Monday, April 01, 2013
Overdue Health Update
This blog has been dormant for a long time. However, since I have posted a few comments on other blogs in which I have had to use my blog identity I've decided at least to update my health status. I may resume blogging later.
After my appointments at Johns Hopkins in 2009, I decided to focus on my orthopedic problems, that is, the problems with my spine, but from the perspective of their effects on my nerves. I, therefore, went to see the best neurosurgeon in the state. Although he ordered several tests that confirmed rather dramatic neurogenic issues, he could not help me.
Then after running through a number of neurologists, the eighth finally ordered a simple, seemingly-obvious blood test that no previous neurologist had considered: a sensorimotor neuropathy panel. The results showed sky high levels of a particular auto-antibody. In other words, my own immune system was attacking my peripheral nerves. Finally in February 2011, I started to receive loading doses of IVIG, immunoglobulin by infusion, for six months followed by maintenance doses every three weeks. After the third month of loading doses sensation suddenly returned. I was shocked by how little sensation I had had until then! After the fourth month, I was able to get up out of my wheelchair to walk, very hesitantly. However, I received less than half the recommended dose during my maintenance infusions for 1 1/2 years, letting my nerves degenerate further.
The disease, chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathy* (CIDP), is very rare, and I seem to have an unusual and very aggressive form of it. I remain incurable and completely dependent on my treatments. Because it took so long to get a diagnosis, some of my muscles and nerves have been permanently damaged. I find it very difficult to sit up for much longer than an hour, even in a chair with a back; my paraspinal muscles, especially, have been damaged. Other motor nerves have also been permanently affected making me very clumsy. With regard to sensory nerves, most of my sensation has returned but my right thigh feels nothing.
The autonomic nervous system, the nerves that control the internal organs as part of the peripheral system, has also been affected. I have not seen any improvement there. I recently suffered an episode that followed exactly the Merck Medical Manual's description of a heart attack. At the time I felt it was a problem with my Vagus nerve. Web sites on CIDP are very mixed about whether CIDP is fatal. However, this is just an academic debate to a patient such as I. If the continuing degeneration of my nerves hit my heart and/or lungs my life will be at risk. In that case the documented cause of death will either be heart failure or suffocation, but the real culprit will have been CIDP.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Praying for Healing
Repost: Why have I always asked my wonderful Christian friends not to make praying for my healing a priority?
I am very grateful for their prayers, and for the love and sympathy they express. However, I just don't believe that my healing is a priority. I base this on Romans 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." (NASB) If present pain is not worthy of comparison with future glory, then relief from pain is not a priority, preparing for glory is.
It would be presumptuous to compare my pain and weakness with Paul's suffering (see 2 Cor 11:23-25) or to claim that my "suffering" is the result of persecution as his was; it is not! However, the context of Rom 8:18 applies to all Christians. The suffering Paul speaks of is a consequence of living in a fallen world. It is our share in a world subjected to futility, groaning for its final liberation, Rom 8:19-25.
Even the foretaste of the future, granted to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit, aggravates our pain. It causes a deeper dissatisfaction with things as they are now and a much greater longing for the resurrection of the body.
Paul's reference to the sufferings of this present time also refer back to his previous paragraph, too (vv. 9-17). Verse 18 is a hinge between the two paragraphs. There is genuine pain associated with "putting to death the deeds of the body" even though we follow the leading of the Spirit when we do it.
So, when Paul speaks of the "sufferings of this present time" he is talking about the pains, weaknesses, yearnings, anxieties all we Christians share. We will continue to experience them until the coming glory, the future, is fully here.
Praying for holiness is a much higher priority than healing.
I am very grateful for their prayers, and for the love and sympathy they express. However, I just don't believe that my healing is a priority. I base this on Romans 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us." (NASB) If present pain is not worthy of comparison with future glory, then relief from pain is not a priority, preparing for glory is.
It would be presumptuous to compare my pain and weakness with Paul's suffering (see 2 Cor 11:23-25) or to claim that my "suffering" is the result of persecution as his was; it is not! However, the context of Rom 8:18 applies to all Christians. The suffering Paul speaks of is a consequence of living in a fallen world. It is our share in a world subjected to futility, groaning for its final liberation, Rom 8:19-25.
Even the foretaste of the future, granted to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit, aggravates our pain. It causes a deeper dissatisfaction with things as they are now and a much greater longing for the resurrection of the body.
Paul's reference to the sufferings of this present time also refer back to his previous paragraph, too (vv. 9-17). Verse 18 is a hinge between the two paragraphs. There is genuine pain associated with "putting to death the deeds of the body" even though we follow the leading of the Spirit when we do it.
So, when Paul speaks of the "sufferings of this present time" he is talking about the pains, weaknesses, yearnings, anxieties all we Christians share. We will continue to experience them until the coming glory, the future, is fully here.
Praying for holiness is a much higher priority than healing.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Health Update
Despite my original intent to post only a single entry about my health, I've posted several and am about to post another. I have reconnected with several old friends because of these posts. I've received many expressions of concern. Thank you all!
Here's my latest update. I went to The Myositis Center at Johns Hopkins both in January and May. During the January visit, the rheumatologist ruled out polymyositis. Initially, she thought my muscle MRIs definitely confirmed some form of myositis; there was clear evidence that the muscle in the back of my thighs had been damaged and replaced with adipose tissue. My thighs looked like well-marbled steaks. However, there was no other confirmation of polymyositis. She also decided that I had a neurological disorder primarily. She still thought inclusion-body myositis, which is untreatable as well as incurable, was a possibility.
That very same day, she got a consult from her partner, a neurologist. He gave me the most extensive neurological review I had had to that point. He seemed to be fascinated, especially, by my lack of sensation in my feet and in patches of my legs, arms, and hands. He also demonstrated, through his tests, that I had lost any sense of balance. With my eyes closed, I could not tell whether he was moving my big toe up or down, or at all. Neither could I tell whether I was standing or falling. We scheduled a follow-up neurological appointment for May.
I had loads of tests leading up to the appointment: spine and brain MRIs, a lumbar puncture (i.e., spinal tap), blood tests, and a skin biopsy in which they counted my sensory nerve fibers. I fully expected that the emphasis of the appointment would again be on the problem with my sensory nerves. Instead, the neurologist focused exclusively on my motor nerves. (I had somehow put on a bunch of muscle mass on my legs between January and May.) He decided there was nothing mechanical that should prevent normal movement. He did not arrive at any definitive diagnosis. He believes I have an upper motor neuron disorder, either Primary Lateral Sclerosis (a less severe form of Lou Gehrig's disease, though very, very rare) or Parkinson Plus Syndrome. He stated, however, that this would be inconsistent with my positive reaction to steroids. The most definitive statement in his clinical notes was that he had ruled out any reversible, treatable, or curable lower motor neuron, muscle, nerve, or neuromuscular disorder. An upper motor neuron disorder is untreatable (apart from symptoms) by definition.
I do not agree at all with this semi-diagnosis. Corticosteroids saved me. Without them I was not able to get in and out of bed, dress myself, etc. That was completely reversed within days as soon as I was put on the steroids. As I try to taper off the steroids (because of their terribly destructive side effects) I am beginning to experience that pain and helplessness again. I also believe that much of the loss of coordination the neurologist observed was due to loss of sensation rather than a movement disorder. It's hard to pick thinks up when you have no sensation in your fingertips!
Anyway, at this point it seems as though we've exhausted all our alternatives. I will continue to try to get off the steroids, and try to get some of the orthopedic issues with my spine taken care of (I now have two compression fractures). Otherwise, there's nothing for it except to wait.
Here's my latest update. I went to The Myositis Center at Johns Hopkins both in January and May. During the January visit, the rheumatologist ruled out polymyositis. Initially, she thought my muscle MRIs definitely confirmed some form of myositis; there was clear evidence that the muscle in the back of my thighs had been damaged and replaced with adipose tissue. My thighs looked like well-marbled steaks. However, there was no other confirmation of polymyositis. She also decided that I had a neurological disorder primarily. She still thought inclusion-body myositis, which is untreatable as well as incurable, was a possibility.
That very same day, she got a consult from her partner, a neurologist. He gave me the most extensive neurological review I had had to that point. He seemed to be fascinated, especially, by my lack of sensation in my feet and in patches of my legs, arms, and hands. He also demonstrated, through his tests, that I had lost any sense of balance. With my eyes closed, I could not tell whether he was moving my big toe up or down, or at all. Neither could I tell whether I was standing or falling. We scheduled a follow-up neurological appointment for May.
I had loads of tests leading up to the appointment: spine and brain MRIs, a lumbar puncture (i.e., spinal tap), blood tests, and a skin biopsy in which they counted my sensory nerve fibers. I fully expected that the emphasis of the appointment would again be on the problem with my sensory nerves. Instead, the neurologist focused exclusively on my motor nerves. (I had somehow put on a bunch of muscle mass on my legs between January and May.) He decided there was nothing mechanical that should prevent normal movement. He did not arrive at any definitive diagnosis. He believes I have an upper motor neuron disorder, either Primary Lateral Sclerosis (a less severe form of Lou Gehrig's disease, though very, very rare) or Parkinson Plus Syndrome. He stated, however, that this would be inconsistent with my positive reaction to steroids. The most definitive statement in his clinical notes was that he had ruled out any reversible, treatable, or curable lower motor neuron, muscle, nerve, or neuromuscular disorder. An upper motor neuron disorder is untreatable (apart from symptoms) by definition.
I do not agree at all with this semi-diagnosis. Corticosteroids saved me. Without them I was not able to get in and out of bed, dress myself, etc. That was completely reversed within days as soon as I was put on the steroids. As I try to taper off the steroids (because of their terribly destructive side effects) I am beginning to experience that pain and helplessness again. I also believe that much of the loss of coordination the neurologist observed was due to loss of sensation rather than a movement disorder. It's hard to pick thinks up when you have no sensation in your fingertips!
