Author Archives: The Night Writer

No news from the dark side of the moon

Posted on by
1

We’re in the countdown of the final days before my wife and youngest daughter return from their mission to a distant and mysterious land. Email communications had been regular since they arrived until this past weekend when they moved to a new place where we thought the connection might not be so readily available. By Tuesday evening they should be back in “range” and I eagerly await word of what has gone on since the last cliff-hanger message.

It’s kind of like the days of the Apollo missions when Houston would lose contact with the spacecraft while it orbited the dark side of the moon, leaving the guys in Mission Control to stand vigil, watching the clock tick down until the ship came back into radio contact.

I calculate 12 hours, 15 minutes from now before I can first expect word.

Of course those crew-cut guys in their white shirts and dark ties in Mission Control were cool, calm veterans, relying on their technology and their elaborate testing, knowing the communications blackout was a natural, expected part of the plan, nothing to worry about and thank god they can smoke on the job and watching the clock gave them something to do to relieve the boredom. Really, what could go wrong?

T-minus 12 hours, 11 minutes.

We are operating under the assumption that emails in and out of the country where they are staying are being monitored, and we know certain words can lead to problems. Therefore, for example, we refer to prayer as “thinking.” This part of their trip was scheduled to include a sight-seeing boat ride that would take them within view of the land of an elevator-shoe-wearing tyrant with bad hair and an even worse temper. My wife said they were planning to think deeply about this man and this country while they were that close.

Six years ago my wife went to the Philippines with a group to help train pastors and leaders of several churches that we are connected with over there. They were also going to conduct a three-night long children’s crusade and my oldest daughter, then 10 or 11, was part of the team. That time I was left behind with our youngest, who was about five. In those days you could go right to the departure gate at the airport to see people off and everyone was holding up well until my wife disappeared down the jetway – where she fortunately couldn’t hear our youngest begin to wail, “I want my mommy! I want my mommy!” This continued without let-up all the way back through the concourse as I carried her in my arms and waited for airport security to tackle me for attempted child abduction.

This time it’s the little one who got to go, and the oldest daughter doesn’t seem to be on the brink of a meltdown. We’ve hung out, sipped lattes, made a quick trip up to Duluth, and had some good talks. She’s also found things to do to keep busy. I’m just not nearly as cuddly as her mom, however, and I know she misses curling up next to her to ask for help in figuring me out – at least that’s what I figure they’re giggling about since they get quiet and just grin at me if I walk into the room.

Just four more days and we’ll all be back together to hear in detail about their adventures, the food, the people, the markets, the dead body that was left all day behind the place where they’ve been working…

T-minus 11 hours, 43 minutes.

Update:

Contact! Sounds as if it was a bit of a trip through the dark side, but what’s a mission trip without some good stories about the conditions?

“…so glad to be back in this hotel. It’s a palace compared to what we had to endure in xxx. Moldy ceilings, dried feces on the toilet, a floor that is never vacuumed, overflowing toilets, rock hard beds, not enough light and on and on….”

Hmmm. Sounds like my bachelor days. Mental note: clean bathroom before they get back.

And your mother dresses you funny

Posted on by
1

Michelle Malkin noted this article from Robin Givhan at the Washington Post. It included this:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers…

And this…

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. “John-John” Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.

OK, they’re having trouble so far getting political traction against the nominee, they’ve tried “outing” his wife as a radical Catholic who volunteers in her church and for pro-life organizations, and now it’s time to go after the kids by saying, “you’re too perfect and your mother dresses you funny.”

Look, the president didn’t invite the family to drop by the White House for a cook-out. Perhaps the family’s thought process went, “Hmmm, president, White House, cameras…flip-flops or church clothes?”

Here’s another thought (which puts me at least two ahead of Ms. Givhan): how about Ozzy Osbourne for Chief Justice?

Good on ya, mate!

Posted on by
Reply

Hugh Hewitt posts Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s comments in response to the latest terrorism in London, and whether Australia has made itself a target by supporting the war in Iraq:

“The first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the venacular, and no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq? And can I remind you that the 11th of September occured before the operation in Iraq? Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor? Are people by implication suggesting that we shouldn’t have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? When Sergio DeMillo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplmat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that DeMillo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don’t know the minds of the terrorist. By definition you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts. And the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective fact is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq and indeed all the evidence as distinct from the suppositions suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion, that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.”

