Yearly Archives: 2012

Goodbye to the Hardbound Encyclopedia

After 244 years, Encyclopedia Britannica will no longer be published in a dead-tree edition. It’s going out of print. The company will continue publishing online and will do curriculum for schools. But the 32-volume 2010 edition is the last.

That’s sad. And yet, it’s a valid business decision. The company derives 85% of its revenue from school curriculum, and about 15% from subscriptions to the web site ($70 per year). The printed encyclopedias account for less than 1% of their revenue.

Today, the internet gives us instant access to the very latest information. Why go to a hardbound volume for an entry which may be out of date? For me, even if I had a set of Britannicas on the shelf, I would still go to Google first. For several reasons.

  • I can probaby get the information faster.
  • I can find multiple sources for the information I want.
  • I can get multiple points of view, rather than just the point of view of the encylopedia author for that entry.
  • I can make sure it’s the very latest information.

But as a kid, I sure loved encyclopedias.

At home, we had a set of the Book of Knowledge. I was buried in those books all the time, especially reading about various countries of the world. Later we got a World Book set, which was always my favorite encyclopedia. Very kid-friendly. I think World Book was preferred by the working class and middle class, while Britannica was a status symbol for the upper classes.

I never much liked Britannica. In elementary school, we usually had several different sets of encyclopedias in our classroom. But I rarely consulted Britannica. It always seemed too big, too serious, and the individual volumes were much heavier than with other encyclopedias. Then, when they divided the set into the Micropaedia (12 volumes of short articles) and the Macropaedia (17 volumes of in-depth articles), they totally lost me. How was I supposed to know whether I wanted the Micropaedia or the Macropaedia? So I stuck even more closely to my favored World Book.

Back in the 1980s, a Britannica salesman came to my apartment. He made a good pitch. But when I mentioned off-hand that I grew up on World Book, he began criticizing it, pointing out entries that Britannica had but which weren’t covered in World Book. He lost me right there. He might as well have been criticizing Mom’s pumpkin pie.

I recall the names of some other encyclopedias. Compton’s. Collier’s. Americana. Funk & Wagnalls. Wonder if any of them are still in print.

As I recall my formative years, engrossed in a volume of the Book of Knowledge or World Book, I’m saddened that today’s children won’t experience the same thing. You don’t “page through” Wikipedia. And crowdsourcing, which has built Wikipedia, certainly lacks the accuracy and intellectual vigor of the big encyclopedias. But it looks like Wikipedia is the future. No more little kids, like me, pulling the S volume off the shelf and spending hours leafing through it, absorbing information. A human sponge I was.

I see that you can still buy the 2010 edition of Britannica for $1400. In 1990, Britannica sold 120,000 sets in the United States. But they printed only 12,000 copies of the 2010 edition, and have sold only 8,000 sets. The remaining 4,000 sit in a warehouse, awaiting buyers.

Britannica boasts 65,000 articles from 4000+ contributors. Wikipedia has over 350,000 full articles, and hundreds of thousands of other entries, with over 100,000 regular contributors. And Wikipedia is entirely free. Of course, many Wikipedia articles deal with silly stuff from pop culture, whereas Britannica sticks to important stuff. But still, most anything you want to know, Wikipedia can tell you. I consult it several times a week.

Crowdsourcing attracts some true experts, but it also attracts common idiots like me. I have contributed to various Wikipedia articles related to the United Brethren church (just part of my job as Communications Director). Wikipedia is generally trustworthy, but certainly not authoritative. And yet, anymore ,it’s pretty much the best we got.

Another thing: encyclopedias look great on your bookshelf. Wikipedia can’t duplicate that. And nothing ever looked more classy than a set of Britannicas.

Share Button
Comments Off on Goodbye to the Hardbound Encyclopedia

Book: “One Rough Man,” by Brad Taylor

I mostly read mysteries and domestic thrillers, but sometimes I’m in the mood for an international thriller with a grand plot. You know, writers like Robert Ludlum and Clive Cussler. Books filled with action, with a hero who traipses around the world pursuing or being pursued by bad guys.

At one time, broad-scope thrillers were pretty much all I read. But at some point, my primary interest turned to mysteries. In recent years, while I’ve had my head buried in works by Henning Mankell, Jim Thompson, et al, a whole new bunch of writers have arisen. You’ve got Steve Berry, Alex Berenson, Joseph Finder, Doug Preston, Vince Flynn, Brad Thor, and various others–writers largely unfamiliar to me. I’ve read one Berenson and one Finder, but that’s it.