Anyway, at this point it seems as though we've exhausted all our alternatives. I will continue to try to get off the steroids, and try to get some of the orthopedic issues with my spine taken care of (I now have two compression fractures). Otherwise, there's nothing for it except to wait.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
RE: Post on Aug 12, 2008
It's really too bad that I've left the following post up here so long; it's far too negative. However, it turns out that August 12th was the most significant day for me in 2008.
The "old" compression fracture the ER doc found by pure luck on the x-rays was actually new. It took forever to find that out. Instead, I was treated for a muscle strain with muscle relaxants, which are really just tranquilizers, until I absolutely insisted on getting a full MRI of my spine and I took the film and report to my orthopedic surgeon. My PCP had, I was convinced, misinterpreted the report, telling me that since the fracture was so old it could not account for all the pain I was feeling. My orthopedist confirmed that the fracture was new. I finally received 3 transforaminal nerve block injections in January, 2009--5 months later.
The true significance of all this, however, was that the muscle relaxant wrecked my memory. For a long time I thought I was just being increasingly affected by the "brain fog" that is a side effect of steroids. Finally, I began to suspect that my mental impairment was far too severe to be attributed either to my steroids or to my disease. I searched the Physicians Desk Reference for possible adverse interactions among my medications and discovered that the muscle relaxant I was prescribed was explicitly contraindicated for patients taking one of the meds I already had. (Too many of my meds hit the central nervous system. Who knows how they're interacting?)
As a result, I have almost no memory of 2008. I can reconstruct some events with Terry's help; others are gone. The events of August 12th wrecked my memory for a year.
The good news is that I am getting my mind back. I'm still slower than I used to be, but that is to be expected for someone who takes as many meds as I do. I'm starting to be able to read again, but it's a slog.
The "old" compression fracture the ER doc found by pure luck on the x-rays was actually new. It took forever to find that out. Instead, I was treated for a muscle strain with muscle relaxants, which are really just tranquilizers, until I absolutely insisted on getting a full MRI of my spine and I took the film and report to my orthopedic surgeon. My PCP had, I was convinced, misinterpreted the report, telling me that since the fracture was so old it could not account for all the pain I was feeling. My orthopedist confirmed that the fracture was new. I finally received 3 transforaminal nerve block injections in January, 2009--5 months later.
The true significance of all this, however, was that the muscle relaxant wrecked my memory. For a long time I thought I was just being increasingly affected by the "brain fog" that is a side effect of steroids. Finally, I began to suspect that my mental impairment was far too severe to be attributed either to my steroids or to my disease. I searched the Physicians Desk Reference for possible adverse interactions among my medications and discovered that the muscle relaxant I was prescribed was explicitly contraindicated for patients taking one of the meds I already had. (Too many of my meds hit the central nervous system. Who knows how they're interacting?)
As a result, I have almost no memory of 2008. I can reconstruct some events with Terry's help; others are gone. The events of August 12th wrecked my memory for a year.
The good news is that I am getting my mind back. I'm still slower than I used to be, but that is to be expected for someone who takes as many meds as I do. I'm starting to be able to read again, but it's a slog.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Feel Free to Skip
This is just a vent. Feel free to skip this entry; there are no interesting thoughts here.
I woke up this morning with a desperate desire to remind myself that I once had a life. So I sat for a long time with a cup of coffee and remembered some of the many many projects I worked on during my career.
I think that's what is the most difficult about my disease: every day is exactly the same as every other one. The only difference is the level of pain and/or weakness and muddle headedness that I'm feeling. Unfortunately, my immunosuppresant drug was discontinued because it was damaging my liver, but they have not yet prescribed a replacement. So, I'm really feeling the pain right now! I've got 4 hours till my next pain pill.
Unbelievably, I continue to lose weight (muscle mass) even though I'm on prednisone. That's truly amazing. The women in my support group give me a lot of grief about it. Most of them have put on nearly 100 pounds from the steroids, and they are on much smaller doses than I am. This muscle loss has got to stop. Everything I read tells me that this muscle is probably irrecoverable.
Anyway, so far this has been one of the tough days. I'll have to work extra hard to get myself out of this mood.
Update: I decided to take myself on a couple outings: to the drugstore to pick up 4 prescriptions waiting for me and then to the seminary bookstore to see what their new New Testament studies professsor was using for his class on the expectations of the messiah in the Old Testament. Sounds trivial. But, I ended up spending the rest of the day in the Emergency Room. I could have sworn from the level of pain that I had broken my back, literally fractured my severely osteoporotic vertebrae, but apparently, it was just a muscle pull. Since I no longer have biceps or shoulder muscles every activity involves my big back muscles.
The interesting thing about it all was that they found an old compression fracture in my thoracic vertebrae. I've been asking for a long time why the docs always test the cervical (neck) and lumbar spine, but ignore the thoracic region. I still don't have an answer, but finding this compression fracture would have explained the pains I first went to the doctor about over two years ago.
I woke up this morning with a desperate desire to remind myself that I once had a life. So I sat for a long time with a cup of coffee and remembered some of the many many projects I worked on during my career.
I think that's what is the most difficult about my disease: every day is exactly the same as every other one. The only difference is the level of pain and/or weakness and muddle headedness that I'm feeling. Unfortunately, my immunosuppresant drug was discontinued because it was damaging my liver, but they have not yet prescribed a replacement. So, I'm really feeling the pain right now! I've got 4 hours till my next pain pill.
Unbelievably, I continue to lose weight (muscle mass) even though I'm on prednisone. That's truly amazing. The women in my support group give me a lot of grief about it. Most of them have put on nearly 100 pounds from the steroids, and they are on much smaller doses than I am. This muscle loss has got to stop. Everything I read tells me that this muscle is probably irrecoverable.
Anyway, so far this has been one of the tough days. I'll have to work extra hard to get myself out of this mood.
Update: I decided to take myself on a couple outings: to the drugstore to pick up 4 prescriptions waiting for me and then to the seminary bookstore to see what their new New Testament studies professsor was using for his class on the expectations of the messiah in the Old Testament. Sounds trivial. But, I ended up spending the rest of the day in the Emergency Room. I could have sworn from the level of pain that I had broken my back, literally fractured my severely osteoporotic vertebrae, but apparently, it was just a muscle pull. Since I no longer have biceps or shoulder muscles every activity involves my big back muscles.
The interesting thing about it all was that they found an old compression fracture in my thoracic vertebrae. I've been asking for a long time why the docs always test the cervical (neck) and lumbar spine, but ignore the thoracic region. I still don't have an answer, but finding this compression fracture would have explained the pains I first went to the doctor about over two years ago.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Milestone
Well I guess I've crossed a threshold this week: in the same week, I've put my Mizuno Pro-II irons up for sale on ebay because I know I'll never be able to use them again and I've placed an order for my first wheelchair.
I can still walk, but after 20 minutes I'm exhausted, my legs start to quiver, and I become afraid of falling.
Although nothing has changed in my physical ability or disability (though I'm feeling some decline) the mere action of selling my clubs makes it feel somehow official -- I am a disabled person.
I have also joined an on-line support group -- too few of us with myositis for there to be a live, local one. It's the best thing I ever did! I'm very impressed with the members of the group: they are very knowledgeable and quick to help.
I've kind of lost track of the other issues I normally track. I've become absorbed in trying to understand my disease, but, hopefully, I'll get back to the news again shortly.
I can still walk, but after 20 minutes I'm exhausted, my legs start to quiver, and I become afraid of falling.
Although nothing has changed in my physical ability or disability (though I'm feeling some decline) the mere action of selling my clubs makes it feel somehow official -- I am a disabled person.
I have also joined an on-line support group -- too few of us with myositis for there to be a live, local one. It's the best thing I ever did! I'm very impressed with the members of the group: they are very knowledgeable and quick to help.
I've kind of lost track of the other issues I normally track. I've become absorbed in trying to understand my disease, but, hopefully, I'll get back to the news again shortly.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
PC!
My new laptop, a Lenovo x61 tablet PC, is on it's way! Shipped early, but hung up in Shanghai. I confess I'm a little concerned about the quality control on a PC made entirely in China. But then, I bought two years of on site service to go with it.
The auxiliary digitizer pen I bought with it is quite narrow. I'm nervous as to whether this will solve my problem with spastic hands. It depends on how effective the "snap to" grids are on the software I want to use. At this point, I can still get to the vicinity of the grid points with a pen--not so much with a mouse.
I also ordered OneNote 2007. We'll have to see if this is more a tool than a nuisance. Often these things sound great but end up annoying me no end.
Either Friday or Monday, I'll have my major new electronic gadget!
Update: Maybe my next gadget will be a Kindle. They're almost there, and it's perfect, 10.5 ounces, for a person like me for whom the weight of the book has become one of the primary conditions as to whether I can read it.
The auxiliary digitizer pen I bought with it is quite narrow. I'm nervous as to whether this will solve my problem with spastic hands. It depends on how effective the "snap to" grids are on the software I want to use. At this point, I can still get to the vicinity of the grid points with a pen--not so much with a mouse.
I also ordered OneNote 2007. We'll have to see if this is more a tool than a nuisance. Often these things sound great but end up annoying me no end.
Either Friday or Monday, I'll have my major new electronic gadget!
Update: Maybe my next gadget will be a Kindle. They're almost there, and it's perfect, 10.5 ounces, for a person like me for whom the weight of the book has become one of the primary conditions as to whether I can read it.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
New Birth and Resurresction
Ok, Eric, here's one for you.
