He was the wrong victim to choose.

From my Glock Bro’:

Armed robbery attempt at Wal-Mart. And see video for officer’s assessment of “wrong victim.”

There’s courage to preserve the dream.

[Later: Elsewhere on the gun front, correcting the Court on shotguns.]

Courage

Barack Obama mentioned courage once last night. I found the reference a bit odd.

He said that we need courage to preserve the promise of America for the next generation. Why he didn’t speak of freedom and liberty to pursue our dreams and instead spoke of promise, I don’t know, but okay, that’s not my point here.

We need courage. We all need courage. Courage is a virtue we all should have. We need courage to preserve America.

What struck me a bit odd though, was his saying that when the promise was threatened “students and soldiers” found the courage to keep it alive.

What’s that mean? Did he mean student-soldiers like citizen-soldiers? No, that doesn’t work given the context.

I hope he isn’t equating the courage of “students” and “soldiers.” Given that courage is the ability to face danger with firmness, what’s the courage of a student? What’s the danger a student faces? is it the “danger” of a poor grade? Or was this Barack the “community organizer” speaking? Is he referring to the dangers of a student sit-in? of candle-light vigils? of the practice of civil disobedience?

By contrast, yesterday I was catching up on some reading and read an article from the July USNI Proceedings, an excerpt from Jim Sheeler’s book, Final Salute. It’s a tear jerker as it tells of the final journey of Jim Cathey and the duty of a Marine officer to deliver the news of Jim’s death to his pregnant wife. Jim Cathey died when a booby-trapped door blew him to pieces.

I love the academy and students, but I really hope Barack Obama didn’t mean to equate the courage of soldiers facing death with that of students.

Saddleback (Pt. III)

Okay, that last post, and especially the part about peculiar failures, really wasn’t finished….

So, what kind of thief says, “I’m a thief”? Well, a show Jen and I watched together was “It takes a thief.” So there’s a confessed thief who really can help you. Of course, even with reformed thieves, I think trust but verify is a good policy.

And why do I think that America’s failure is peculiar? Well, see, we’re taught what’s right and wrong. We’re taught: All men are created equal and that America failed with slavery, with that peculiar institution…. But isn’t that teaching also a success?

And that teaching is not a success that is new to America, or that is part of a “converted” America. We were taught from the beginning by the slave-holder (and slave-freer) George Washington that slavery is wrong and freedom is good–that self-government is good.

Nothing in America teaches us to look for a messiah to save us from governing ourselves–we’re democratic. We’re confessed moral failures. We don’t walk on water and we don’t expect our representatives to either. We don’t trust our Representatives with too much power, and we verify every two years.

So is that a failure? or is it a success to understand the fallibility of man and to prefer a rule of law to the rule of man?

Yes, we’re all sinners in America, but Americans don’t settle for that. We still insist on good judgment. We insist on a rule of law. And that requires good judgment.

See, Obama says he needs forgiveness of his sins. He knows he’s a sinner. And he knows he needs to act for the “least” by “acting justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our God.” (He follows Jimmy Carter’s verse, Micah 6:8.) He knows he needs to be “humble.” And so when addressing genocide he says, “one thing that’s very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good.”

See, something doesn’t sound quite right here, and this doesn’t produce confidence in me that we’ll be getting good judgment from Obama.

The repentant thief, if he’s truly repentant, knows that thievery is wrong; he can make that judgment and is free to act on it–like the prisoner in Dark Knight. His judgment and actions should have put the “good” “free” people to shame. He wasn’t “humble” and uncertain about his intentions and whether or not he was doing good. Sure, he and everybody else on the ship might have died as a result of his judgment, but he did good. America is constituted for such “sinners.”

So if the Representatives of the free people, the good people, of the U.S. declare war, why isn’t that good enough for Obama? Why does he need some kind of international sanction before he’ll use the military?

Saddleback (Pt. II)

The exchange with Beth, Pop, and Barb in Pt. I persuaded me that “doctrines and philosophies” of the candidates is better than “worldviews” or opinions. And all things considered, I think Carter’s “I’m a sinner” doctrine is predominating over Reagan’s doctrine that government should be limited to protecting us from each other, not from ourselves.