Filings: What’s “good” for you?

Posted on by
Reply

A friend of mine e-mailed to gently chide me about a recent post I wrote drawing parallels between the Supreme Court decisions on Kelo and the Ten Commandments and how the Constitution and the Ten Commandments concern themselves with standards of behavior. In that post I had a toss-off line (I buy them three for a dollar) that “in my opinion, those who find the Commandments offensive are offended more by the suggestion that there should be such a standard of behavior (other than their own) than by the mention of God.” I’ll include his entire comment later in this post, but the part of it that was most related to my original essay and the struggle I see is as follows:

We believe that standards of behavior as established by the state should not pander to any one religious order but rather to the collective will of the moralities of all the American religions, which includes no religion. Contrary to fundamentalist belief, even humanists have morality.
: )

Oh my goodness.

Or is it, “Oh, my goodness”?

Yes, everyone has a level of morality, whether it is self-formulated or externally applied: “I won’t do this, even though I might want to, because I think it is wrong,” vs. “I won’t do that, even though I might want to, because I don’t want to get arrested.” And if you’re grading on the curve, there are “good” people everywhere inside and outside of religion. I’m reminded, however, of the account of the rich, young ruler in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke who came to Jesus and asked:

“Good Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responded to him by saying, “Why do you call me good? There is none good but God. But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19).

This essentially becomes a worldview issue. To use my friend’s terms (though perhaps not his definitions), a “humanist” sees people as essentially good, a “fundamentalist” sees people as essentially bad, or sinful (there are obviously a lot of shadings within the groups, including those in either camp who wouldn’t necessarily include themselves in their respective groups, but let’s go with these terms for now). You can argue over which side can bring the most compelling evidence in support of its case.

People generally accept there should be a standard of goodness; it comes down to whether this should be a fundamental and timeless standard, or an evolving one complete with exceptions and penumbras. Roping myself to the fundamentalist side, I’d go for the eternal, if unattainable, standard over the one that relies on the shifting currents of human wisdom and fashion. I do so even though I believe that all of us, regardless of philosophy, have what Bonhoeffer calls “the vigilant religious instinct of man for the place where grace is to be obtained at the cheapest price.” It’s my belief that society is better served by acknowledging these “stretch goals,” even if large numbers ignore them, and even if there is a wide gap between what the culture deems “desirable” and what it sees as “acceptable”.

What struck me about the SCOTUS rulings on the Commandments and the Constitution is that both are important documents and were written down so that we could remember them and consult them authoritatively. If the people don’t know what they say then you can make them – commandment or the Constitution – say whatever you want, especially if you are a Supreme Court justice.

Now some will question the reasonableness of believing there is a divine standard in the first place, and the constitutionality of displaying it even if there is. It certainly makes for robust and, sometimes, even civil debate. For me, however, God is not a concept or an ideal. I have felt His tangible presence, seen His miraculous intervention in my life, even heard His voice. (So has Sandy, and you can read her recent account here.) And yet I still have better than an even chance of breaking many of the commandments every day. That, however, will have to wait for another post, as will my thoughts on the rest of what my friend e-mailed to me:

It’s not a matter of whether what’s on the Commandments is a standard or not, it’s rather that they talk specifically to a standard established by a religion–they are, after all, supposedly the word of God, but that’s a very specific, Judeo-Christian God. The laws of the country are established by consensus of the individuals herein (in theory, of course, being representational government and all) and one of the key parts is that said government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Accepting the commandments de facto does just that. Establishing murder as illegal establishes that the society has deemed this behavior immoral, regardless of our varied religions. Laws can and do incorporate the ten commandments, but the 10, as a group, in the wording of the Bible, represent a specific religious segment. That’s why we find it offensive. We believe that standards of behavior as established by the state should not pander to any one religious order but rather to the collective will of the moralities of all the American religions, which includes no religion. Contrary to fundamentalist belief, even humanists have morality. 🙂

There are some good points in there and some things I want to respond to, especially regarding what “establishment” means and how the “collective will of the moralities of all American religions” are expressed, but this post is already long even though I’ve avoided any number of tangents that occurred to me while I was writing this. I hope to return to this topic soon, and I invite your comments as well.