In Jesus' interaction with Nicodemus, he says , "Unless one is born of the water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So, Jesus seems to say there is an ontological mismatch between spirit and flesh.
Yet, it seems that Jesus is talking about new birth--being born again--a transformation that occurs long before death.
But then Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God , nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable ... the dead will inherit the imperishable ..."
So, Paul is obviously talking about the resurrection; not new birth. Yet, there is still an ontological problem: perishable being cannot survive imperishable being.
What is the relationship between the transformation that is new birth (and in-dwelling Spirit) and resurrection?
An obvious hint is: "if He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead dwells in you, who raised Christ Jesus will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (8:11)
It doesn't seem correct to say that Christians just slowly grow into an ontological change that enables them to survive the new heavens and the new earth. Something dramatic happens at conversion.
But how do we define the relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit? That seems to be the key.
(P.S. please pray for my hands: I seem to be losing control all the time. My next appointment with the neurologist is May 23)
In Jesus' interaction with Nicodemus, he says , "Unless one is born of the water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So, Jesus seems to say there is an ontological mismatch between spirit and flesh.
Yet, it seems that Jesus is talking about new birth--being born again--a transformation that occurs long before death.
But then Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God , nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable ... the dead will inherit the imperishable ..."
So, Paul is obviously talking about the resurrection; not new birth. Yet, there is still an ontological problem: perishable being cannot survive imperishable being.
What is the relationship between the transformation that is new birth (and in-dwelling Spirit) and resurrection?
An obvious hint is: "if He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead dwells in you, who raised Christ Jesus will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (8:11)
It doesn't seem correct to say that Christians just slowly grow into an ontological change that enables them to survive the new heavens and the new earth. Something dramatic happens at conversion.
But how do we define the relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit? That seems to be the key.
(P.S. please pray for my hands: I seem to be losing control all the time. My next appointment with the neurologist is May 23)
ESV Study Bible
With the exception of my Jewish Study Bible, I've never used a study bible consistently. However, from the bit I've seen so far, I would definitely buy and use the ESV Study Bible. It looks like to be available Oct. 2008. It will have great helps on the Old Testsment (the Tanakh)which is usually where most study Bibles fail.
I'd strongly suggestion that this generation stick with one translation, and never change (unlike those of us who had the Living Bible, the New American Standard, the New English Bible, and many others come out at more or less the same time.)
I'd strongly suggestion that this generation stick with one translation, and never change (unlike those of us who had the Living Bible, the New American Standard, the New English Bible, and many others come out at more or less the same time.)
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Easter Eve and the Other Wright
Our Easter Eve dinner was a success: very enjoyable and relaxing. We had 26 people total.
However, I was not able to make it through Wright's The Resurrection and the Son of God in time for Easter. I made the mistake of trying to underline the important parts. That slowed me down way too much. So, I set it aside to read his new book Surprised by Hope instead, thinking that would be a quick read. It's not.
Surprised is shorter than Resurrection, and it helpfully summarizes many of that book's arguments. However, it's also very important, articulating the implications of Wright's program. Many of Wright's assertions are challenging to the typical evangelical; for example, Wright believes the most important ethical issue facing Christians today is forgiving Third World debt rather than the sex-related issues we often fixate on.
The basic thesis of the book is that a Platonic dualism has infested the Christian church to a degree not recognized by most Christians. Dualism is assumed in evangelism, in our definitions of the pursuit of holiness and justice, in identifying the basic aim of our lives and the mission of the Church, and so on. The resurrection of Christ upends all of that. The resurrection, by definition, emphasizes physicality and wholeness. To become a disembodied soul in heaven is not the ultimate aim of the human; living in a transformed world with a transformed body doing meaningful work is. Because the resurrection of Jesus has already occurred, long before the general resurrection, the new creation, also future, has invaded the present. Christians can begin now building for the new creation, confident that the product of their present work will be transformed and persist into the eternal future.
It's a very interesting book, one I will read a second time, trying somehow to make notes on it. I disagree with Wright at many points (he often forces false choices, committing the fallacy of the excluded middle, and generally has a bit of a smug tone), but, as I said, it's an important and challenging book, well worth reading carefully.
As a result of reading the book, I bought a compendium of essays on Third World debt to better understand that issue. N.T. Wright's anti-capitalism gets in the way of his argument. He understates the problem of personal, individual corruption; for example, the greed and corruption by individuals at the IMF. Instead he faults structural sins; i.e., capitalism. He claims that no counterargument is valid on this issue, since he is making a moral argument. Offering a capitalist counterargument is equivalent to the Sadducees' denial of the resurrection of the dead; they neither knew the scriptures nor the power of God. However, despite the weakness of his argument, I have to agree that alleviating world poverty has to be a higher priority for evangelicals.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Reading Wright can sometimes be very frustrating because he many asides. He says, for example, that many of the models of the atonement are valid and necessary for a full picture of what occurred on the cross. Therefore, if one were to criticize him for neglecting penal substitution, he'd point to this one almost parenthetical statement to counter the criticism. However, the whole book assumes Christus Victor as the foundational model of atonement.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
NCAA Tournament
It's been hard for me to get into the NCAA tournament this year, usually my favorite event of the year. But how could anyone not cheer for this underdog?
ESPN - Davidson vs. Wisconsin - Recap - March 28, 2008
ESPN - Davidson vs. Wisconsin - Recap - March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Holy Week - Saturday
We'll be having our dinner celebration a day early this year. I have a cancer-screening test on Monday and have to cleanse my system all day Easter Sunday. So, we're having 26 guests over for a special dinner Saturday evening.
I've been thinking about an appropriate meditation. What happened on the Saturday of Holy Week? What do we commemorate about it? Jesus was in the tomb. He had been buried the previous evening. What can I say about Saturday?
Paul summarizes the earliest oral tradition he had received: "For I delivered to you as of first important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3,4 ESV, my emph). So, "he was buried" is almost incidental; it's sandwiched between the two important events that occurred "in accordance with the Scriptures."
But, wasn't Jesus also buried "in accordance with the Scriptures?"
Yes, he was. An easily-overlooked statement in the great Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 is this: "And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death" (v.9). "With the wicked" and "with a rich man," how would that work out? Would his grave be with criminals or with a rich man? Which is it?
Jesus was crucified with criminals. His body would normally have been cast off somewhere with theirs. But, "when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean shroud and laid it in his own new tomb" (Matt 27:57-60 ESV). So, Jesus' grave had been made before his death to be with "the wicked" but Joseph of Arimathea overturned that plan, but not until after Jesus' death. Jesus was laid in a rich man's tomb instead of in a criminal's grave, and Isaiah's strange sentence fits the event exactly.
Now, conservative scholars would argue that the prophecy was written by Isaiah in the 8th century before Christ, over 700 years before the events recorded; critical scholars attribute this to Deutero-Isaiah, who addresses the Jews in exile, still about 500 years before the event. Either way, the burial was "in accordance with the Scriptures" in a surprising way. Isaiah's is a stunning prediction hundreds of years before the event.
This is what we'll meditate on this Saturday.
I've been thinking about an appropriate meditation. What happened on the Saturday of Holy Week? What do we commemorate about it? Jesus was in the tomb. He had been buried the previous evening. What can I say about Saturday?
Paul summarizes the earliest oral tradition he had received: "For I delivered to you as of first important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3,4 ESV, my emph). So, "he was buried" is almost incidental; it's sandwiched between the two important events that occurred "in accordance with the Scriptures."
But, wasn't Jesus also buried "in accordance with the Scriptures?"
Yes, he was. An easily-overlooked statement in the great Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 53 is this: "And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death" (v.9). "With the wicked" and "with a rich man," how would that work out? Would his grave be with criminals or with a rich man? Which is it?
Jesus was crucified with criminals. His body would normally have been cast off somewhere with theirs. But, "when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean shroud and laid it in his own new tomb" (Matt 27:57-60 ESV). So, Jesus' grave had been made before his death to be with "the wicked" but Joseph of Arimathea overturned that plan, but not until after Jesus' death. Jesus was laid in a rich man's tomb instead of in a criminal's grave, and Isaiah's strange sentence fits the event exactly.
Now, conservative scholars would argue that the prophecy was written by Isaiah in the 8th century before Christ, over 700 years before the events recorded; critical scholars attribute this to Deutero-Isaiah, who addresses the Jews in exile, still about 500 years before the event. Either way, the burial was "in accordance with the Scriptures" in a surprising way. Isaiah's is a stunning prediction hundreds of years before the event.
This is what we'll meditate on this Saturday.
Roger Simon's Reaction to Obama (Plus Something about Grandma)
I find this very moving. Click on the link:
Pajamas Media: 'Barack, I Didn’t Do It for This': An Homage to Andrew Goodman
Also, being very disturbed by the equivalence Obama drew between Wright and his grandmother, and hearing that he had used the same anecdote about her in his first book, I decided to look it up. It's not exactly the same scenario as he described in his speech.
How is this equivalent to Rev. Wright's continuing to instill racial hatred and anti-semitism into his congregation, claiming, for example, that whites created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against blacks? This anecdote deals with an elderly couple who find their own residual racism regrettable and seek to disavow it, even trembling at the wrongness of it. Does Wright?
There's nothing in this story about just a general fear of black men walking down the street.
I'm sorry, but I lost a lot of respect for Obama over this.
Pajamas Media: 'Barack, I Didn’t Do It for This': An Homage to Andrew Goodman
Also, being very disturbed by the equivalence Obama drew between Wright and his grandmother, and hearing that he had used the same anecdote about her in his first book, I decided to look it up. It's not exactly the same scenario as he described in his speech.
I took her into the other room and asked her what had happened.
"A man asked me for money yesterday. While I was waiting for the bus."
"That's all?"
Her lips pursed with irritation. "He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head."