Everyone seemed to agree. We all sinners. We’re all moral failures. We’re failures because we don’t care enough for the least of us, for the orphans, or for some cause greater than our self-interest. Nobody said man was good, or America was good, or that government was the problem, not the solution. Nobody said freedom was good–and threatened by government.

And okay, we’re all sinners and we all have to try harder. Fine, that’s a nice “worldview,” but I don’t think it clarifies much about good government without something more. See, saying we don’t walk on water doesn’t seem to say much about what our representatives are doing right or wrong. I suppose one might presume that because they’re sinners, what they’re doing is wrong….

It seems to me, however, that our country’s “moral failure” is a peculiar moral failure, just like it’s a peculiar moral failure to say that I’m a sinner…. No, really, think about it. What kind of sinner says he’s a sinner? and why? I mean, what kind of thief says to you, “I’m a thief; I steal cars. Your car looks nice. You should do more with it; I can help you.” And what kind of person would listen seriously to that? Thieves actually are smart enough not to say such things….

I almost thought we were being advised to listen to how sinners can help us out. Really. Didn’t you hear it? They’re all sinners. And Obama was explicit. He was being humble, kinda like the honest “thief.” Obama is a sinner who can’t be certain about his motives in ending genocide or about doing good, despite trying. And are we to give him money so we might be more likely to think we’re humble too?

I’m not so certain about all this politician talk that “we’re sinners” and “we know how to do government with your money” stuff. Oh, I don’t doubt the former, but I certainly do the latter, especially given the former. So, I’d have benefited more by hearing about their “doctrine and philosophy” of keeping government from running my life rather than their “worldview.”

Clarity and “Worldview” at Saddleback (Part I)

Rick Warren aimed at clarity. He wanted us to have a better understanding of McCain’s and Obama’s “worldview.” As part of his opening he said that everyone has a “worldview.” Okay, everyone has one. But what’s the point?

Everyone has opinions and he asked the candidates about their opinions on abortion, orphans, Supreme Court justices et cetera. So why not simply say he was asking about their opinions?

Consider this statement:

we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view. It’s important to know what they are.

Does it make just as much sense to speak simply of opinions? Consider the following:

we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just an opinion, and everybody has some kind of opinion. It’s important to know what they are.

That statement seems to make as much sense, and more clearly, than the first. I certainly agree it’s important to know the opinions of the candidates. And the forum allowed the candidates to express their opinions on a variety of public questions.

So what’s the point? Why did this Christian leader talk about “worldviews”? Was he concerned about mixing faith and politics? He did, you know, make it a point to have the candidates respond to anonymous critics of the forum, and assure all that there was no mixing of church and state. All that was happening, Rick assured us, was an expression of “worldviews,” which everyone has. This was not to be understood as a religious test for office.

But on the other hand, how should the faithful understand the statement that faith is just another opinion? I don’t thinks so…. Faith is not just another opinion in the Bible. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” And Obama expressed his faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins. Was that just another opinion for Rick? This doesn’t seem to make sense.

So, if substituting “opinion” for “worldview” doesn’t make sense, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Rick was not aiming for clarity about opinions. But that doesn’t make sense either.

I’m not sure Rick made sense with a needless justification for asking candidates about their opinions.

But tell me, why do think Christians talk about “worldviews” instead of opinions, or instead of faith, or instead of Truth? What’s wrong with good old fashioned English? Why use this translation from German of an amalgamation that originated with Immanuel Kant?

Jimmy Carter Wore a Sweater (Pt. III)

Jimmy Carter wore are sweater; but Ronald Reagan wore a suit.

Jimmy Carter wanted to say “wicked” and “sin” to the American People but had doubts and thought he might be misunderstood; Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire and didn’t blink at Reykjavik.

Jimmy Carter believed in the strength of noble ideas and had a “preference for … societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights” but didn’t want to intimidate anyone. He wanted to wage an “honorable” war “against poverty, ignorance, and injustice.”

Ronald Reagan thought a fragile democracy should be well-defended and fought the injustice of the Communists and those who “regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives … would trade our freedom for security.”