But when I’m browsing a bookstore or Sam’s Club, and read the jacket description of an international thriller, my heart kind of leaps. I guess I’m always in the mood for mindless, mayhem-filled escapism.

So it was that I bought “One Rough Man” (2011), the debut novel by Brad Taylor. The title comes from the George Orwell quote, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” In this case, the rough man is Pike Logan.

Ex-Delta (like the author), Logan heads an elite unit of the Taskforce (one word), a secret group working directly under the President whose job is to pursue and kill terrorists. Don’t worry about what’s legal; just find and kill.

When Logan’s wife and daughter are brutally murdered, he goes on the stereotypical Hollywood self-destructive spiral–living on a boat in squalor, drinking heavily, picking fights.

Then he meets a damsel in distress, and gets pulled back into the game. What starts out with a Guatemalan smuggler expands to include two Al Qaeda operatives, an unusual Weapon of Mass Destruction, a duplicitous National Security Advisor, a psycho ex-SEAL, and trips to Norway and Bosnia. The aforementioned damsel, of course, remains with Logan throughout.

It’s an interesting plot (as is the case with most international thrillers), perhaps a bit unusual and creative, and the writing moves along at a brisk pace, with more than sufficient action. Which is why I read such books. Mysteries usually force me to think, to keep track of characters and motives and clues. A thriller is a roller-coaster ride, and you just hang on to your hat and enjoy the journey. “One Rough Man” was a pretty good rollercoaster.

It was also, clearly, a debut novel. I could, if so inclined, identify a variety of weaknesses, none of them fatal. Let me just mention one thing. Three times (at least; I sometimes skim over parts), Taylor used the cliche “pregnant pause” in the midst of dialogue. Like, “There was a pregnant pause.” A good editor would have caught this and deleted two of the pregnant pauses. But, since Taylor was a newbie, and maybe the publisher figured the thriller world already had a Brad (Thor), perhaps “One Rough Man” got assigned to an inexperienced editor.

Well, that won’t happen again. With this book, Taylor will rocket to the big time. I don’t know how Taylor compares to veteran guys like Vince Flynn and Brad Thor (with whom Taylor is typically compared), but Taylor can hold his own in this genre. He’ll do well, and will keep getting better (especially with a higher-calibre editor). Plus, with 21 years in the military, apparently much of it in Special Forces and Delta conducting classified operations, he knows the terrain.

And what of Pike Logan? Most of these writers use a continuing protagonist. Tributes on the book speak of Pike Logan being, you know, the ultimate tough guy, and there’s the requisite comparison to Jack Reacher (and to Jason Bourne, and to Jack Bauer).

Yes, Logan is an action hero. But I found nothing particularly distinctive about him. Very generic. Jack Reacher’s got the unusual, off-the-grid, used-clothes lifestyle. Jason Bourne’s got the whole Who Am I? thing. Spenser cooks and wisecracks. Dirk Pitt collects cars. But Pike Logan? He needs a hobby or quirk or something.

I’ll definitely read Taylor’s next Pike Logan book, “All Necessary Force,” now in hardback. I’m not gonna rush out to get it. But when it arrives in paperback at Sam’s, it’ll go in my cart.

 

Share Button
Comments Off on Book: “One Rough Man,” by Brad Taylor

The Nun Who Slayed My Stereotypes

Last week, I wrote about the Sisters of Mary. As I wrote, I was continually thinking about Ann McNulty. So let me tell you about her.

You’d love Ann. When I met her back in 1981, she was 54 years old, never-married, and in fulltime Christian service. I met her one night in a downtown Huntington teen outreach center operated by Huntington University students. I was there to do an article. She was an adult sponsor that night.

Ann, slender with short-cropped graying hair, was running around in bluejeans having a great time. All around her, rock music blared deafeningly and unkempt teenagers loitered, smoked, and generally acted cool, hip, with-it, or whatever term they used back then. Ann looked out of place there, but yet, she seemed to be enjoying it more than anyone else.

I began talking to her.

“Isn’t this great!” Ann told me with genuine enthusiasm. “All these kids here!”

We talked a while.

“What church do you attend?” I eventually asked.

“Victory Noll,” she replied.

What? Isn’t Victory Noll–no, can’t be!

But it was true. Victory Noll was the local convent. So Ann was a–nun!?! Sister Ann. But–a nun wearing bluejeans!