I returned to the kitchen. Gramps was rinsing his cup, his back turned to me. "Listen," I said, "why don't you just let me give her a ride. She seems pretty upset."
"By a panhandler?"
"Yeah, I know--but it's probably a little scary for her, seeing some big man block her way. It's really no big deal."
He turned around and I saw now that he was shaking. "It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me... Before you came in, she told me the fellow was black." He whispered the word. "That's the real reason she's bothered. And I just don't think that's right."
Barack Obama, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2004), 88.
How is this equivalent to Rev. Wright's continuing to instill racial hatred and anti-semitism into his congregation, claiming, for example, that whites created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against blacks? This anecdote deals with an elderly couple who find their own residual racism regrettable and seek to disavow it, even trembling at the wrongness of it. Does Wright?
There's nothing in this story about just a general fear of black men walking down the street.
I'm sorry, but I lost a lot of respect for Obama over this.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Ending a Sentence with Two Prepositions
More reaction to Obama's speech. This one from one of my favorite bloggers: neoneocon. She always has a very interesting perspective.
I'm feeling more negative towards it the more I think about it. I imagine this is one of those speeches that will take a while to make your mind up about.
I'm feeling more negative towards it the more I think about it. I imagine this is one of those speeches that will take a while to make your mind up about.
ESV Personal Size Reference Bibles
This is an almost perfect Bible: ESV Bible Blog: Personal Size Reference Bibles.
I've been looking for smaller Bibles because of the problem with my hands. These are available through Westminster Bookstore at 45% off. I ordered one with the cheaper TruTone binding. I like everything about it--except the binding. I just don't like the feel of the TruTone. So, I'm returning it and getting the genuine leather instead.
I still prefer my New American Standard for my personal study because that's what I've used for over 30 years, but I take an ESV to church and our small group meeting. There are a couple things about the ESV single-column reference Bibles that I prefer to the NASB Bibles:
1) Crossway placed the cross-references on the inside margins, leaving more room for the text.
2) ESV's paragraphing and headings are much better than the NASB's. Occasionally, the NASB will place a heading in the midst of a logical paragraph. (Of course, the original documents did not have paragraphs, so this is a subjective judgment.)
I've been looking for smaller Bibles because of the problem with my hands. These are available through Westminster Bookstore at 45% off. I ordered one with the cheaper TruTone binding. I like everything about it--except the binding. I just don't like the feel of the TruTone. So, I'm returning it and getting the genuine leather instead.
I still prefer my New American Standard for my personal study because that's what I've used for over 30 years, but I take an ESV to church and our small group meeting. There are a couple things about the ESV single-column reference Bibles that I prefer to the NASB Bibles:
1) Crossway placed the cross-references on the inside margins, leaving more room for the text.
2) ESV's paragraphing and headings are much better than the NASB's. Occasionally, the NASB will place a heading in the midst of a logical paragraph. (Of course, the original documents did not have paragraphs, so this is a subjective judgment.)
Obama's Speech on Race
Drudge Report has Obama's speech on race in America, here. It's a politically brave speech and very well-written.
I think it's too late for him, though. I myself still can't get the lewd images of Rev. Wright talking about Bill Clinton "riding [Monica Lewinsky] dirty"--while pantomiming the action--out of my mind. Also, it's difficult to believe that such hate-filled speech was as occasional as Obama says given the reaction of the congregation. You don't see shock on the faces of his hearers but excitement and appreciation. His analogy of a family member you're stuck with, such as his white grandmother, who says stuff that makes you cringe just doesn't work.
It's too bad. A general election contest between Barack Obama and John McCain would more likely have been a contest of ideas than if Hillary Clinton wins.
Update: very interesting reaction and comments on Ann Althouse's page.
I think it's too late for him, though. I myself still can't get the lewd images of Rev. Wright talking about Bill Clinton "riding [Monica Lewinsky] dirty"--while pantomiming the action--out of my mind. Also, it's difficult to believe that such hate-filled speech was as occasional as Obama says given the reaction of the congregation. You don't see shock on the faces of his hearers but excitement and appreciation. His analogy of a family member you're stuck with, such as his white grandmother, who says stuff that makes you cringe just doesn't work.
It's too bad. A general election contest between Barack Obama and John McCain would more likely have been a contest of ideas than if Hillary Clinton wins.
Update: very interesting reaction and comments on Ann Althouse's page.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Latin
This is probably very foolish because of my disability with my hands ... yesterday I ordered Wheelock's Latin from Amazon. I will not be able to do the exercises. However, I should at least be able to read through the text to find out how the language works. I've always considered myself uneducated without Latin.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
A Software Recommendation
In preparation for Easter, I'm reading N.T. Wright's The Resurrection and the Son of God. I was surprised to find a strong commendation of the Nota Bene software package in the preface (p. xx). I checked the prefaces of all three of the volumes in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series and found that he used Nota Bene for all of them. There's nothing in Nota Bene's marketing materials that cites N.T. Wright's commendation!
I've owned this package for years, but have never really used it. Every time I've written a paper I've been under such a tight deadline (most often due to my own procrastination) that I've defaulted to Microsoft. The superiority of Nota Bene for academic research and note taking is obvious. Now, knowing that N.T. Wright has produced these 800-plus page books with the package, I have more resolve to try to learn it.
I've owned this package for years, but have never really used it. Every time I've written a paper I've been under such a tight deadline (most often due to my own procrastination) that I've defaulted to Microsoft. The superiority of Nota Bene for academic research and note taking is obvious. Now, knowing that N.T. Wright has produced these 800-plus page books with the package, I have more resolve to try to learn it.
One-Time-Only Entry About My Health
Inspired by a couple of blogs chronicling the authors' battles with pain, and, maybe, for the sake of old friends who might look me up, I've decided to post one entry about my health.*
I am currently disabled; that is, I am not able to take seminary classes, or do anything other than sit at home and try to read. I'm in chronic pain; my whole upper body vibrates (yes, that's the right word for it); at times my arms wobble; and, my hands shake constantly. (I am writing this by dictating into Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred v. 9.5. I may upgrade to their Professional edition, which is 508-certified for near complete hands-free control of the PC, but I'm not entirely sure what the benefit is. The upgrade costs almost 4 times what the original package cost me).
My biggest frustration is that I cannot write by hand; that is, I can't write in my journals; I can't mark up or make notes in my books; I can't diagram Greek sentences. My study of Hebrew and Greek has stalled; it's hard to improve with a language if you can't write it. Neither can I hold a book--at least not steady enough so as to be able to read it. I bought myself a lap desk with a tilting top, so I rest my books on that. I also have one position lying in bed with two pillows on my chest that works. Otherwise, I'm stuck. (Laying the book down on a flat surface doesn't work because of problems with my neck).
Unfortunately, I still do not have a diagnosis to explain this condition. We thought I had polymiositis, a rare muscle-wasting auto-immune disorder. It would fit many of the symptoms I've experienced: I lost about 45 pounds of muscle between September and the 1st week of December (when I was put on corticosteroids. I know it was muscle, because my waist size basically stayed the same), the inflammatory markers in my blood tests have been consistently very high, and I had extreme weakness in my proximal muscles: hips, shoulders, and neck. The weakness got so extreme in November that I couldn't get in or out of bed, couldn't dress myself, couldn't lift my feet into the car, and so on.
The corticosteroids had a nearly immediate effect. I felt very much as though my body came back to life. The extreme weakness disappeared. (This, of course, is relative. I've been working with physical therapists for months and still can't curl more than 3 pounds.) However, some of the pain has remained, the shakiness I started to experience in October is disabling, and I feel myself slowly lapsing back into my helpless state. The corticosteroids have their own adverse side-effects, mostly by compromising the immune system.
In February, I had a muscle biopsy of my left quadriceps, which is supposed to be the definitive test for polymiositis. The biopsy came back abnormal, but not indicative of polymiositis. So now my rheumatologist says I have some form of peripheral neuropathy, a neurological disorder, and my neurologist categorically denies the possibility of any neurological problem. The two of them are supposed to confer and get back to me, which they haven't done now two weeks later. (I haven't found a single description of polyneuropathy that fits any of the symptoms I feel.)
The remaining possibility is that this is the "remote effect" of an underlying cancer that is still undetectable. So, I've been going through the basic cancer screening tests. There apparently are cancers that produce symptoms like mine 18 months or so before the cancer shows up. All my doctors say this is unlikely, but we need to test for it just in case.
One of the things that complicated diagnosis originally is that it turns out I had a number of orthopedic problems: a herniated disk in my neck, bony spurs impinging on nerves, etc. I also had a rotator cuff tear in my shoulder as well as bone spurs on my collar bone and shoulder bone. I had surgery on my shoulder. But the surgeon doesn't think surgery on my neck would do any good--I have too many things wrong.
I really have had to face my own mortality this past year. Some of the suggested diagnoses were terminal (one of the most alarming was ALS), and there is still the lingering possibility of a cancer showing up. However, my faith is stronger than it has ever been. I would be lying if I said I never had times when I've wallowed in self-pity--I have. But, I've always been able to remind myself of the sovereign goodness and wisdom of God and get my mind on that instead.
Paul says, in Romans 8:18, "For I consider that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to be revealed to us" (NASB). I believe this with all my heart. I believe that the resurrection of Jesus gives meaning to all the pain and weakness I feel now, and I am very content!
The danger of a post like this one is that it sounds like whining. I'm not. I am looking forward to this Easter and the ultimate Easter to come.
*(I may, in future, write about the battle for faith in the midst of pain.)