It seems that the pilgrim Jimmy Carter focused on man the sinner, but the pilgrim Reagan, as Margaret Thatcher said, addressed “the better angels of our nature.”

It seems they had different answers to the question, “what is man”?

Man is insignificant to God, and lower than angels but more than the sparrows…. According to Psalm 82 “I have said, ye are gods.” We are judges; we make choices. We are to judge justly. Are not the “better angels of our nature” those who “do justice to the afflicted and needy” and deliver them “out of the hand of the wicked”? (And see John 10:34) This suggests not only a “war” on poverty, but on the wicked that oppress….

I wonder. Did Carter’s idea of humility make him doubt strength? I doubt that Carter was right in merely preferring freedom and doubting the goodness of a free America. Certainly strength shouldn’t be limited just to limit strength. Must the defense of human rights be done only by the example of the weak? Is it wrong for the righteous to intimidate the wicked and prevent oppression? Is it wrong to judge people as righteous or wicked? And if righteousness exalteth a nation, does it also keep it from being strong? Is it not rather that the righteous are “strengthened” by “righteousness”? Should not the righteous count the cost and prepare to defend the oppressed? to face the wicked? Are not the prepared stronger than the unprepared?

I think Carter was a sincere humanitarian with a preference for freedom but doubted the goodness of righteous strength, or at least the goodness of using American strength. Reagan had the faith not to trade freedom for security.

I don’t think Carter was comfortable as Commander in Chief. Carter was comfortable in his sweater.

Dark Knight

Yes, Jen and I finally saw the Dark Knight. But Jen’s not been posting because she’s had all day sickness for several days and hasn’t even been able to finish posting about our trip to California. Today, she thanks God for Zofran.

So, suppose you’re a citizen of Gotham. Whom can you trust?

Republicans? Democrats? This or that political leader? God? Parents? Family? Government? Neighbors? Church members? Fellow citizens? The “vigilante” Batman?

This question, “whom do you trust?” implies some assessment about goodness. I mean, why trust the Joker? He’s wicked. Why trust McCain? Or Obama? if not because of some goodness? And if none are good, why trust anyone? Can we find the true patriot to trust? Will we even be good enough to know him?

The public in the Dark Knight faces a daunting task: How can we find a true leader who won’t sell out to the mob? How can we find a leader smart enough to defeat the Joker?

And for the public the question is immediate. Without government–but with the Joker–the city faces anarchy, mob rule. It seems that without some hope, everyone will be tempted beyond human endurance and all will serve the Joker’s ends…. When the best of the public falls, what hope is there?

Well, being a Batman movie, the hope is Batman. The hope, however, is Machiavellian. He does what is necessary to save the state. He operates behind the scenes; he gives the public a lie to believe in order to save the public. In the end it seems that the public can’t handle the truth.

But there’s a problem with the consistency of this story line. Faced with a “lifeboat” scene, the public wins. The public can handle the truth and so, like Jared at the Thinklings, I liked this scene.

While the outcome was uncertain, the clock ticked. The good people of Gotham was up to the temptation. Over time the truth was revealed.

So the clock was a nice bit that focused the public deliberations and drew in the audience…. And I was reminded of the “lifeboat” situation of MAD and the slogan, “One World, or None!” Seemingly inescapable situations can be escaped. Sixty years has shown that the logic of that slogan wasn’t inescapable; we’re American and we’re still here. And Gotham endures.

Now, I say the public won the “lifeboat” scenario, but I know that a critic would say, “the ‘public’ would have died without the Batman.”

Yeah, yeah, the “public” would have died without the Machiavellian Batman.

But remember the Alamo! They all died too. But we don’t say the heroes of the Alamo couldn’t handle the truth. We don’t say the heroes of the Alamo didn’t have the stuff to be good citizens of a prosperous society.

So why not trust the public? While we vainly look for a Batman or an “enlightened statesman,” the ordinary man can be the means of our salvation. Good news can come from unlikely sources. Even convicts may exhibit a human capacity for change and improvement and real understanding of liberty. That’s why I liked the “lifeboat” scene; it was righteous. The least may be the greatest. There is hope, and help may come from a condemned prisoner who now, if not before his imprisonment, knows what is right and can do it. What kind of person couldn’t recognize that that was a righteous scene?