Twice in the next few months, a couple singles from my church (both of them former missionaries) joined me in visiting Sister Ann at the convent. During those times, she demolished every stereotype we held about nuns. She was totally delightful. Humorous, lively, expressive, open-minded, and deeply committed to the Lord. We ate a meal at the convent and, like everyone else, washed our own dishes. We had some beautiful Christian fellowship as, steering clear of our differences in theology and worship, we shared our common desire to please God in all things and honor Him as Lord.

Sister Ann told us her story. She worked in secular jobs until age 27, all the time sensing God’s call on her life to become a nun. She couldn’t understand it.

“I love guys, kids, and homemaking,” she told a priest. “With those desires, how could God want me to become a nun!”

“It just means you’re normal,” he told her. “If you didn’t have those desires, we probably wouldn’t want you to become a nun.”

She continued struggling with the idea. Then her boyfriend proposed.

He was the type of man she had always wanted to marry, and she would have been very happy spending her life with him. But she couldn’t escape God’s call–which she increasingly felt was God’s call–and now she was forced to make a decision.

“No,” she told her boyfriend, “l have to take care of something else.”

Not long after that, Ann entered Victory Noll, the home base for her order. Since then, she had served two-year assignments in at least seven states, usually ministering to children (interestingly, one stint was in Tulare, Calif., where I graduated from high school). When she was back in Huntington, she helped care for some of the very elderly nuns living at Victory Noll; she expressed the joy she received caring for these women, who had devoted their own lifetime to ministering to others. Sister Ann had undoubtedly influenced countless people with her deep spiritual commitment and bubbly enthusiasm for life.

At the time, as a Christian single, I envied Sister Ann. She didn’t have to contend with people pressuring her to find a husband, get married, settle down, raise a family, etc. Twenty-seven years before, she had made a public vow to remain single so she could serve God unreservedly.

She didn’t wonder, every time she met a handsome guy, “Is this the one for me?” That had already been decided. He wasn’t. And she didn’t hear well-meaning people say, “I’ve got a friend I’d like you to meet,” or “There’s this new guy in my church. I think you’d really like him.” They knew her heart was already committed elsewhere.

In a way, I wish the Protestant community had a counterpart for nuns and monks. It would take a lot of pressure off Christian singles who are as committed to ministry as Sister Ann. For Catholics, a life of singleness and service is legitimate, valued, and honored. But evangelical Christians view singleness as a second-rate lifestyle, something to be abandoned as soon as “the right person,” or someone fairly close to it, comes along. In the evangelical mindset, marriage always overrules singleness.

I think of some single missionaries who have given their entire adult lives to serving Christ overseas. That is a high calling. And yet, I’m sure they have endured the shortsighted coaxings of other people to exchange it for marriage, to settle down and raise a family. To be altogether normal, average. When I see a single give up a very productive ministry in a parachurch organization or mission in order to get married, I don’t always view it as a good thing for God’s Kingdom.

I did it. I gave up ten years of ministry-filled singleness to get married. But that was the path God wanted me to take–I have no doubt about that. But it’s not everybody’s path. We Christians just think it is. And so, we have a lot of singles out there who are waiting for the right guy or gal to come along, so that they can “start” their life. And that always makes me sad.

Share Button
1 Comment

After We Attack Iran

There’s a lot of war-talk going on, people wanting us to attack Iran. Santorum and Gingrich are just itching to go to war with Iran. It sounds eerily similar to the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Makes me wonder how much baloney we’re being fed this time, once again, to justify another invasion. And they talk as if it would be a cake-walk…just like Iraq was, right?

You can find many people with a more realistic approach, who will explain the real consequences of a war with Iran. That you can’t take out their nuclear program with a few surgical strikes. That a war with Iran could destabilize the whole region.

General Anthony Zinni, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is one such voice asking people to chill out. When people advocate attacking Iran, he said in a speech to the New America Foundation, he likes to respond, “And then what?”

After you’ve dropped those bombs on those hardened facilities, what happens next? What happens if they decide, in their hardened shelters with their mobile missiles, to start launching those? What happens if they launch them into U.S. bases on the other side of the Gulf? What happens if they launch into Israel, or somewhere else? Into a Saudi oil field? Into Ras Laffan, with all the natural gas?

What happens if they now flush their fast patrol boats, their cruise missiles…and they sink a tanker, an oil tanker? And of course the economy of the world goes absolutely nuts. What happens if they activate sleeper cells? The MOIS, the intelligence service — what happens if, in another preemptive attack by the West, the U.S. and Israel, they fire up the streets and now we got problems. Just tell me how to deal with all that, okay?