I am currently disabled; that is, I am not able to take seminary classes, or do anything other than sit at home and try to read. I'm in chronic pain; my whole upper body vibrates (yes, that's the right word for it); at times my arms wobble; and, my hands shake constantly. (I am writing this by dictating into Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred v. 9.5. I may upgrade to their Professional edition, which is 508-certified for near complete hands-free control of the PC, but I'm not entirely sure what the benefit is. The upgrade costs almost 4 times what the original package cost me).
My biggest frustration is that I cannot write by hand; that is, I can't write in my journals; I can't mark up or make notes in my books; I can't diagram Greek sentences. My study of Hebrew and Greek has stalled; it's hard to improve with a language if you can't write it. Neither can I hold a book--at least not steady enough so as to be able to read it. I bought myself a lap desk with a tilting top, so I rest my books on that. I also have one position lying in bed with two pillows on my chest that works. Otherwise, I'm stuck. (Laying the book down on a flat surface doesn't work because of problems with my neck).
Unfortunately, I still do not have a diagnosis to explain this condition. We thought I had polymiositis, a rare muscle-wasting auto-immune disorder. It would fit many of the symptoms I've experienced: I lost about 45 pounds of muscle between September and the 1st week of December (when I was put on corticosteroids. I know it was muscle, because my waist size basically stayed the same), the inflammatory markers in my blood tests have been consistently very high, and I had extreme weakness in my proximal muscles: hips, shoulders, and neck. The weakness got so extreme in November that I couldn't get in or out of bed, couldn't dress myself, couldn't lift my feet into the car, and so on.
The corticosteroids had a nearly immediate effect. I felt very much as though my body came back to life. The extreme weakness disappeared. (This, of course, is relative. I've been working with physical therapists for months and still can't curl more than 3 pounds.) However, some of the pain has remained, the shakiness I started to experience in October is disabling, and I feel myself slowly lapsing back into my helpless state. The corticosteroids have their own adverse side-effects, mostly by compromising the immune system.
In February, I had a muscle biopsy of my left quadriceps, which is supposed to be the definitive test for polymiositis. The biopsy came back abnormal, but not indicative of polymiositis. So now my rheumatologist says I have some form of peripheral neuropathy, a neurological disorder, and my neurologist categorically denies the possibility of any neurological problem. The two of them are supposed to confer and get back to me, which they haven't done now two weeks later. (I haven't found a single description of polyneuropathy that fits any of the symptoms I feel.)
The remaining possibility is that this is the "remote effect" of an underlying cancer that is still undetectable. So, I've been going through the basic cancer screening tests. There apparently are cancers that produce symptoms like mine 18 months or so before the cancer shows up. All my doctors say this is unlikely, but we need to test for it just in case.
One of the things that complicated diagnosis originally is that it turns out I had a number of orthopedic problems: a herniated disk in my neck, bony spurs impinging on nerves, etc. I also had a rotator cuff tear in my shoulder as well as bone spurs on my collar bone and shoulder bone. I had surgery on my shoulder. But the surgeon doesn't think surgery on my neck would do any good--I have too many things wrong.
I really have had to face my own mortality this past year. Some of the suggested diagnoses were terminal (one of the most alarming was ALS), and there is still the lingering possibility of a cancer showing up. However, my faith is stronger than it has ever been. I would be lying if I said I never had times when I've wallowed in self-pity--I have. But, I've always been able to remind myself of the sovereign goodness and wisdom of God and get my mind on that instead.
Paul says, in Romans 8:18, "For I consider that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to be revealed to us" (NASB). I believe this with all my heart. I believe that the resurrection of Jesus gives meaning to all the pain and weakness I feel now, and I am very content!
The danger of a post like this one is that it sounds like whining. I'm not. I am looking forward to this Easter and the ultimate Easter to come.
*(I may, in future, write about the battle for faith in the midst of pain.)
PJM Interview: Carly Fiorina
I am puzzled by feminists' embrace of Hillary Clinton, a woman with no real accomplishments of her own. Pajamas Media has an interview with a woman of real achievement: Pajamas Media: PJM Election Interview: Carly Fiorina. I wonder if this is a step toward a political career for Carly.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
David Mamet on the Constitution
Wow! a perfect summary of the political philosophy enshrined in the Constitution from the director, David Mamet, who describes his abandonment of '60s- and '70s-style liberalism in an article found in the Village Voice. It's well worth a read.
Read the whole thing!
we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.This, by the way, explains the coincidence of evangelicalism and conservatism. This is the Christian doctrine of Original Sin applied.
For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.
To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.
The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.
Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bulls**t and go straight to firearms.
Read the whole thing!
Friday, March 07, 2008
An Excellent Book
I've just finished reading one of the best books I've read in a long time--one of the most quotable I've ever read: Tim Keller's The Reason for God, subtitled Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I'll read it again, soon, after I've had a chance to read a couple of the books Keller quotes: N.T. Wright's Simply Christian and The Resurrection of the Son of God. I plan to read the latter in preparation for Easter (800 pages, wonder if I'll make it.)
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Bibles
I'm reading the Bible in several different versions these days. In addition to the two English versions that are pretty standard for evangelicals, the English Standard Version and the New American Standard, I'm reading Richmond Lattimore's translation for the New Testament. Lattimore taught Greek at Bryn Mawr College from 1935 until he retired in 1971. He was a poet and noted translator of the Greek classics. His translations of the Iliad and the Odyssey are still regarded as having set the standard for literary Greek translations. He translated the New Testament directly from the Greek without prior commitment to tradition or dogma, but merely regarding the NT as Greek literature. He chose to translate fairly literally so that the individual authors' personalities and styles would show through; he rarely smooths out the awkwardness of a Greek construction. The body of the text has no verse numbers or chapter headings, being laid out like a novel instead. I've really enjoyed reading it because the translation occasionally sounds very odd to an ear accustomed to the evangelical Bibles. Some of his word choices, which at first have seemed implausible, have turned out to be valid possibilities according to the standard lexicons; others reflect his expertise with classical Greek rather than the Koine. All in all, a great read.
I'm also working my way, slowly, through my Jewish Study Bible published by the Jewish Publication Society. I love both the translation (it's very fresh) and the commentary. I used it extensively when I co-taught a series on Isaiah with Dr. Bruce Ware; now I'm focusing on the Torah. This week, I also received Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses; another literary translation. Alter is well-known for his literary criticism of the Hebrew Bible. As far as I know, he regarded the stories as fiction; his focus was on the literary structure of the text. I've found that he's very helpful in that.
Of course, I'm also reading the Greek and Hebrew texts myself. It is that which has given me an appreciation for the art behind these literary, but faithful, translations.
I'm also working my way, slowly, through my Jewish Study Bible published by the Jewish Publication Society. I love both the translation (it's very fresh) and the commentary. I used it extensively when I co-taught a series on Isaiah with Dr. Bruce Ware; now I'm focusing on the Torah. This week, I also received Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses; another literary translation. Alter is well-known for his literary criticism of the Hebrew Bible. As far as I know, he regarded the stories as fiction; his focus was on the literary structure of the text. I've found that he's very helpful in that.
Of course, I'm also reading the Greek and Hebrew texts myself. It is that which has given me an appreciation for the art behind these literary, but faithful, translations.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Going Forward
I've been planning to resuscitate this blog for some time with the intent of avoiding quite so much political blogging.
I recognize that I got a little carried away. After sort of retiring from my career I finally felt the freedom to say what I really think about different political issues. Anyone who thinks that there is no de facto censorship on conservatives within blue-state-based corporations has never actually worked in one. I was constantly shocked at the readiness with which otherwise reasonable people could blast political and religious conservatives while professing the need for diversity in the work place. Some of the most personally offensive jokes I ever heard were told at the beginning of senior management team meetings.
So, I enjoyed writing about all these political matters for awhile. I probably still will write about them to some extent, because I do believe Christians are called to be engaged in the public square, but I hope to write more about the pursuit of personal piety.
I recognize that I got a little carried away. After sort of retiring from my career I finally felt the freedom to say what I really think about different political issues. Anyone who thinks that there is no de facto censorship on conservatives within blue-state-based corporations has never actually worked in one. I was constantly shocked at the readiness with which otherwise reasonable people could blast political and religious conservatives while professing the need for diversity in the work place. Some of the most personally offensive jokes I ever heard were told at the beginning of senior management team meetings.
So, I enjoyed writing about all these political matters for awhile. I probably still will write about them to some extent, because I do believe Christians are called to be engaged in the public square, but I hope to write more about the pursuit of personal piety.
Obama's Radical Stance on Abortion
Here's a link to a very important post at Justin Taylor's blog: Between Two Worlds: Obama's Opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act: When, How, and Why
This is what I love about the Internet: you're able to look at source documents to form your own opinion about the news. Please read the linked PDF files for yourself.
This is what I love about the Internet: you're able to look at source documents to form your own opinion about the news. Please read the linked PDF files for yourself.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Duke
I've missed three Duke games this year. They've lost all three. Coach K doesn't know how important I am to the team.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Commutation of Libby's sentence
Before people get too high and mighty about the "unprecedented corruption" of the Bush administration commutation of Libby's sentence they really ought to take another look at Clinton's outright pardons, especially Clinton's pardon spree in January, 2001. Remember Marc Rich, Pincus Green, and Linda Jones?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Music
I've found some new music to enjoy -- new to me, that is.
There was a link to Andrew Bird's performance on Letterman at http://rom116.blogspot.com/.
There was a link to Andrew Bird's performance on Letterman at http://rom116.blogspot.com/.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Ehrman: Leaps of Unbelief
I’ve just started to read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. Instead of waiting till I finish the book to comment on it, I think I’ll just post a running commentary. This is probably wise since I may have difficulty finishing it; I’ve been brought to a stop many times already in just the first few pages of the introduction. Many of his statements are truly startling. They are not faith-threatening or provocative but are such shocking leaps of illogic that it’s hard to imagine a well-reputed scholar wrote this.