So, why not have a government with it’s flaws, and avoid the anarchy of the Joker? Why not trust politicians who may be “two faced”? Who really needs a rich man with a techno suit? Why not, as Reagan said, trust, but verify?

Modem Trouble….

Comcast said Friday it would be 24 to 72 hours before anything more could be done to solve my modem trouble….

Frustrated Beau from a borrowed computer….

[Today: Modem fixed yesterday afternoon, and today I see I didn't get the post from Sunday posted.... :sigh:]

context for “man is good”

Here’s some context for the previous quotation of Reagan at the opening of his library that “man is good.” From a transcript by Clay WalkerRonald Reagan said:

I remember a small woman with auburn hair and unquenchable optimism. Her name was Nelly Reagan and she believed with all her heart that there was no such thing as accidents in this life. Everything was part of God’s plan. If something went wrong you didn’t wring your hands, you rolled up your sleeves. . . .

Perhaps that was the root of my belief shared with Thomas Paine that we Americans of all people were uniquely equipped to begin the world over. . . .

I grew up in a town where everyone cared about one another because everyone knew one another, not as statistics in a government program but as neighbors in need. Is that nostalgic? I don’t think so. I think it is still what sets this nation apart from every other nation on the face of the earth.

Our neighbors were never ashamed to kneel in prayer to their makers nor were they ever embarrassed to feel a lump in their throat when old glory passed by. No one in Dixon, Illinois ever burned a flag and no one in Dixon would have tolerated it.

. . . [Nelly Reagan thought] that America itself is no accident of geography or political science but parts of God’s plan to preserve and extend the sacred fire of human liberty.

I too have been described as an undying optimist. . . . And that’s not just because I have been blessed with achieving so many of my dreams, my optimism comes not just from my strong faith in God, but from my strong and enduring faith in man.

. . . I’ve seen what men can do for each other and do to each other, I’ve seen war and peace, feast and famine, depression and prosperity, sickness and health. I’ve seen the depth of suffering and the peaks of triumph and I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph and that there is purpose and worth to each and every life.

A dynamic people, by rolling their sleeves up and getting government off their backs, can achieve economic renewal. . . .

I remember a time when the growth of American government seemed inexorable and the encroachment of that government on the lives and liberties of our citizens seemed unstoppable. I also remember a time when America was advised to keep a low profile in the world as if by hunkering down and muzzling her deepest beliefs, she might avoid foreign criticism and placate her enemies. . . .

So, how do Carter and Reagan compare as Pilgrims?

Reagan and Carter as Pilgrims

Ronald Reagan called for an “informed patriotism” and called for a reinstitutionalized spirit in his Farewell address (bottom of page). He said the “new patriotism” and spirit needs to be grounded in “thoughtfulness and knowledge.” Informed patriots would remember and teach American democratic values about freedom. They would teach about why the pilgrims came here and about John Winthrop. They would know how special America is, and that freedom needs protection. Reagan said that we need to teach “very directly,” as he had been taught, “what it means to be an American.”

But this produces questions. If, for example, those over 35 like him had been taught “what it means to be an American,” why wasn’t Jimmy Carter like him? Did Jimmy Carter and others over 35 have a common understanding of “what it means to be an American”? Or did Carter and Reagan have competing visions of “what it means to be American”?

Why not call Jimmy Carter a “freedom man” or a “pilgrim”? He made human rights the center piece of his administration and consider his social justice work with Habitat for Humanity after he left office. And on the other hand, consider Ronald Reagan’s epitaph, “I know in my heart that man is good. . . .” That statement doesn’t sound like a pilgrim who would have known Psalm 14: 2-3:

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

and Matthew 19:16-17:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

and Romans 3:11-12:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

So what do you think? Who do you think was more informed about pilgrims? About freedom and justice in the world? About the problem of injustice and the innocent suffering at the hands of the wicked men and nations raised in Habakkuk?