narrative). It's important where there is substantial indications of formative relationships and associations to investigate these.
Those who pay little attention to politics because of disinteredness 2a), I have little sympathy for. However, I do have sympathy for those who tend to be turned off because of the strident "dialogue" (2b and 3). Many of my friends fall into this category, as does my wife at times. A preliminary reminder to those new to political interestedness, however, is that there has never been a time in political history, either in this country or I suspect another, where such tones have not existed. In fact, things were much worse at the birth of our country. Duels and beatings occured among members of Congress and the executive branch, and politicians were outright branded traitors and worse on political posters, in newspapers, and on the streets. Politics were run by ruthless bosses who controlled how many on the street would vote (sounds like Ohio, huh?).
This is not to condone this behavior or to say we shouldn't strive for respectable dialogues, but instead to recognize that really important issues are at stake and sometimes the situation calls for serious and, yes, heated debate. Many of those who complain of McCain and Palin's attacks see it as evidence of desperation, to which I say, duh. Of course it is, precisely because they realize that they--and their ideas--are at stack now that polls show Obama solidly winning. It is poor logic, though, that draws the conclusion that such desperation therefore means the point is out of bounds. I will argue, that the Obama-Ayers connections is very much a necessary one to raise insofar as it goes directly to the issue of the narrative that Obama has himself established.
Now, it may be that camp 4) types may exist--those who consider themselves neutral and have thoroughly investigated the details and concluded that Obama has no significant connection to Obama. I think if most of us are honest, though, we would deny that pure neutrals exist at all. I certainly don't consider myself one and I don't ascribe this characterization to The New York Time (or The New York Post, for that matter). In the absence of neutrals, and the indisputable evidence that some relationship existed between the two men, it's only right if dialogue be had. And the dialogue should not stop with, as it might tend to, simply saying that Obama had ties with the terrorist Ayers. This gives rise to the slightly accurate claim of smear politics as well as the aversion by those who might otherwise be interested about knowing more. It must show, as in the court of law, relevance. And I will make a brief case for that in my next post.
On the question of whether it's appropriate for McCain and Palin to raise questions about Obama's "Ayers" connection. My answer is . . .
Most assuredly yes! Now, before I offer a rationale, let me make an initial observation. I completely understand how, because of the often-times acrimonious nature of politics, those who hear McCain and Palin's attack on Obama as "Palling around with terrorists" get turned off. There are likely several types of people who dislike these attacks:
1) Those who are democrats through and through and at heart just don't want their candidate to be "smeared" in this fashion.
2) Those who pay little attention to politics through disinterest or because of "partisan bickering."
3) Those who used to fall into camp 2 but now are more attracted to the political process because of the hope that Obama seems to hold out for "post-partisan" politics.
4) Neutrals who have investigated the evidence for anything more than a "passing" connection and have come away convinced that Obama's past in this regard is above repute.
5) Those who are Republicans and may think there is a serious connection to be investigated but take issue with the strident terminology in which the subject is broached.
[I, of course, tend more toward 5), but owing to a somewhat realist (cynical?) streak, have come to see politics as a hard-nosed contest. I have to give Obama credit in this respect--though he has had the sore Bush legacy as an ally--because he has managed to establish the national and media narrative for the race in such successful fashion that any serious investigation of his represents smear tactics and a desire for the old partisan bickering that Washington has come to represent and that people want to move past. He's done a great job of this and has taken the arrows out of McCain's quiver.]
Now, I think those who hold to position 1) can be fairly easily dismissed. If Tom Delay was running for president, you can bet that Democrats would be raising as an issue even the remotest of dangerous or rabid ideological acquaintances that he might have had in the past--and rightly so. Someone might say, though, that this is because of Delay's established reputation, he penchant for ideologicaly or power-hungry politics. Well, but that's precisely what is at issue here, one's actual
belief system and tendencies. We don't know much about Barak Obama other than his voting record in the Senate (which speaks against his own narrative). It's important where there is substantial indications of formative relationships and associations to investigate these.
Those who pay little attention to politics because of disinteredness 2a), I have little sympathy for. However, I do have sympathy for those who tend to be turned off because of the strident "dialogue" (2b and 3). Many of my friends fall into this category, as does my wife at times. A preliminary reminder to those new to political interestedness, however, is that there has never been a time in political history, either in this country or I suspect another, where such tones have not existed. In fact, things were much worse at the birth of our country. Duels and beatings occured among members of Congress and the executive branch, and politicians were outright branded traitors and worse on political posters, in newspapers, and on the streets. Politics were run by ruthless bosses who controlled how many on the street would vote (sounds like Ohio, huh?).