99 – 0

Posted on by
Reply

I have to be up and out earlier than usual Wednesday morning so the unfinished post I’m currently working on will have to wait until tomorrow. I hope you’ll ultimately think it is worth the wait, but in the meantime I’d like to direct your attention to this Tuesday evening update from Varifrank on President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, who was previously confirmed unanimously by the Senate for his present seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:

UPDATE: Judge John C. Roberts Jr.

NOT – The two Ediths.
NOT – Alberto Gonzalez.
NOT – John Cornyn.
NOT – A Woman.

Don’t Pundits have some sort of a shelf life if they continue to guess wrong?

UPDATE: Confirmed by 99-0 in the Senate. That means Schumer voted for him, Boxer voted for him, Reid voted for him. Kerry voted for him. What are they going to say? Oh we didn’t mean it? Oh, but look at his record? We have concerns? How does Schumer get to say “I didn’t vote for him in committee but I voted for him in the full Senate?

I have no doubt that the left will now paint this excellent pick as the spewed-from-his-forehead-spawn-of-satan himself.

See, Winning counts.

With Justice Roberts’ previous confirmation it is going to take a lot of Poligrip for certain senators to get those fangs back in their mouths. Not that they won’t try, of course (and special interest groups will be rushing boxes of the stuff to their offices). In the meantime, count on a lot of gums flapping and lips sputtering.

I don’t know much about the Judge Roberts beyond the initial information, but on a political level this is a breath-taking stroke by the man the left considers too stupid to be president.

The horror, the horror

Posted on by
Reply

Saw this over on Amy Ridenour’s National Center blog:

Regarding Gitmo Torture Allegations…
…if wearing a bra and being forced to stay awake 20 hours straight constitutes torture, 99 percent of all mothers of newborns qualify as torture victims.

Just think what information we could get from the detainees if we threw in a couple of screaming two-year-olds and also made them cook breakfast for the rest of the camp. And if that didn’t break them we could then send in … the breast pump.

Bulletin: France raises terrorist alert level

Posted on by
2

I received this story today in my e-mail:

Be aware that the French government announced yesterday that it
has raised its terror alert level from ‘Run’ to ‘Hide’. The only two higher levels in France are ‘Surrender’ and ‘Collaborate’. The rise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France’s only white flag factory, effectively paralyzing their military.

I haven’t been able to conclusively verify this story, but it could be true.

You’re a great audience, and don’t forget to tip your waitresses!

Posted on by
7

I’ve always wanted to say that! Here’s why:

Today I’m up to the fifth month of the six-month trial blogging period I set for myself when I started this blog. During this time I’ve had people ask me why I blog and I think this is a great question – a question I was asking myself before I even started and for which I still don’t have a firm answer.

There is one analogy, however, that I think fits: this blog is my garage band. You see, ever since I was a kid I’ve wanted to be a singer in a hot band. The problem is, I can’t sing a lick (or play one for that matter) and my sense of rhythm is such that no band would ever let me shake a tambourine (more cowbell!). For that matter, my dancing is even worse than my singing, and I have little artistic ability. But, oh, to be in a band! It wouldn’t even have to be a great band, or even a band with a recording contract. Just to be good enough to be in a garage band would be so cool.

Why do people play in garage bands? Obviously, I can’t say. Some perhaps hope to be “discovered” but I’d hazard to say that few see it as a way to fame and fortune. Some musicians may just like collaborating with others to create something. Others see it as a fun way to make some money doing something they enjoy, and perhaps for others it is just because they love to make music – whether anyone else likes it or not. Perhaps if you asked them, they’d have as hard a time finding a single answer as I have in answering people who ask me why I blog.

The only skill I have is in observation and stringing words together. I don’t think I’m a bad public speaker when the opportunity arises, but my “stage” is likely to always be obscure. Blogging gives me the opportunity to use the gift, such as it is, that has been given to me, to stretch out the boundaries of my comfort zone and appreciate whatever satisfaction I get from doing so.