I admit that I’m not open-minded in my approach to this book. I expect to disagree with his conclusions about the nature of Scripture; I’m reading it critically and with some skepticism. However, I also expect to get a good introduction to textual criticism. Many of the reviews have indicated that Ehrman is pretty good at describing textual criticism to a lay audience. So, I’ve expected it to be a good read. But now, after just a few pages, I’m not so sure. His reasoning is so questionable, his conclusions so unfounded, that it’s hard to imagine the book will get much better. Ehrman repeatedly jumps to completely unwarranted conclusions from fairly simple, widely-held premises.
For example, on page 5 of his introduction he describes his discovery that we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, “Moreover, none of these documents is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. All the scribes did this. So rather that actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e., the originals) of the Bible, what we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman leaps from the idea that “no copy is completely accurate” to “all copies are error-ridden.” This is a blatant fallacy that anyone with some common sense can refute. It doesn’t even take any formal study in logic to see how dumb this is!
I have terrible handwriting: my letters are tiny, crabbed and shaky. I often used to write out memos and reports in longhand and then turn them over to my secretary to type out. She then returned them to me for my review before distributing them. None of my secretaries was ever able to make out my handwriting perfectly. Every document ever typed up for me had some mistake in it. Sometimes the mistakes were unintentional, sometimes they were corrections of my grammar or suggested rewordings. The point is, “no copy was completely accurate.” But that’s not the same as saying they were “error-ridden.” One of my secretaries was remarkably good. Though she invariably made some mistake, it was only a couple on a document, and they were easy to explain given my almost illegible hand-writing. One of my other secretaries, however, did such a lousy job that it was just easier for me to type up my own documents. Her copies were truly “error-ridden.” There’s a huge difference between the two!
Ehrman is guilty of another logical error at this point as well. He argues that since all of the documents disagree with each other at some point then every document must be wrong. But this, too, is obviously not necessarily correct. If all of the witnesses to some event disagree at some point in their reporting of the event, the only conclusion that follows from this is that they can’t all be right about that part of the event. They could all be wrong, as Ehrman seems to hope, or one witness could be right and all the others wrong. It just does not follow that one of the witnesses cannot be completely accurate. And, even if there’s some point at which all the witnesses disagree, that doesn’t impeach the 99% of the testimony where they do agree.
Here’s another example. At the bottom of page 6, and spilling over into the following page, he says, “I came to see early on that the full meaning and nuance of the Greek text of the New Testament could be grasped only when it is read and studied in the original language . . . This started making me question my understanding of scripture as the verbally inspired word of God . . . What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these word into a language ... that has nothing to do with the original words?” Again, what a huge, irrational leap!
Ehrman begins with a relatively innocuous, commonplace that everyone who’s ever studied another language can understand. Sometimes simple translation can’t capture completely all of the nuances of a single word. For example, Brazilians speak of saudade. There is no single English word that is the perfect counterpart to this wonderfully rich word. But it’s a long way to jump from this simple observation to the conclusion that English speakers can have absolutely no access to saudade, or that English translation has “nothing to do with the original words.” Even if word-for-word translation is imperfect, meaning is still accessible and the translation is circumscribed. If the Greek uses the word for “dog” the English translation is not free to substitute “elephant.” Does Ehrman expect his books to ever be translated into foreign languages? (Maybe they already are. I don’t know.) If so, why? If translation is so incredibly hopeless then what’s the point?
My expectations for this book, as low as they already were, are diminished after just a few pages. Is he going to continue to make these leaps of unbelief?
I’ll add just a couple examples from the mistakes and contradictions Ehrman finds in the Bible itself. That is, these aren’t errors made by scribes in copying; he sees these as errors in the originals. In one of the kingdom parables, Jesus says that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” It obviously isn’t. So Ehrman concludes Jesus made a mistake. But, this is just a silly sort of literalism than no one holds. Everyone recognizes that Jesus uses figurative language, including hyperbole, in his storytelling. This is just plain stupid!
More subtly, Ehrman finds a contradiction between the book of Acts and the autobiographical section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “when Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26)” (p. 10, his italics). Only someone who is predisposed to find a contradiction here would find Ehrman convincing.
What does Paul really say in Galatians, if we read the whole account? “I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1:17-18). So, there’s no contradiction. In Galatians, Paul claims only that he did not return to Jerusalem immediately after he was converted but that there was an intervening time period during which he was in Nabatean Arabia, the region adjacent to Damascus. From Arabia he returned to Damascus. When he left Damascus he then went straight away to Jerusalem, which is exactly what he says in Acts 9:26. The account in Acts also implies an interval between Paul’s conversion and his departure from Damascus, though the time period is left indefinite. Luke says that Paul tried to associate with the Christians in Damascus for “some days.” He increased in his persuasive ability over some period of time. And, “after many days” the Jews plotted to kill him. Both accounts allow for some interval of time between Paul’s conversion and his leaving Damascus. On the main point, that upon leaving Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem, the two accounts are agreed. The only way to find a contradiction between the two accounts is to stop reading Galatians at verse 17, not read verse 18, and jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
The weird thing about Ehrman’s complaint is that he seems to be disappointed that an extreme literalism and fundamentalist bibliolatry turned out not to be true. At heart, Ehrman is actually the worst sort of fundamentalist, a bitter, disillusioned one. None of his arguments challenge in the least a solidly evangelical view of the authority of Scripture.
I admit that I’m not open-minded in my approach to this book. I expect to disagree with his conclusions about the nature of Scripture; I’m reading it critically and with some skepticism. However, I also expect to get a good introduction to textual criticism. Many of the reviews have indicated that Ehrman is pretty good at describing textual criticism to a lay audience. So, I’ve expected it to be a good read. But now, after just a few pages, I’m not so sure. His reasoning is so questionable, his conclusions so unfounded, that it’s hard to imagine the book will get much better. Ehrman repeatedly jumps to completely unwarranted conclusions from fairly simple, widely-held premises.
For example, on page 5 of his introduction he describes his discovery that we do not have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, “Moreover, none of these documents is completely accurate, since the scribes who produced them inadvertently and/or intentionally changed them in places. All the scribes did this. So rather that actually having the inspired words of the autographs (i.e., the originals) of the Bible, what we have are the error-ridden copies of the autographs.” Ehrman leaps from the idea that “no copy is completely accurate” to “all copies are error-ridden.” This is a blatant fallacy that anyone with some common sense can refute. It doesn’t even take any formal study in logic to see how dumb this is!
I have terrible handwriting: my letters are tiny, crabbed and shaky. I often used to write out memos and reports in longhand and then turn them over to my secretary to type out. She then returned them to me for my review before distributing them. None of my secretaries was ever able to make out my handwriting perfectly. Every document ever typed up for me had some mistake in it. Sometimes the mistakes were unintentional, sometimes they were corrections of my grammar or suggested rewordings. The point is, “no copy was completely accurate.” But that’s not the same as saying they were “error-ridden.” One of my secretaries was remarkably good. Though she invariably made some mistake, it was only a couple on a document, and they were easy to explain given my almost illegible hand-writing. One of my other secretaries, however, did such a lousy job that it was just easier for me to type up my own documents. Her copies were truly “error-ridden.” There’s a huge difference between the two!
Ehrman is guilty of another logical error at this point as well. He argues that since all of the documents disagree with each other at some point then every document must be wrong. But this, too, is obviously not necessarily correct. If all of the witnesses to some event disagree at some point in their reporting of the event, the only conclusion that follows from this is that they can’t all be right about that part of the event. They could all be wrong, as Ehrman seems to hope, or one witness could be right and all the others wrong. It just does not follow that one of the witnesses cannot be completely accurate. And, even if there’s some point at which all the witnesses disagree, that doesn’t impeach the 99% of the testimony where they do agree.
Here’s another example. At the bottom of page 6, and spilling over into the following page, he says, “I came to see early on that the full meaning and nuance of the Greek text of the New Testament could be grasped only when it is read and studied in the original language . . . This started making me question my understanding of scripture as the verbally inspired word of God . . . What good does it do to say that the words are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these word into a language ... that has nothing to do with the original words?” Again, what a huge, irrational leap!
Ehrman begins with a relatively innocuous, commonplace that everyone who’s ever studied another language can understand. Sometimes simple translation can’t capture completely all of the nuances of a single word. For example, Brazilians speak of saudade. There is no single English word that is the perfect counterpart to this wonderfully rich word. But it’s a long way to jump from this simple observation to the conclusion that English speakers can have absolutely no access to saudade, or that English translation has “nothing to do with the original words.” Even if word-for-word translation is imperfect, meaning is still accessible and the translation is circumscribed. If the Greek uses the word for “dog” the English translation is not free to substitute “elephant.” Does Ehrman expect his books to ever be translated into foreign languages? (Maybe they already are. I don’t know.) If so, why? If translation is so incredibly hopeless then what’s the point?
My expectations for this book, as low as they already were, are diminished after just a few pages. Is he going to continue to make these leaps of unbelief?
I’ll add just a couple examples from the mistakes and contradictions Ehrman finds in the Bible itself. That is, these aren’t errors made by scribes in copying; he sees these as errors in the originals. In one of the kingdom parables, Jesus says that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.” It obviously isn’t. So Ehrman concludes Jesus made a mistake. But, this is just a silly sort of literalism than no one holds. Everyone recognizes that Jesus uses figurative language, including hyperbole, in his storytelling. This is just plain stupid!
More subtly, Ehrman finds a contradiction between the book of Acts and the autobiographical section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “when Paul says that after he converted on the way to Damascus he did not go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him (Gal 1:16-17), whereas the book of Acts says that that was the first thing he did after leaving Damascus (Acts 9:26)” (p. 10, his italics). Only someone who is predisposed to find a contradiction here would find Ehrman convincing.