This is not to condone this behavior or to say we shouldn't strive for respectable dialogues, but instead to recognize that really important issues are at stake and sometimes the situation calls for serious and, yes, heated debate. Many of those who complain of McCain and Palin's attacks see it as evidence of desperation, to which I say, duh. Of course it is, precisely because they realize that they--and their ideas--are at stack now that polls show Obama solidly winning. It is poor logic, though, that draws the conclusion that such desperation therefore means the point is out of bounds. I will argue, that the Obama-Ayers connections is very much a necessary one to raise insofar as it goes directly to the issue of the narrative that Obama has himself established.
Now, it may be that camp 4) types may exist--those who consider themselves neutral and have thoroughly investigated the details and concluded that Obama has no significant connection to Obama. I think if most of us are honest, though, we would deny that pure neutrals exist at all. I certainly don't consider myself one and I don't ascribe this characterization to The New York Time (or The New York Post, for that matter). In the absence of neutrals, and the indisputable evidence that some relationship existed between the two men, it's only right if dialogue be had. And the dialogue should not stop with, as it might tend to, simply saying that Obama had ties with the terrorist Ayers. This gives rise to the slightly accurate claim of smear politics as well as the aversion by those who might otherwise be interested about knowing more. It must show, as in the court of law, relevance. And I will make a brief case for that in my next post.
10.04.2008
The Constitution and the Vice President
John at Power Line comments here on the constitutional role of the vice president--as touched on in the recent vice presidential debate. (I'm fairly confident that if Obama is elected president, Biden will relish this role.)
Here John links to a NY Post article that details some of Biden's misstatements in the debate. (Pain made her own--e.g., regarding the pre-surge troop levels.) I chuckled at the Burr reference.
Here John links to a NY Post article that details some of Biden's misstatements in the debate. (Pain made her own--e.g., regarding the pre-surge troop levels.) I chuckled at the Burr reference.
For the Love of the Dog
I saw this story a few days ago on TV. A Florida man takes on a shark to save his dog. Check it out here.
10.02.2008
Philippians 2.5–8
The ultimate exemplar of the type of like-minded, humble pursuit of gospel unity that Paul wishes to commend to the church in Philippi is Jesus himself. In 2:5 he turns from simple exhortation to a concrete example by urging the Christians to "consider this [mindset/mode of living] among you, which also is in Christ Jesus." In other words, possess or embody Christ's way of life—a high standard to follow, indeed. But rather than point first to Jesus' exalted status, his glory, his majesty, Paul draws upon his lowliness to drive home his argument.
After all, "even though" [a concessive formulation] he existed in God's form—something Paul has no wish to deny—Jesus "did not consider 'the being equal to God' status as a thing to be grasped." How different Jesus' manner was, then, from how we tend to conduct our lives, even those of us who would carry around the title "Christian." We grab for every possible shred of dignity and status within our reach; if others fail to exalt us, we exalt ourselves. Our whole lives are a testimony to a struggle to reach the top by whatever means within our power—academically, financially, socially, et cetera. Christ's way was so different, and it was so because he placed his faith in the sovereign lord of the universe.
Rather than grasp for his rightful status as "God," Jesus did something different, something much unexpected. At this point (v. 6b) Paul delivers a strong contrast, "but!" [alla], to emphasize just how extraordinary Jesus' actions were when compared with typical human tendency. The one who existed in God's form nevertheless "emptied himself" of the privileges that "Godness" affords by means of taking/assuming a slave's form. Put another way, he exchanged the form of God for the form of slave, the radical reverse of our expectations and our own habits. Paul reminds us here that Jesus came not merely to testify to his glory but to serve. This service mindset is what Paul himself strives to embody—note already how he has put the cause of the gospel before even his own life—and what he wishes his converts in Philippi to take up as well.
Concurrently with Jesus' emptying himself [I take this verb as parallel with "empty"], he was "born in man's likeness (v. 7c)," which is to say, he became a man. This further phrase illustrates, firstly, that Jesus' appearance as a man (his "likeness") does not tell the full story about who his is. But it also suggests a close linkage between the concepts of "man" or "human" and the idea of "service"—at least insofar as Jesus' humanity became operative for the purpose of service. So far Jesus' humble actions seem laudatory, even counter-cultural, but the full extent of their radical nature has not yet been explored. That's why Paul goes on to say that,
While "being found with respect to outward appearance as a man" [I take this as a temporal clause, explaining when Jesus' following actions take place] Jesus "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death." Our humility often consists of deferential treatment toward others; of avoiding the limelight; of letting someone else set in front of us while in line. Rarely does our humility take the form of serious self-limiting action. Jesus was humble "by means of" giving himself over in death. His path of obedience led to a destination of expiration; our way of obedience often results in a "temporary setback," because we can't imagine that God wants anything else for our lives other than success. And to top it all off, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize that Jesus' death was the worst then imaginable: it was death produced by a cross.
Why didn't Jesus resist? Was Jesus by his death simply seeking to enact a dramatic—and tragic—parable? What had he to gain from such servitude? What have we? Paul treats the substance of these questions beginning in verse 9.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