Because, eventually, if you follow this all the way down, eventually I’m putting boots on the ground somewhere. And like I tell my friends, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran.

The other side is to ask, “Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, now what?” I guess I’m not one who assumes apocalyptic consequences whenever a country acquires nuclear weapons. The technology is out there. Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and South Africa could probably develop nuclear weapons overnight if they wanted to, and we probably wouldn’t object, because those are the Good Guys. But it’s going to spread to Bad Guys too. Some Bad Guys have them now–Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea. More and more countries will develop nuclear weapons, because they can, and because voices will arise in their countries saying their national security demands it.

I don’t like, don’t like at all, what such a world looks like. Where country after country possesses nuclear weapons, and where the next party that takes power, whether driven by ideology or religion, might be far more inclined to use them. It’d be like walking down the street, and every other person is carrying an AK-47. At some point, they’re going to be used.

David Sanger’s 2009 book, “The Inheritance,” begins with four chapters about Iran. This is not a nice country. However, an air attack wouldn’t be the quick surgical strike everyone envisions–send a plane over, drop a bomb…done. Military experts told Sanger that taking out Iran’s nuclear capability would probably require a thousand strike sorties, with some of everything–air bombardment, cruise missiles, and multiple restrikes. After each day’s bombing, we would consult satellite photos to see if we’d gone deep enough, and then order up a new set of strikes for the next day. Probably for several weeks. Unfortunately, we couldn’t be sure that we got everything; there could be installations we’ve never learned about. And even if we did get everything, experts say it would just set back Iran’s nuclear program about two years. Then the fun would start all over.

Meanwhile, as we’re attacking Iran, they would not only be fighting back with far more ability than we faced in Iraq, but would probably be launching terror strikes at Americans around the world.

Before going to war, shouldn’t we exhaust all other options? With all due respect to Santorum and Gingrich, your feverish eagerness to show Iran who’s boss is severely misguided. I know, you’re all full of American swagger and bluster and relish carrying a Big Stick, and your right-wing base just eats up that stuff. But Obama’s measured stance, and his caution that this isn’t a casual game, is far more to my liking. It may still lead to war. But at least it’ll happen later rather than sooner.

So no, I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. But it’s not CERTAIN that they would use them in any way beyond mere deterrence to hostile neighbors. I don’t want to get into another protracted war out of mere paranoia about what we THINK they might do with nuclear weapons. Even though a regime like the current one in Iran certainly gives paranoia credence.

If there’s any chance we could settle into detente, or maybe even, given enough time, become something resembling friendly–that’s what I want. Rather than making a decision, based on machismo, that causes hundreds or thousands of Americans to come home in body bags and further cripples our economic future.

Share Button
1 Comment

Marines vs. the Sisters of Mary

Joe Leatherman, drummer extraordinaire, soon-to-be Marine.

Members of the Sisters of Mary

A member of the Sisters of Mary

Joe Leatherman, the drummer for Anchor’s worship team for the past several years, left for San Diego on Sunday, March 4. He enlisted in the Marines last summer, and now it was time to head off to boot camp. I imagine that right about now, he’s not having a particularly fun time. Tired and hungry and yelled at. But it’ll be a life-changing experience for Joe. He’ll do great.

Several months ago, I asked Joe, “Why did you pick the Marines, as opposed to another branch?”

He said, “Because they’re the best.”

Anchor gave up its best young man for the Marines. It’s fitting, and we’re very proud.

Yesterday, I was researching the Sisters of Mary, a Dominican order of nuns founded just 15 years ago. A United Brethren church here in Huntington, Ind., where I work, bought the local St. Felix Friary back in 1980, and that was their church building for 20 years. But they decided to move out a couple years ago, and a foundation run by a Catholic businessman bought the monastery. He poured over $1 million into renovating it. I wrote about it on our denominational news site.

And now, the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, will be locating 40 novices there.

To become a nun in the Sisters of Mary, you go through an eight-year process before saying your vows. During that time, you earn a degree in education (if you don’t already have one), because the Sisters of Mary focus on teaching. They go all over the country teaching in Catholic schools, and they are in demand. But they are also committed to evangelism, to proclaiming Christ wherever are.

On their website, I read the testimonies of 14 nuns. It was very moving. They told about their spiritual journey, using much the same lingo that an evangelical would use–God’s call on their life, a personal relationship with Jesus, wanting to be totally committed to his will, giving yourself completely to Christ, etc. These women have a true heart for God.