What does Paul really say in Galatians, if we read the whole account? “I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days” (Gal 1:17-18). So, there’s no contradiction. In Galatians, Paul claims only that he did not return to Jerusalem immediately after he was converted but that there was an intervening time period during which he was in Nabatean Arabia, the region adjacent to Damascus. From Arabia he returned to Damascus. When he left Damascus he then went straight away to Jerusalem, which is exactly what he says in Acts 9:26. The account in Acts also implies an interval between Paul’s conversion and his departure from Damascus, though the time period is left indefinite. Luke says that Paul tried to associate with the Christians in Damascus for “some days.” He increased in his persuasive ability over some period of time. And, “after many days” the Jews plotted to kill him. Both accounts allow for some interval of time between Paul’s conversion and his leaving Damascus. On the main point, that upon leaving Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem, the two accounts are agreed. The only way to find a contradiction between the two accounts is to stop reading Galatians at verse 17, not read verse 18, and jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
The weird thing about Ehrman’s complaint is that he seems to be disappointed that an extreme literalism and fundamentalist bibliolatry turned out not to be true. At heart, Ehrman is actually the worst sort of fundamentalist, a bitter, disillusioned one. None of his arguments challenge in the least a solidly evangelical view of the authority of Scripture.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Pilgrim's Regress
“‘But how do you know there is no Landlord?’
‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder! !’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.
‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.
‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.
‘I don’t quite understand,’ said John.
‘Why, it’s as plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round--round as an orange my lad!’
‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’
‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood him. It is well known tht everyone in Puritania think the earth is flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.’” (Lewis:20–21)
I've finally started to read C.S. Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress, considered by some to be his best book. I especially enjoy the description of his pilgrim's encounter with Mr. Enlightenment.
‘Christopher Columbus, Galileo, the earth is round, invention of printing, gunpowder! !’ exclaimed Mr. Enlightenment in such a loud voice that the pony shied.
‘I beg your pardon,’ said John.
‘Eh?’ said Mr. Enlightenment.
‘I don’t quite understand,’ said John.
‘Why, it’s as plain as a pikestaff,’ said the other. ‘Your people in Puritania believe in the Landlord because they have not had the benefits of a scientific training. For example, I dare say it would be news to you to hear that the earth was round--round as an orange my lad!’
‘Well, I don’t know that it would,’ said John, feeling a little disappointed. ‘My father always said it was round.’
‘No, no, my dear boy,’ said Mr. Enlightenment, ‘you must have misunderstood him. It is well known tht everyone in Puritania think the earth is flat. It is not likely that I should be mistaken on such a point. Indeed, it is out of the question.’” (Lewis:20–21)
I've finally started to read C.S. Lewis's The Pilgrim's Regress, considered by some to be his best book. I especially enjoy the description of his pilgrim's encounter with Mr. Enlightenment.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Clinton to support Alito filibuster
Newsday.com is reporting that Hilary will join the drive to filibuster Alito: Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday announced she'll join potential 2008 presidential rival John Kerry in voting to filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, just as top Democratic leaders predicted the effort is likely doomed.This just shows how much sway Kos, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and People for the American Way have over the democratic party. Hilary will never again be able to get away with trying to adopt her husband's talking points on abortion, that is, "making abortion rare."
Friday, January 27, 2006
Senator Feinstein Reneges
From Senator Feinstein's web site
Senator Feinstein to Vote No on Cloture for the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.The Democrats are intent on a scorched earth policy, reneging on every agreement made.
Oil Subsidies for Big Oil
Yesterday, I read a blog entry by a student, an acquaintance, who has declared her abandonment of evangelical Christianity. In this entry she was questioning why evangelicals are not embarrassed by the ethical lapses of the Bush administration. She ended her entry with the biblical quote, "By their fruits you shall know them," implying that evangelicals either are hypocritical in their political judgment or are too easily fooled by the president's self-proclaimed evangelical faith because of their eagerness to embrace him. She included a litany of ethical offenses.
One of these offenses was that oil companies received oil subsidies at the same time these companies were making unusually high profits. This statement was highlighted in her blog entry as if it exemplifies the "corruption" of the Bush administration. Does it? Should I, as an evangelical, be particularly embarrassed by this?
I frankly don't see why I should be. I may dispute the economic wisdom of continuing oil subsidies because I believe in free markets, but I do not see how this is an ethical issue for the Bush administration.
The best source of information I can find on oil subsidies is a report on real gas prices by the International Center for Technology Assessment, which argues that the federal subsidies for oil artificially reduces the consumer's price for gasoline from $5-$15 a gallon to whatever it currently is at the pump. Their argument is that the true cost of gas is high enough to make alternative energy sources look more attractive. This is an advocacy document opposed to subsidies. (Although their original report was first published in 1998, there is an updated version, 2005, on their web site.) The report comprehensively explains these subsidies and tries to quantify their true cost (I think they're a little overly zealous in finding subsidies.)
One could easily get into arguments over their characterization of these subsidies--for example, they believe that the industry's practice of using replacement cost rather than historical cost as a basis for depreciation of reserves is wrong; however, this is the sort of technical accounting argument one could have about many industries and is not a uniquely Republican ethical problem. Chrysler exploited accounting rules to hide their bankruptcy for a year before they requested their federal bailout during the Carter administration.
In addition, all of these federal subsidies for oil long predate the Bush administration. Here are some quotes from the ICTA's report (note the dates):
On the other hand, on November 16, 2005, the New York Times reported:
Apparently this student has bought into the anti-Bush story line as well as the media's caricature of evangelicals. Let's actually look at the fruit rather than rely on someone else's description of it.
One of these offenses was that oil companies received oil subsidies at the same time these companies were making unusually high profits. This statement was highlighted in her blog entry as if it exemplifies the "corruption" of the Bush administration. Does it? Should I, as an evangelical, be particularly embarrassed by this?
I frankly don't see why I should be. I may dispute the economic wisdom of continuing oil subsidies because I believe in free markets, but I do not see how this is an ethical issue for the Bush administration.
The best source of information I can find on oil subsidies is a report on real gas prices by the International Center for Technology Assessment, which argues that the federal subsidies for oil artificially reduces the consumer's price for gasoline from $5-$15 a gallon to whatever it currently is at the pump. Their argument is that the true cost of gas is high enough to make alternative energy sources look more attractive. This is an advocacy document opposed to subsidies. (Although their original report was first published in 1998, there is an updated version, 2005, on their web site.) The report comprehensively explains these subsidies and tries to quantify their true cost (I think they're a little overly zealous in finding subsidies.)
One could easily get into arguments over their characterization of these subsidies--for example, they believe that the industry's practice of using replacement cost rather than historical cost as a basis for depreciation of reserves is wrong; however, this is the sort of technical accounting argument one could have about many industries and is not a uniquely Republican ethical problem. Chrysler exploited accounting rules to hide their bankruptcy for a year before they requested their federal bailout during the Carter administration.
In addition, all of these federal subsidies for oil long predate the Bush administration. Here are some quotes from the ICTA's report (note the dates):
I could go on to quote more extensively from the report. However, the point should be clear: federal subsidies for the oil industry long predate the Bush administration, and many of the hidden subsidies, such as the TRA, were expanded during the Clinton era. One could argue that these protectionist economic policies are too selective, but, again, Bush did not create the policy.
Percentage depletion allowance is one of the oldest and largest tax subsidies affecting the petroleum industry. This provision primarily benefits independent oil companies (enterprises not substantially involved in refining or retailing). Until 1975, it applied to major oil companies, but Congress has gradually narrowed the application and reduced the rate over time ... Since 1990, Congress has expanded the use of the percentage depletion deduction to include transferred property.
The nonconventional fuel production credit provides the oil industry with another opportunity to avoid paying taxes. The federal tax code provides for a production tax credit of $5.75 per barrel of oil equivalent for certain fuels produced from alternate energy sources. ... Overall production of nonconventional fuel has not increased since the credit was first enacted in 1980.
Foreign tax credits (FTCs) were intended to enable multinational oil companies to avoid double taxation in the United States and in foreign countries where they are operating. In reality, FTCs enable some oil companies to avoid paying taxes in either jurisdiction. ... According to calculations in a study published by the Institute
for Local Self Reliance (ILSR), “if the petroleum industry could only deduct foreign taxes instead of taking a credit for them, we could [have] raise[d] an additional $3.38 billion in revenue in 1996. A recent report prepared for Greenpeace takes a more conservative approach, estimating that 50 percent of all FTCs claimed by the oil industry are disguised royalties ...
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA) is a recent reminder that revision (and supposed reform) of the internal revenue code often contains many new distortionary tax subsidies. Tax expenditure provisions are often passed into law with the intent of being in effect for limited periods. However, subsidies that prove beneficial to oil interests tend to receive extensions
from sympathetic lawmakers. TRA contains several new provisions that will benefit the petroleum industry. The act relaxes rules on the percentage depletion allowance and the accelerated depletion provisions and will increase the annual level of subsidy by
more than $70 million.
On the other hand, on November 16, 2005, the New York Times reported:
In a telling sign of the political impact of soaring energy prices, the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to impose a $5 billion tax next year on the nation's biggest oil companies.I believe this is terrible economic policy and will ultimately prove detrimental--this is just basic economics--but, again, to those eager to accuse evangelicals as ethical hypocrites because of Republican oil policies, this is an inconvenient fact.
The measure amounts to a one-year windfall profits tax, a concept that most Republicans had until recently denounced as a discredited idea from the 1970's.
Apparently this student has bought into the anti-Bush story line as well as the media's caricature of evangelicals. Let's actually look at the fruit rather than rely on someone else's description of it.