Perhaps musicians of every ability also yearn for those moments when they get that perfect mix of time and place where the music transcends the mere notes themselves and touch a soul. Me too! Somewhere out there is the perfect line waiting to be written; the perfect note of irony in response to the day’s events; the sparest description that illuminates completely; the spark of inspiration that starts a brushfire in someone’s mind – the shock of recognition that causes someone to say, “Yes, yes! That is exactly what it is like to be me, and now I see myself in a slightly different light!”

Umm..okay, getting a little carried away there. I think, however, that this is at the heart of why I blog. I don’t do it to become rich and famous (though that would be nice). I don’t do it to change the world (though that would be nice, too). I certainly hope people enjoy the experience, but, essentially, it’s about my enjoyment first.

Earlier this week Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost wrote about the addiction he sometimes feels toward his Site Meter count and Technorati and TTLB rankings. To which I have to say, “Preach it, brother.” I check my own counts at least a couple of times a day, and I’m fascinated by the “referrals” page that shows from where people are coming to my blog. Some of the Google references have been very interesting. I suppose this is displays a weakness of character on my part, but as Joe himself has said, “If you don’t care if anyone reads you then you don’t have a blog, you have a diary.”

Like others who have gazed at their own blogging navel recently, the things I appreciate about the last few months are the many new friends I’ve met (some in person, some only electronically), the comments and trackbacks I get that show I’ve made at least a small ripple somewhere. Here’s to you, Leo, Kelley G, Emily, Muzzy, Sandy and the rest of the Squad, Bruce, Derek, the NARN, Kevin, the Saint and Roller Pauls, Doug and all the other MOBsters. Without this contact this blog wouldn’t have lasted a month.

One month – or six months – from now, who knows? I still haven’t come up with a satisfactory answer to the first question I posed to myself when I considered starting this blog: How will I tell if this is successful or not? One thing I am learning – and that I wouldn’t have expected when I started – is that success may be measured, but not defined, by Site Meter or NZ Bear. I think a large part of it has to do with the people I mentioned above, and the ones I’ve yet to “meet.”

Thank you, and good night! Rock on!

16th century blogging

Posted on by
Reply

While browsing an estate sale last weekend I came across a small book entitled “The Art of Wordly Wisdom,” a collection of aphorisms from the works of Baltasar Gracian (Martin Fischer translation). How could I pass on all that when it was only a buck?



Gracian, a Jesuit scholar and advisor to the royal court, was frequently on the outs with both his order and the court and eventually was imprisoned and had his books banned. The book I picked up consists of brief excerpts from his writings that can be read at random. Here are a couple:



Hold to nothing too violently. Every fool stands convinced, and everyone convinced is a fool, and the faultier a man’s judgement, the firmer his conviction; even with proof on your side, it is well to make concession, for your reasons are known and your gentlemanliness is recognized; more is lost in contention than can be gained in consummation; for such does not defend the truth, but only exhibits bad manner; blockheads are difficult or impossible of conversion; for when conviction is joined to obstinacy, both are indissolubly married to stupidity. Inflexibility should lie in the will, and not in the judgement. Yet there be exceptions when you may not yield without danger of being twice conquered; first in your decision and then in its execution.



Sounds like a case for being a moderate, but I like the part about “inflexibility should lie in the will and not in the judgement”, which to me means we should hold fast to principle over politics, especially since there are “exceptions” such as mentioned in the last line above. These exceptions would no doubt include the following:

The world is in chaos. Right dealing is finished and truth is held the liar; good friends are few; good service is underpaid, poor service is overpaid. Whole nations are committed to evil dealings; with one you fear insecurity, with another, inconsistency, with a third, treason; wherefore, let this bad faith of others serve you, not as an example, but as warning. The peril of the situation lies in the unhinging of your own integrity: accepting less than your best, being overly tolerant of stupidity, forgiving incompetence, fraternizing with the nonspiritual. The man of principle never forgets what he is, because he clearly sees what the others are.



Go here for a brief biography of Gracian.