In taking their vows, they commit themselves to povery, chastity, and obedience. These are quality people–most of them just young women–and they have totally sold out to their Savior. No distractions. No men, no material pursuits, no ambitions beyond what Christ wants for them.

When Joe Leatherman headed off to bootcamp, he took practically nothing with him–just the clothes he was wearing, and the hair on his head, which the Marines would soon take away. For six weeks, he would be forced into poverty, chastity, and obedience. Those weeks would train him to be a great soldier, the best, a killing machine. But just six weeks.

Then here are these Sisters of Mary. Eight years of preparation. A life of single-minded, total devotion to God. These are the people teaching young children in schools across the country.

If I’m in a scrape, I’d like a Marine beside me. Joe.

But when it comes to lots of things that really matter, I think these nuns are probably a whole lot tougher.

Share Button
Comments Off on Marines vs. the Sisters of Mary

How to Make Sacred Anointing Oil

I don’t know how many recipes the Bible contains, but Exodus 30 gives one for sacred anointing oil.

  • 500 shekels of liquid myrrh (that’s about 12 pounds)
  • 250 shekels of fragrant cane (6 pounds)
  • 500 shekels of cassia (12 pounds). Cassia is akin to cinnamon.
  • 1 hin of olive oil (a hin is about a gallon)

This was to be specially made by a perfumer, and then used to anoint most everything in the temple, including the priests themselves.

Here’s the rub: it couldn’t be used for anything else. If you made a concoction like this, or put it on anyone except a priest, you would be “cut off from the people,” which I assume means you would be exiled.

So I’m wondering: does this still apply? Has anyone tried making this formula? Is it good for anything except anointing sacred objects? Might it actually turn out to be a bestseller at Macy’s, if they bothered mixing it up?

I’m just wondering. This recipe came straight from God, so it must be good. I’m pretty sure that if I mixed up a batch, my church wouldn’t excommunicate me.

Share Button
8 Comments

My iPhone and Me, Re-United

I visited Shoe Carnival this afternoon, and was about a mile away, heading home, when I realized I didn’t have my cell phone. I remembered referring to it at Shoe Carnival. The belt pouch had been coming loose lately, not staying tight. I figured it fell off.

I rushed back to Shoe Carnival. We scoured the store, called the number–nothing. My iPhone 4S wasn’t there. Somebody, I figured, found it and walked off with it. I drove off praying, “Lord, you know who has my cell phone. Please get it back to me.”

It always helps to pray. I had read from Brother Lawrence that morning, who said we should maintain a constant state of prayer, “imploring His assistance in our affairs just as they happen.” This had just happened. So I implored.

At home, I signed in to my iCloud account, and clicked on the “Find My Phone” button. There it was–just off South Anthony. (If you’re from Fort Wayne, you are now groaning.) I could see the house in Google satellite view.

From the computer, I locked the phone. I was about ready to remotely wipe it clean, when I noticed that I could send a message. So I sent, “If you have this, please call” and I gave my home phone number.

Within 30 seconds, a woman called. She had found my phone outside Shoe Carnival and tried to turn it in to the store, but she was told to just drop it in a mailbox (which explains the somewhat odd and unhelpful behavior of the store manager–he already KNEW the phone wasn’t in the store, because he turned this lady away). So she was kind of stuck with the phone, and just went home with it.

“Where can I meet you to get my phone?” I asked.

“You can just come to my house,” she said, and gave me the address.

I drove there. A black lady met me at the door with the phone. I gave her $15 in gratitude, and was on my way home.

A prayer was answered. My pearl of great price was returned.

And I was pretty impressed by what I could do remotely to a lost phone.

Share Button
Comments Off on My iPhone and Me, Re-United

Baseball Through Foreign Eyes

I can across a wonderful description of baseball in a book which, otherwise, I didn’t like. The book is “The Gordion Knot,” by Bernhard Schlink, a German author. The book finds a German citizen coming to America in search of a former girlfriend. At one point he goes to a game at Yankee stadium. He’d never seen a baseball game before. Here is how Schlink describes the experience.

“The pitcher throws the ball to the catcher, and the batter has to try to hit the flying ball with his bat and drive it as far away as possible, while he runs to a certain point before the ball is thrown there and caught by someone. The game keeps stopping, the players change their roles, and balls are thrown and caught by the players in the team as if for practice or fun. The fans root for their team, boo, clap, and howl, but don’t become rowdy, don’t smash things, or beat people up. Hot dogs, peanuts, and beer are sold.”