International Snowboarding Man of Mystery
From The Washington Times:
Democratic Sens. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota said they will support the nomination, even as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts phoned in for a filibuster from the Swiss Alps.Kerry just doesn't get it. The image of him snowboarding in the Alps while phoning in a filibuster is just too easy! Just as I predicted this image is all over the blogs this morning. There's also fairly unanimous opinion that this was a completely cynical fundraising ploy to satisfy the radical base of his party. Kerry wants to have it both ways yet again. He wants to get credit for calling for a filibuster, but waits for cloture to be almost a done deal so that it has no chance to succeed.
Mr. Kerry made calls yesterday while attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, urging colleagues to join a last-ditch effort to thwart Judge Alito's confirmation. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, joined in Mr. Kerry's call for a filibuster.
Republicans -- eager to relive the days during the 2004 presidential campaign when they called Mr. Kerry 'an international man of mystery' -- delighted in his choice of venue.
'He shouldn't be wasting taxpayers' hard-earned money on long-distance phone charges calling for such obstruction,' said Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican.
'I hope it doesn't interrupt his snowboarding plans,' added Joseph Cella, president of the conservative Catholic group Fidelis. He noted that American voters support Judge Alito's confirmation by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.
'While I'm sure Senator Kerry feels right at home at the plush resort, he has only further marginalized himself as a very liberal senator who is completely out of touch with middle American values,' Mr. Cella said.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Earmarks
McCain, Coburn to Challenge Pet Projects - Yahoo! News.
This is great. The practice of earmarks has to die.
This is great. The practice of earmarks has to die.
CNN.com - Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito
Everyone understands that Kerry is making a play for DailyKos support with this call, but it's hard to imagine that it will not backfire on him: CNN.com.
1) Kerry called for this filibuster after 5 Democrats had already announced they would vote for cloture, that is, after it was already clear no call for a filibuster could succeed. So, either Kerry can't add or this is a completely cynical move on his part to get credit with the lefties, whom he must think too dim to see through the charade.
2) He's placed the Democratic leadership in a tough spot. Several of his colleagues have already indicated they believe this will alienate the majority of Americans and create future problems for the Democratic party. Kerry, however, has chosen to ignore these objections, and put his fellow-Senators on the hook with the party's base.
One little side note: among the criticisms of Kerry coming from middle America was his deference to Europeans in formulating national security policy. When he flew his French hairdresser in to touch up his hair on the campaign trail, his preference for all things European was confirmed, reinforcing his image problem. Where is he now? Switzerland. He calls on his fellow Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, a previously unprecedented act in American history, then immediately takes off for Davos. The symbolism is rich. He's phoning it in from Europe!
It seems Kerry, once again, has set himself up for resentment and ridicule. He must be politically tone deaf.
1) Kerry called for this filibuster after 5 Democrats had already announced they would vote for cloture, that is, after it was already clear no call for a filibuster could succeed. So, either Kerry can't add or this is a completely cynical move on his part to get credit with the lefties, whom he must think too dim to see through the charade.
2) He's placed the Democratic leadership in a tough spot. Several of his colleagues have already indicated they believe this will alienate the majority of Americans and create future problems for the Democratic party. Kerry, however, has chosen to ignore these objections, and put his fellow-Senators on the hook with the party's base.
One little side note: among the criticisms of Kerry coming from middle America was his deference to Europeans in formulating national security policy. When he flew his French hairdresser in to touch up his hair on the campaign trail, his preference for all things European was confirmed, reinforcing his image problem. Where is he now? Switzerland. He calls on his fellow Democrats to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, a previously unprecedented act in American history, then immediately takes off for Davos. The symbolism is rich. He's phoning it in from Europe!
It seems Kerry, once again, has set himself up for resentment and ridicule. He must be politically tone deaf.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Sports Car Personality/Sedan Body
Cool!
I'm a Porsche 911!
You have a classic style, but you're up-to-date with the latest technology. You're ambitious, competitive, and you love to win. Performance, precision, and prestige - you're one of the elite,and you know it.
Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
A New Standard
From PoliPundit.com:
Sen. Diane Feinstein claimed that the situation differs today from the Republicans' consistent recognition of a President's right to his judicial nominees, even voting overwhelmingly to confirm such out of the mainstream liberals as Ginsburg and Breyer. She claims that Democrats are justified in denying the President (and those who elected him) his rights, because "we are so much more polarized."
Duh! The Democrats have systematically engaged in wholly unprecedented tactics with regard to judicial nominees: threatening filibusters, putting holds on nominees, and smearing candidates with racism, sexism, favoring mafiosos, etc. How does this previously unheard of, uncivil, and beligerent act solve the problem of polarization? How does polarization provide the rationale for what can only be interpreted as a recklessly polarizing act?
When will Republicans learn that Democratic senators will continue to misbehave so long as they never pay any consequence ... so long as Republicans refuse to vote only along party lines with regard to judicial nominees. It's time for Republicans to act like Democrats! Make 'em pay!
Every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted against Judge Alito, and virtually every Democrat is certain to do so on the Senate floor as well.I agree completely!
This is a new and unprecedented standard, and Republicans should return the favor if a Democrat becomes president.
From this day on, every Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee has an obligation to vote against any judge to the left of Attila the Hun. Indeed, every Republican senator has an obligation to so vote on any judicial nomination that comes to the floor.
If a future Democrat president wants to nominate a liberal, or even moderate SCOTUS Justice, he will only be able to do so with a Democrat Senate.
Sen. Diane Feinstein claimed that the situation differs today from the Republicans' consistent recognition of a President's right to his judicial nominees, even voting overwhelmingly to confirm such out of the mainstream liberals as Ginsburg and Breyer. She claims that Democrats are justified in denying the President (and those who elected him) his rights, because "we are so much more polarized."
Duh! The Democrats have systematically engaged in wholly unprecedented tactics with regard to judicial nominees: threatening filibusters, putting holds on nominees, and smearing candidates with racism, sexism, favoring mafiosos, etc. How does this previously unheard of, uncivil, and beligerent act solve the problem of polarization? How does polarization provide the rationale for what can only be interpreted as a recklessly polarizing act?
When will Republicans learn that Democratic senators will continue to misbehave so long as they never pay any consequence ... so long as Republicans refuse to vote only along party lines with regard to judicial nominees. It's time for Republicans to act like Democrats! Make 'em pay!
Culture of Corruption
Hilary Clinton used the Democrats' "culture of corruption" smear against Republicans during her MLK speech. She also said that the Bush Administration will go down as the most corrupt in history. If she makes this a centerpiece of her campaign she'll go down in flames. The Progressive Review summarizes the legacy of the Clinton Administration in this list of records set by the Clintons.
Update: Gateway Pundit links to The Progressive Review, too, and summarizes their statistics. Here are some interesting ones.
47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.If the Democrats really want to use the "culture of corruption" story line, they're going to take down their own leading candidate for 2008.
Update: Gateway Pundit links to The Progressive Review, too, and summarizes their statistics. Here are some interesting ones.
* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
* Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Kelo Applied
The infamous Kelo decision expanded eminent domain to cover anything that would serve the perceived public good of a community, including expanding its tax base. What is to keep tax exempt churches from being targetted by city councils?
See Heather Wilhelm on National Review Online:
See Heather Wilhelm on National Review Online:
Since the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision last summer, eminent domain has entered a new frontier. It’s not just grandma’s house we have to worry about. Now it’s God’s house, too. “I guess saving souls isn’t as important,” says Reverend Gildon, his voice wry, “as raking in money for politicians to spend.” The town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, has plans to take Centennial Baptist — along with two other churches, several businesses, dozens of small homes, and a school — and replace them with a new “super center,” rumored to include a Home Depot. It’s the kind of stuff that makes tax collectors salivate. It’s also the kind of project that brakes for no one, especially post-Kelo. “I had no idea this could happen in America,” says Reverend Gildon, after spending Monday morning marching in the Sand Springs Martin Luther King Day parade.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Why Isn't This Offensive?
Why do blacks not take offense at Democrats minimizing the horror of slavery through the use of absurd analogies?
According to the New York Times, Hilary Clinton equated Senate Democrats to slaves and the Republican-controlled Congress to a plantation. This strikes me as extremely offensive on many levels.
Democrats are a minority only because they have not won elections. That's very different from pure bigotry and hatred targetted toward someone of a different color. It's absurd for the rich, white, privileged and powerful to portray themselves as victims. To equate the Democrats' legislative and electoral incompetence with the sufferings of slavery is to minimize the very real horrors of slavery. It is almost to fictionalize it.
Holocaust survivors are relentlessly vigilant about analogies that minimize the real evil of Hitler's final solution. Why do blacks not react the same way to such stupid statements as Hilary's? Why, instead of recognizing this for the insult it is, do they rush to her defense?
When Bill Clinton declared himself "the first black President" because he came from a broken home, why did they embrace him rather than see this as continuing a stereotype about black families?
According to the New York Times, Hilary Clinton equated Senate Democrats to slaves and the Republican-controlled Congress to a plantation. This strikes me as extremely offensive on many levels.
Democrats are a minority only because they have not won elections. That's very different from pure bigotry and hatred targetted toward someone of a different color. It's absurd for the rich, white, privileged and powerful to portray themselves as victims. To equate the Democrats' legislative and electoral incompetence with the sufferings of slavery is to minimize the very real horrors of slavery. It is almost to fictionalize it.
Holocaust survivors are relentlessly vigilant about analogies that minimize the real evil of Hitler's final solution. Why do blacks not react the same way to such stupid statements as Hilary's? Why, instead of recognizing this for the insult it is, do they rush to her defense?
When Bill Clinton declared himself "the first black President" because he came from a broken home, why did they embrace him rather than see this as continuing a stereotype about black families?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)