I suspect that Schlink didn’t know anything about baseball until he attended a game as part of his research for the book. What he wrote above is pretty much what he observed. It’s what he wrote down in his notebook.

Schlink forgot to mention the fact that the baseball players wear pajamas. I have trouble respecting athletes who play their sport in pajamas.

Share Button
1 Comment

Only the Strong Apologize

I don’t know why Americans think we should never apologize for anything. That’s not courteous, and it’s certainly not Christian. I was always taught that it takes the bigger man to make things right. I like to think that when it comes to morality, there is no bigger man on the world stage than America. People say apologizing is a sign of weakness. No, it’s a sign of strength.

Should we apologize for accidentally burning a bunch of Korans? Of course we should. We are guests (of sorts–we forced our way in, and no need to apologize for that) in Afghanistan, and we did something highly offensive in their culture. People are being killed because of what we did. If an apology helps calm things down, then do it (though it hasn’t done much good, apparently).

You’ll never hear Russia or China apologize for anything. But we’re bigger than that. We have more moral character. We claim to be based on Christian values. We can find it within us to say, “We made a terrible mistake, and we’re sorry.”

Rick Santorum, a man who claims Christian values, argues that since it was a mistake, we don’t have anything to apologize for. I’ve rarely heard anything so silly.

I apologize to people all the time for things I do accidentally. If I bump into you as we pass in the hall, I’ll say I’m sorry. If I spill coffee on your desk, or come late to an appointment because of something unforeseen, or mess up a song on Sunday morning, or forget a visitor’s name, or don’t understand what you said and ask you to repeat it–all the time, I’m apologizing for things I didn’t do intentionally. That’s just common courtesy. And sometimes we apologize for the actions of other people, actions we had no control over, like a waitress apologizing for a cook’s mistake, or a customer service rep apologizing because the warehouse sent me the wrong order.

We live in a courteous nation. I like that.

When we accidentally bombed and killed British and Canadian troops (on several occasions), you can be sure we apologized. No, we didn’t kill them accidentally. But we killed allied troops by mistake, and rightfully said we were sorry. We didn’t want to offend our friends by acting as if we hadn’t done anything wrong. But according to Rick Santorum, since it was purely accidental, there should have been no apology. Just tell the Brits and Canadians and their grieving families to let it go, because we did nothing wrong.

Now we have burned some holy books. But since it’s the Muslim holy book, it’s okay? Is that what we think?

You can bet there is an American military officer in Afghanistan, the guy in charge of whatever they were doing with those books, who has apologized profusely to superior officers for letting his men burn Korans. And probably apologized to his men for getting them in trouble. Mr. Santorum, are you saying this officer has nothing to apologize for–that it was just a careless mistake? And you shouldn’t apologize for a mere careless mistake?

A friend told me about an American Muslim woman who, whenever she stays in a hotel room, removes the Gideon Bible from the nightstand and places it in the highest location in the room. Why? Although she’s not a Christian, according to her Muslim culture religious books are sacred and should be treated with respect. Muslims burn American flags and hang our leaders in effigy. But, though I’m sure it happens, you don’t hear about Muslims burning Bibles. If they did, FoxNews would make sure we heard about it.

But people object, “Look at all the wrongs they’ve committed against us, and they don’t apologize.” So you’re saying, let’s throw out the Golden Rule? Declare that Jesus’ words don’t apply to us?

By treating people like we want to be treated–even if there’s little hope of them returning the favor–we are modeling something for the rest of the world. We are modeling our Judeo-Christian values, upon which our country was founded. We are, in fact, according to Proverbs 25, “heaping burning coals” on the heads of Russians and Chinese and radical Muslims, who wouldn’t stoop to admitting wrong.

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you.

Why doesn’t Santorum want to heap burning coals on the heads of our enemies? Why is he coddling terrorists? (I jest, I jest!)

In my view, an apology for burning Korans was totally appropriate. It didn’t necessarily need to come from the president. But it was necessary. Because America is a nation of moral character and of strength.

If you disagree–well, I’m real sorry about that.

Share Button
Comments Off on Only the Strong Apologize

Obama: The Good, the Bad, and Occasionally Ugly

I have disappointments about having voted for Obama, but no regrets. The choice was between him and McCain, and all things considered, I’m glad we didn’t elect McCain. However, I’m not an apologist for Obama; I feel no obligation to defend him or rationalize his decisions to justify my vote. I leave that to folks like Rachel Maddow, Keith Oberman, Al Sharpton, Paul Begala, and sundry others. I might vote for the Republican nominee this time. Haven’t decided this far out.

There are things I like that Obama has done, and things I dislike. I assembled, piecemeal, a list of each over the last few months. Let’s start with the dislikes.

  • Overall, Obama hasn’t shown strong leadership, with a few exceptions. His governing style goes along with what he wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” letting Congress take the lead in legislating–and I really liked the vision he laid out in that book. But it hasn’t worked in reality, because the persons in charge in Congress–Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid–haven’t shared his approach. I realize now it was too much to hope for, too idealistic, in light of that dysfunctional institution. So we need to resort to strong leadership in the executive branch, and I’ve not seen it thus far. Disappointing.
  • Obama should have focused immediately on the economy in his first year. He did, to the extent that he averted a fullscale worldwide depression, he put some checks on Wall Street, and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in the auto industry. But then his attention moved on to other things for several years. He should have kept a laser-like focus on the economy–not just for America’s sake, but for the world’s sake.
  • There are some good aspects to the healthcare bill, but overall I think it’s a mess; he shouldn’t have ceded the whole thing to Nancy Pelosi.
  • His abortion policies have been atrocious. Just terrible.
  • Way too many civilians are being killed in drone attacks (they have actually targeted funerals of terrorists, thereby killing numerous civilians while hoping to get a couple bad guys in the mix). I approve the increased use of drones. But in too many cases, it’s been indiscriminate, even to the extent of committing war crimes (way beyond the “collateral damage” excuse). Not so much different from Bush after all.
  • Why in the world did he squash the Keystone pipeline?
  • He’s made way too many speeches to the nation. Stop it.
  • He hasn’t done enough to cut spending (neither have Republicans). On the other hand, when Republicans nixed his very generous proposals (and which Boehner seemed to initially support), he should have gone after the Republicans tooth and nail. Stop playing nice, Mr. President.
  • Too many Wall Streeters on staff (again, just like Republicans do).
  • I’d like to see more religious diversity on the Supreme Court. Bush appointed two white male Catholics. Sonya Sotomayor is another Catholic. John Paul Stevens was the only Protestant. Elena Kagan, who replaced him, is a Jew. That makes 3 Jews and 6 Catholics. Nobody from the broad Protestant spectrum. Why?
  • The size of the Homeland Security department continues growing out of hand (read “Top Secret America”).
  • He hasn’t eliminated rendition.
  • He hasn’t pursued immigration reform.
  • Should not have ignored the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. This ticks me off. Their recommendations were tough, but proper considering our dire economic plight. If you appoint a top-notch group to do serious work, pay attention to them. Don’t just thank them for their work and then shelve their report. Obama did a disservice to the country, and a disservice to some quality people (though they were fully aware this could happen).
  • This controversy over the Catholic church and contraception was totally bungled. And he still hasn’t fixed it, in my view.
  • Obviously, the national debt has continued going up up up. It’s an insanely deep hole.
  • Obama has paid way too much attention to Planned Parenthood.
  • The whole guns for Mexican drug dealers was a fiasco.

Those are some of my complaints. On the positive side, I’ll cite the following. I recognize that with each one, naysayers can denigrate it by saying he doesn’t deserve the credit or it wasn’t a good thing after all, or otherwise write it off. But these are, indeed, things that have happened on Obama’s watch.

  • Got us out of Iraq (as promised, and according to the Bush timetable).
  • Returned our focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and sent more troops to Afghanistan.
  • The world didn’t plunge into depression, which many economists said was a grave danger in 2009 (can’t prove a negative, of course).
  • Greatly amped up the use of drones, as opposed to boots on the ground. (Bush authorized 44 drone strikes in 8 years. Obama’s up to around 240.)
  • Ended Cowboy Diplomacy–“This is what America’s gonna do, and screw the rest of the world.”
  • Instituted policies to reign in Wall Street (though it’s politically bad for Obama).
  • Called attention (not enough) to climate change.
  • Boosted (but not enough) green technologies.
  • I like having an exemplary family in the White House.
  • We got Bin Laden, and Obama kept the whole operation quiet for 8 months while waiting for the right time (pretty amazing, in today’s climate).
  • The auto bailout was successful, at least short-term.
  • Passed legislation (over Republican objections) protecting women from pay discrimination.
  • Ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
  • Ended US-sponsored torture.
  • He has kept America safe. Many plots have been thwarted.
  • We’ve killed one al Qaeda leader after another, yet Obama doesn’t gloat and swagger like the Bushies did. I prefer this reserved, more dignified approach. More Reggie Wayne, less Terrell Owens.
  • Provided better body armor for troops.
  • Millions of children now have access to healthcare.
  • Hasn’t use signing statements (as Bush did promiscuously and, I believe, unconstitutionally).
  • Michelle’s been a great First Lady. Brought attention to health issues like exercise and wise eating habits.
  • Kept Republicans Bob Gates at Defense, Petraus at CIA, and Huntsman in China.
  • New restrictions on lobbyists.
  • His Cairo speech was excellent (read it).
  • Our dependence on foreign oil dropped below 50% for the first time in 13 years. (It peaked at 60% in 2005.)
  • There has not been a major scandal involving anyone in the administration. (Nor was there with Bush, if I recall correctly.)
  • We’ve been repaid a lot of the Wall Street bailout money.
  • Ended the stop-loss policy that kept soldiers overseas beyond their enlistment date.
  • I like the way we handled Libya–letting Europeans take the lead, and keeping US boots off the ground (we didn’t need to take the lead in yet another war).
  • Placed accountability standards on the scam of for-profit colleges (like the University of Phoenix) which exist almost completely on student loan money but do a terrible job of educating students (22% graduation rate).
  • Ghadaffi is dead.
  • Has greatly increased the use of special forces, and done it effectively (and quietly).
  • Instead of just giving companies bail-out money from We the People, We the People actually took a stake, a share, in companies. They can then buy us out, and have been doing so. But we’re not just giving out money with no strings (as Bush did).
  • The whole Arab Spring thing. Several dictators have been deposed.
  • Hillary’s been a superb secretary of state.
  • Strongly promoted women’s rights issues around the world.
  • The Somali pirate rescue.
  • Some progress on nuclear arms control.
  • Protected net neutrality against the wishes of Comcast and Verizon and other providers, who would have soaked users for more money.
  • Sensible rules are beginning to be applied in airport security (though at a snail’s pace).
  • Has done much to restore America’s reputation around the world.
  • Allocated more money to veterans’ health benefits.
  • Reasonable policies to open relations with Cuba.
  • Didn’t pursue war crimes against Bush administration people (over the objections of his base).
  • New SALT and START treaties.
  • Has extensively used JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) with incredible effectiveness.
  • Re-engaged the US with the rest of the world over climate change.
  • Al Qaeda is pretty much gone.
  • Paid for families to come to Dover AFB when fallen soldiers arrive.
  • Opened up the Freedom of Information Act.
  • FEMA has handled disasters (like tornadoes) well.
  • A nicely nuanced stand regarding the military coup in Honduras (I followed that one closely, having visited the country many times and written a book about Honduras).
  • Beefed up border security (but huge problems obviously remain).
  • Didn’t hesitate to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty to get bin Laden (Bush backed away from that twice). He said as much in the campaign and in his book.
  • Enabled fast-tracking of patent approvals for green energy projects.
  • Very clever cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear program.
  • Enabled Medicare to negotiate with drug companies on prices (overturned a Bush ban, saving hundreds of millions of dollars).
  • The economy IS getting better, incrementally. Considering how bad the US and world economies were three years ago, what are realistic expectations? Are we rebounding way too slow, or at a realistic rate? I don’t know. And if anyone claims to know, they’re lying. I do know that the people who think we should have returned to boom times already are just nuts. No objective person ever said prosperity would return quickly.
  • Removed restrictions on stem cell research.
  • Doubled federal spending on clean energy research.
  • Pushed alternative energy initiatives (hasn’t been in the pocket of oil companies).
  • Most diverse cabinet (including the most women) in history.
  • Stopped federal interference with states that legalize medical marijuana.
  • There are fewer anti-American demonstrations and tensions around the world.
  • More money for charter schools.
  • Appointed two more women to the Supreme Court, including a Latina (this isn’t an endorsement of their views, only of the diversity, as befits a diverse nation).
  • Ended the awarding of no-bid defense contracts.
  • Ended the Bush practice of letting White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental regulations and reports.
  • Cut tax benefits to corporations that outsource American jobs.
  • Ended some abusive practices of credit card companies.
  • Very good response to the earthquake in Haiti. We made a huge and critical difference.
  • Improved housing for military personnel.
  • Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, etc.) after years of neglect.
  • Donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Prize to nonprofits, and never acted like he deserved the award (which he didn’t).
  • Let his kids get a dog.
Share Button
Comments Off on Obama: The Good, the Bad, and Occasionally Ugly

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives