Over the last month, I've been remedying a longstanding error by finally taking in the Ken Burns documentary, Jazz. I had wanted to see this film for years, but for various reasons have never had the opportunity to watch it from start to finish.
I sat down to watch the film with a Jazz education that largely revolved around "mid-later" legends such as Miles Davis and his profound Kind of Blue contributors, John Coltrane and Bill Evans--as well as select standouts like Dave Brubeck. I was not well versed in the catalogues of giants such as Armstrong, Ellington, Basie, Parker, Holiday, Fitzgerald, etc, and I was very much looking forward to Jazz to filling in some of the blanks. Burns's The Civil War and Baseball had already made me a fan of his filmmaking style and I was fairly confident that Jazz would be as comprehensive and entertaining as his previous work.
Briefly, the film was fantastic. It did a superb job of tracing the origins of Jazz back to the classically trained Creole musicians of 19th century New Orleans, southern black church spirituals, and the blues, and how the three were amalgamated as the hideous Jim Crow laws eventually made their way to New Orleans; through the art form's various permutations over the years, from the Dixieland mastery of Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, and Syndey Bechet; through the swing era of Benny Goodman; into the bop of Gilespie and Charlie Parker; how that gave rise to Davis, Coltrane, the avante garde and other movements that followed; ending with modern masters such as Winton and Branford Marsalis. It has greatly expanded my Jazz vocabulary, and in particular has given me a new obsession: the music of Louis Armstrong (that alone was more than worth the price of my Netflix subscription). I'm slightly less obsessed with Duke Ellington. Slightly.
Speaking of Louie and the Duke, they are in this film a lot. A lot lot. If you love their music as I do, this will thrill you. If you don't, then you probably don't want to watch this documentary--because you probably don't like Jazz, period.
The picture is not perfect. It gives extreme short shrift to Jazz guitar, which is disappointing. Jazz the film makes mention of a mere two Jazz guitarists, the very two whom, had they been omitted, would have constituted an unpardonable sin: Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt. I realize that Jazz for much of its history has been a brass and woodwind (and piano) dominated art form, but really: they couldn't devote five seconds to George Benson? Joe Pass? Pat Metheny? Wes Montgomery? The dearth of attention to the guitar was a glaring error in this critic's humble opinion. Related, but arguably less glaring, was the all-but-omitted Jazz sub genre of Fusion. This was covered ever so briefly in reference to Miles's re-invention of himself for his Bitches Brew album, but: John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra, Allan Holdsworth, Al Di Meola--all absent.
Perhaps this is because of a problem that seems recurrent in Burns's films: the ending. As was the case with Baseball, Jazz proceeds at a delightful pace through the first nine episodes and then rushes to cram several decades of material into the final minutes of the final episode. Burns does okay with a finite topic, such as the Civil War, but when the subject in question is open ended, the final episode becomes a train wreck. It's as if he's gets to the finale having edited the previous episodes sparingly, suddenly realizes "gee, we've got to finish this thing!" and proceeds to cram the proverbial 10 lbs of you-know-what into a 5 lb bag. Whereas two entire episodes were devoted to the swing era alone, the finale rushes through about 40 years, from the latter days of Coltrane to Winton Marsalis and the generation beyond (the film was made in 2000).
Of course, these are my subjective gripes. Someone else might complain that, despite the 2 part swing episode, Glen Miller, Tommy Dorsey and Frank Sinatra combined got about 5 minutes of screen time in the entire 20+ hour documentary; or that Harry Connick Jr. didn't at least get some sort of honorable mention for re-igniting the country's passion for swing in the 80's and 90's.; or that Cole Porter was completely ignored. None of these really bothered me, but they didn't escape my notice either.
Quibbles aside, this documentary was a glorious education about the golden years of one what is possibly America's most brilliant contribution to the arts (I'm torn as to whether Jazz or the Blues is greater), and should be de rigueur for any student of 20th century humanities.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Pigford
Breitbart.com journalist Lee Stranahan has declared May 1 "Everybody Blog about #Pigford Day." So here is my pathetic contribution to the scrum.
The significance of May 1 is that today is the final day that women and Hispanic "attempted farmers" can cash in on what is possibly the greatest scam funded by any government since Food For Oil.
Sadly, the "government" in question is our own, and if you've never heard of the Pigford scandal before now, this paper should bring you up to speed. The Newspaper of (setting a world) Record (in foot dragging before finally covering this story) also had a quality piece on Pigford last week.
The short, short version:
400 black farmers who actually were discriminated against by the USDA when applying for loans filed a lawsuit against said entity, which agreed to settle. Originally farmers had to have "attempted to farm" between the years of 1981-1996, applied for and been denied funding by USDA, and have filed their claim under the settlement by July 1, 1997. If their claim was recognized by court appointed administrators, they got a tax free check for $50,000. In certain cases, larger damages could be pursued.
Parameters of the criteria were altered, such that the settlement was not restricted to the farmers in the original case and the deadlines for filing were ignored by the court. Close to 100,000 black "attempted farmers" ultimately ended up filing a claim (according to the US Census Bureau, there were only 33,000 African American farmers during the period in which the original Pigford farmers were treated with prejudice). The criteria used by the government for verifying claims was so pathetically lax as to be practically non-existent. If you were black, and said you "attempted" to farm, you were eligible.
Of the 22,000 of the initial claims filed by the deadline, at least 14,000 of them were paid. That's at least $700,000,000 out of the gate. In all, $4.4 Billion could be paid out.
Barack Obama has been an enthusiastic supporter of Pigford and pushed legislation as a Senator to allow for a second generation of claims. Pigford II, as it has come to be known, allowed a new group of "attempted farmers" with claims of discrimination to file for payment. The new deadline for filing was June 19, 2008, which opened the floodgates for another 60,000 applicants (the deadline has since been extended again). After he was elected, President Obama pushed hard to have these claims settled quickly.
Pigford II is also open to non-African Americans who were allegedly "victims of discrimination" at the hands of federal lenders: Women, Native American and Hispanic "attempted farmers" have also filed claims. Women and Hispanic "farmers" may continue to file through today.
To date there has been no Congressional investigation of this scam, nor has the FBI devoted much attention to it.
The significance of May 1 is that today is the final day that women and Hispanic "attempted farmers" can cash in on what is possibly the greatest scam funded by any government since Food For Oil.
Sadly, the "government" in question is our own, and if you've never heard of the Pigford scandal before now, this paper should bring you up to speed. The Newspaper of (setting a world) Record (in foot dragging before finally covering this story) also had a quality piece on Pigford last week.
The short, short version:
400 black farmers who actually were discriminated against by the USDA when applying for loans filed a lawsuit against said entity, which agreed to settle. Originally farmers had to have "attempted to farm" between the years of 1981-1996, applied for and been denied funding by USDA, and have filed their claim under the settlement by July 1, 1997. If their claim was recognized by court appointed administrators, they got a tax free check for $50,000. In certain cases, larger damages could be pursued.
Parameters of the criteria were altered, such that the settlement was not restricted to the farmers in the original case and the deadlines for filing were ignored by the court. Close to 100,000 black "attempted farmers" ultimately ended up filing a claim (according to the US Census Bureau, there were only 33,000 African American farmers during the period in which the original Pigford farmers were treated with prejudice). The criteria used by the government for verifying claims was so pathetically lax as to be practically non-existent. If you were black, and said you "attempted" to farm, you were eligible.
Of the 22,000 of the initial claims filed by the deadline, at least 14,000 of them were paid. That's at least $700,000,000 out of the gate. In all, $4.4 Billion could be paid out.
Barack Obama has been an enthusiastic supporter of Pigford and pushed legislation as a Senator to allow for a second generation of claims. Pigford II, as it has come to be known, allowed a new group of "attempted farmers" with claims of discrimination to file for payment. The new deadline for filing was June 19, 2008, which opened the floodgates for another 60,000 applicants (the deadline has since been extended again). After he was elected, President Obama pushed hard to have these claims settled quickly.
Pigford II is also open to non-African Americans who were allegedly "victims of discrimination" at the hands of federal lenders: Women, Native American and Hispanic "attempted farmers" have also filed claims. Women and Hispanic "farmers" may continue to file through today.
To date there has been no Congressional investigation of this scam, nor has the FBI devoted much attention to it.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Tolerate this.
Oh. My. Stars.
I'm a fan of the Manic Street Preachers and I was familiar with this song, but I had never seen the video before.
Mother of pearl. This a triple serving of sanctimony with a side of narcissism that borders on the pornographic (euphemistically; video is SFW).
It also borders on self parody. Were it not for the subject matter, one could be forgiven for wondering if the video was a joke: now a close up shot of James Dean Bradfield practically licking his reflection; cut to the other prettyboys staring intently into the camera, running fingers through hair or generally pouting; cut to scene of drummer slowly, slowly strapping on oxygen mask... Yes, this is meant to be taken seriously. It's too pretentious not to be.
The song's inspiration comes from the Spanish Civil War (background here), but the video (I presume) is an admonitory of nuclear war. Between shots of the band in a sterile, quarantine-like environment (all is white and electric blue, a sensor device (Geiger counter?) runs along the neck of a guitar, the drums are wrapped in plastic, the walls are mirrored--suggesting two way glass, and (umbilical?) cables, attached to each musician, extend down from somewhere out of sight), the camera returns to a "nuclear" family in their bathing suits. While vaguely Asian in appearance, it is impossible to discern this as their faces have all been melted off. The Manics seem to be calling to mind the atomic bombs dropped on Japan (a-la their earlier song Enola/Alone).
No one who is not evil hopes to see another bomb or warhead detonated ever again. To create art that reminds us of the horror that nuclear weapons can unleash can be laudable, provided it doesn't morally equivocate or sympathize with the wrong camp. I'm not sure the Preachers are equivocating. If they are, it's modest enough that it doesn't bother me too much.
But I think they could have gotten the "message" such as it is across better if there had been less pretty posturing. Yes, I realize it's the pout shots that make their fans, particularly the females, watch.
I'm a fan of the Manic Street Preachers and I was familiar with this song, but I had never seen the video before.
Mother of pearl. This a triple serving of sanctimony with a side of narcissism that borders on the pornographic (euphemistically; video is SFW).
It also borders on self parody. Were it not for the subject matter, one could be forgiven for wondering if the video was a joke: now a close up shot of James Dean Bradfield practically licking his reflection; cut to the other prettyboys staring intently into the camera, running fingers through hair or generally pouting; cut to scene of drummer slowly, slowly strapping on oxygen mask... Yes, this is meant to be taken seriously. It's too pretentious not to be.
The song's inspiration comes from the Spanish Civil War (background here), but the video (I presume) is an admonitory of nuclear war. Between shots of the band in a sterile, quarantine-like environment (all is white and electric blue, a sensor device (Geiger counter?) runs along the neck of a guitar, the drums are wrapped in plastic, the walls are mirrored--suggesting two way glass, and (umbilical?) cables, attached to each musician, extend down from somewhere out of sight), the camera returns to a "nuclear" family in their bathing suits. While vaguely Asian in appearance, it is impossible to discern this as their faces have all been melted off. The Manics seem to be calling to mind the atomic bombs dropped on Japan (a-la their earlier song Enola/Alone).
No one who is not evil hopes to see another bomb or warhead detonated ever again. To create art that reminds us of the horror that nuclear weapons can unleash can be laudable, provided it doesn't morally equivocate or sympathize with the wrong camp. I'm not sure the Preachers are equivocating. If they are, it's modest enough that it doesn't bother me too much.
But I think they could have gotten the "message" such as it is across better if there had been less pretty posturing. Yes, I realize it's the pout shots that make their fans, particularly the females, watch.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Shameless
Words can't express how angry and sorrowful this makes me.
You selfish, infantile, stupid pigs. And no, the irony that you probably consider the comparison to a pig to be a complement is not lost on me.
You have no idea what you've done. You think you have an idea, but you don't. You're far too stupid to appreciate the awful magnitude of what you've done.
I don't know who it is that you think you've harmed. It isn't The Architects of the Bunny Holocaust, the "Biped Sadists" or whatever sort of bogeyman personas you devise for people doing groundbreaking research of the sort that has made your pathetically confused lives longer and healthier than those of your imbecile forebears.
No, you didn't hurt the scientists, not ultimately. They can, and will buy more mice and better security systems to keep pathetic know-nothing vermin like you from getting in again. You set them back, you wasted some of their research dollars. But you won't stop them. Just delayed them.
And therein--the delay--is revealed whom you've really harmed through this pathetic tantrum: my son. My autistic twelve year old son, who might one day have benefited from some discovery or breakthrough, be it ever so small, that those scientists were on the road to uncovering. Take a victory lap, heroes.
Those scientists will still make discoveries, and my son might still benefit from them, but you've put years of daylight between my son and potential quality of life improvements.
You probably don't care. I don't think you operate on an emotional level at which empathy exists. I don't think you even care about the animals, ultimately. I think your actions were committed out of pure narcissism. YOU vandalized a research facility because YOUR sensibilities were offended, and YOU decided that YOUR feelings trump all else and so YOU decided to impose YOUR will over society and its laws. Sure, YOU like animals, because they haven't disappointed YOU the way people have. Also YOU are too developmentally stunted to recognize that people are of more inherent value than animals. But rest assured: if it wasn't the plight of animals, YOU would be doing something else to draw attention to YOU and to make YOURSELF feel important. Ultimately, there is only YOU.
And so, feel high minded if it helps YOU sleep at night. But at the end of the day, YOU are a selfish, petulant child, who decided that if YOU couldn't be happy, no one could. Not even kids with autism.
You'll excuse us if we don't erect a statue in your honor. I'm sure any monument that man could build would pale in comparison your opinion of yourself.
You selfish, infantile, stupid pigs. And no, the irony that you probably consider the comparison to a pig to be a complement is not lost on me.
You have no idea what you've done. You think you have an idea, but you don't. You're far too stupid to appreciate the awful magnitude of what you've done.
I don't know who it is that you think you've harmed. It isn't The Architects of the Bunny Holocaust, the "Biped Sadists" or whatever sort of bogeyman personas you devise for people doing groundbreaking research of the sort that has made your pathetically confused lives longer and healthier than those of your imbecile forebears.
No, you didn't hurt the scientists, not ultimately. They can, and will buy more mice and better security systems to keep pathetic know-nothing vermin like you from getting in again. You set them back, you wasted some of their research dollars. But you won't stop them. Just delayed them.
And therein--the delay--is revealed whom you've really harmed through this pathetic tantrum: my son. My autistic twelve year old son, who might one day have benefited from some discovery or breakthrough, be it ever so small, that those scientists were on the road to uncovering. Take a victory lap, heroes.
Those scientists will still make discoveries, and my son might still benefit from them, but you've put years of daylight between my son and potential quality of life improvements.
You probably don't care. I don't think you operate on an emotional level at which empathy exists. I don't think you even care about the animals, ultimately. I think your actions were committed out of pure narcissism. YOU vandalized a research facility because YOUR sensibilities were offended, and YOU decided that YOUR feelings trump all else and so YOU decided to impose YOUR will over society and its laws. Sure, YOU like animals, because they haven't disappointed YOU the way people have. Also YOU are too developmentally stunted to recognize that people are of more inherent value than animals. But rest assured: if it wasn't the plight of animals, YOU would be doing something else to draw attention to YOU and to make YOURSELF feel important. Ultimately, there is only YOU.
And so, feel high minded if it helps YOU sleep at night. But at the end of the day, YOU are a selfish, petulant child, who decided that if YOU couldn't be happy, no one could. Not even kids with autism.
You'll excuse us if we don't erect a statue in your honor. I'm sure any monument that man could build would pale in comparison your opinion of yourself.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
So Nyah Nyah Nyah, America
Carney on furloughs and flight delays: Hey, don't say we didn't warn you
The link is the exact title of the piece at Hot Air, which I have left unchanged because it makes me laugh.
Yeah, you warned us about a lot of stuff, Jay. Fewer cops, defense cuts, less for "the children," dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc.
In the meantime, we've seen no abatement in the first family's vacation schedule, no paring back on gala balls at the White House, and, perhaps most amusingly no cuts whatsoever in the Department of Homeland Security Bagpipe Corps (Now that one I don't mind so much, because Lord knows how I like to hear a piper play Amazing Grace when I'm getting fondled by the TSA). Sure the White House tours were cancelled, but hey. Obama took a 5% pay cut. So, even Steven, I guess.
Seriously. Anyone with half a clue would have given up by now on these feeble attempts to make the public "feel the pain" of sequestration. The White House should have learned its lesson after the tour cancellation fiasco. The FAA furloughs are going to play much worse. Contrary to the President's assumption, people are not going to blame Congress for delayed flights; voters are going to blame the guy who could pick up the phone and tell Ray LaHood to get the air traffic controllers back on the job. Obama doesn't have to stand for re-election, but a lot of vulnerable democrats do--next year. There is speculation that the Senate may flip. I suspect that very soon, Harry Reid will be begging the President to put an end to this latest petty pageantry and get things back to normal, stat.
Prayer about Daniel 5:27
Daniel 5:25-28 NASB
"25 Now this is the inscription that was written out: 'MENĒ, MENĒ, TEKĒL, UPHARSIN.' 26 This is the interpretation of the message: 'MENĒ'-God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. 27 'TEKĒL'-you have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. 28 'PERĒS'-your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians."
Lord, how I never wish to hear you say to me Daniel 5:27. Lord keep this verse from me on the last day. And from my family as well. Preserve your servant and his family. Make us to persevere. Amen.
Monday, April 1, 2013
The Pain Train
So, I'm sure there's a moral or a metaphor or something in this post but I'm still having a brain hangover from playing at five Easter services so I'm not exactly connecting the dots.
I don't know why I still bother trying to sleep on the morning train. Evening, I'm like a narcoleptic, liquored up pygmy hippo. But everything conspires against me in the A.M. And I'm a fairly deep sleeper. Like all red-blooded American men, I'm able to sleep through approximately 90 minutes of screaming baby. But my morning commute has obviously been tampered with by someone who hates me.
By all indicators, you would think that the ride in would be a perfect place for a short coma. I'm dead tired; I sit in the "quiet" car; I have about a 70 minute ride that consists of a gentle rocking motion. But there's always something, or set of somethings that renders all of the above about as effective as a cotton-candy hockey mask.
First there's the PA system. This has been designed for two types of people: those with acute tinnitus, and those who wish to acquire it. This thing is so freaking loud that Motorhead could gig with it. I go from semiconsciousness to ducking my dad's belt every time a stop is announced. And it goes off as you're leaving one stop to announce the next stop, and again as you're approaching the next stop. Which means that at some points along the route, it's blaring every 60 seconds. And no, it can't be turned down, because the volume control is located--wait for it--on the underside of the railroad car! Yup, they though of every convenience.
Then there's the "climate control." Heat on the train is hit or miss during the winter months. Sometimes the heat doesn't work, and sometimes it's a Turkish bath, and there is no middle ground. Try to sleep with frozen feet, or drop down to featherweight: those are your options, champ.
Then there are the fun little wildcards, like today when I sat one seat ahead of Gammy Toot-Toot. Although she slept the whole way through, she nevertheless conveyed quite eloquently that yesterday's Easter brunch had a little too much dairy in it.
But still, I go through the motions. Occasionally I manage to score a few Zs for the last 10 minutes of the ride. Which leaves you feeling like you've accomplished something when the ticket collector shakes you awake and tells you to get the hell off his train.
Nah. There's no meaning to this post.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
A Man, For You.
So I thought about writing a summation of the glorious asininity in which the anti-second amendment nutterbutters have indulged over the last two months, from State Senator Rape Whistle, to Ragtime Cowboy Joe, to... this.
But then I started to reflect upon Mr. Carrey in particular--specifically, upon what sort of a pathetic, stunted man-child he is. Really. This is a man whose entire life is acting like a twelve year old who's had a few too many Red Bulls. It was funny--really, seriously funny--the first time, but diminishing returns can be a bear. Carrey's single greatest contribution to society thus far has been contributing to the erroneous hysteria that vaccines cause autism. He's thought of, quite literally, as "that guy who talks out of his ass." He's also thought of, quite literally, as "that sad, pathetic, middle aged punchinello who used to have a career."
But surely, we don't expect much more than this from movie stars, right? I mean, they're movie stars. They're pretty, petty, infantile, egotistical, megalomaniacal, pathologically insecure airheads who gather to themselves votarients to reassure them of how truly wonderful they are, as they save the world through altruistic gestures like not flushing the toilet after they pee, and using only one sheet when they make poopies (Freudian complex anyone?)--and of course, cajoling everybody else to do the same. Should we ever expect any better?
Yes, we should. We make these imbeciles fabulously wealthy. They owe it to us not to act like complete muttonheads.
Furthermore, it can be, and has been, done. Let me paint you a picture of how someone can be the biggest star in the world and still not be somebody that you want to crotch kick.
James Maitland Stewart was born in Indiana, PA, eight days and sixty three years before my birthday, on May 20, 1908. The son of Alexander and Elizabeth grew up around the family hardware store and as a young man pursued sports, dramatics and music as time permitted.
Stewart graduated from Princeton university in 1932 with a BA in Architecture (the much longed for degree that eluded Stewart's favorite role, George Bailey). Buildings, however were not to be in young Mr. Stewart's future, and within three years he was starring in movies.
Stewart was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood by the time he was drafted in 1940. His most notable pre-war films were You Can't Take It With You, Philadelphia Story, Destry Rides Again, and (my second favorite Stewart film after It's a Wonderful Life) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Stewart was eager to serve his country when drafted by the army. Though underweight and over aged to meet the requirements to become a pilot, Stewart gained the requisite weight and apparently successfully engaged in the requisite sweet talking to be admitted to the Army Air Corps (Stewart was already an accomplished pilot and had personally invested his money as a civilian to create an airfield for training military pilots, which may have factored into their decision). Not content to be used as a poster boy for the Army's recruitment efforts, Stewart became a bomber pilot, and logged over 20 official missions over Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe (although he flew many more undocumented missions) during World War II. Over the course of his military career he received numerous decorations for his valor, and eventually rose from the rank of Private to Brigadier General (President Reagan later promoted him in retirement to Major General).
After the war, Stewart of course returned to film and starred in several of the greatest and most iconic movies ever made: It's a Wonderful Life; Harvey; The Naked Spur; The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance; Anatomy of a Murder; And all of those amazing Alfred Hitchcock masterpieces: Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Rear Window, Vertigo. Though nominated five times by the Academy for Best Actor, Stewart only won once for Philadelphia Story. He was also awarded an honorary Lifetime Achievement Best Actor award in 1985. While John Wayne has always been first in the hearts of American movie lovers, there can be no doubt that Jimmy Stewart was first runner up. His charm, innocence, humility, and decency always seemed to shine through with every role--even when playing checkered characters. I've never actually seen him play the villain, though I understand he did at least once in After the Thin Man.
Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about Jimmy Stewart, his incredible career and military service notwithstanding, is that he remained married to his wife Gloria from their wedding day in 1949 until the day she died in 1994. He adopted her two sons Ronald and Michael and raised them as his own. James and Gloria also had two daughters, Judy and Kelly. He was, by all accounts I've seen, a faithful and devoted family man.
Said Gloria of her husband: "Jimmy was working with some of the most glamorous women in the world. My constant fear I suppose was that he would find them more attractive than me and have an affair with one of them. A lot of men in Hollywood became involved with their leading ladies. Jimmy was a red-blooded American male so naturally I thought it could happen to him, too. I was convinced it was only a matter of time before the telephone would ring and it would be James telling me that he had to work late at the studio or that he would be out playing poker with the boys. Well, no such call ever came. And I can honestly say that in all the years of our marriage Jimmy never once gave me cause for anxiety or jealously. The more glamorous the leading lady he was starring opposite, the more attentive he’d be to me."
The fact that a Hollywood star of Stewart's magnitude, in any era, managed to accomplish this feat is nothing short of remarkable. He's not the only one to have done it, but it's certainly far from the norm in that town.
Stewart was a model of civic virtue. Though a perfectionist on the set, he was liked by almost everyone he ever worked with. A staunch Republican and supporter of the Vietnam War, he nevertheless eshewed arguments and controversy (a virtue of his that I am well aware that I lack). Stewart once remarked that the secret to his lifelong friendship with liberal Democrat Henry Fonda was that the two agreed at an early age to never discuss politics--some suggest that they came to this agreement after a fistfight over politics early on in their friendship (It says something of Stewart's character that despite his conservative views, even the New York Times could write no ill of him in his obituary).
In short, this man is my hero, and someone who's shoes Jim Carrey would be unworthy to shine. I love Jimmy Stewart. Jim Carrey will continue to have a career of sorts. He'll never want. He'll always command a significant salary. But he'll never be loved. Not like guys like Stewart are loved. Not if he keeps acting this way.
The playbook is there, Carrey. Jimmy wrote it for you. You'll never have the opportunity to demonstrate your bravery in battle. But you can learn to emulate the humility, the decency. Give it a shot. If you try, I'll actually be in your corner. For the first time in my life, I'll be your fan.
But then I started to reflect upon Mr. Carrey in particular--specifically, upon what sort of a pathetic, stunted man-child he is. Really. This is a man whose entire life is acting like a twelve year old who's had a few too many Red Bulls. It was funny--really, seriously funny--the first time, but diminishing returns can be a bear. Carrey's single greatest contribution to society thus far has been contributing to the erroneous hysteria that vaccines cause autism. He's thought of, quite literally, as "that guy who talks out of his ass." He's also thought of, quite literally, as "that sad, pathetic, middle aged punchinello who used to have a career."
But surely, we don't expect much more than this from movie stars, right? I mean, they're movie stars. They're pretty, petty, infantile, egotistical, megalomaniacal, pathologically insecure airheads who gather to themselves votarients to reassure them of how truly wonderful they are, as they save the world through altruistic gestures like not flushing the toilet after they pee, and using only one sheet when they make poopies (Freudian complex anyone?)--and of course, cajoling everybody else to do the same. Should we ever expect any better?
Yes, we should. We make these imbeciles fabulously wealthy. They owe it to us not to act like complete muttonheads.
Furthermore, it can be, and has been, done. Let me paint you a picture of how someone can be the biggest star in the world and still not be somebody that you want to crotch kick.
James Maitland Stewart was born in Indiana, PA, eight days and sixty three years before my birthday, on May 20, 1908. The son of Alexander and Elizabeth grew up around the family hardware store and as a young man pursued sports, dramatics and music as time permitted.
Stewart graduated from Princeton university in 1932 with a BA in Architecture (the much longed for degree that eluded Stewart's favorite role, George Bailey). Buildings, however were not to be in young Mr. Stewart's future, and within three years he was starring in movies.
Stewart was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood by the time he was drafted in 1940. His most notable pre-war films were You Can't Take It With You, Philadelphia Story, Destry Rides Again, and (my second favorite Stewart film after It's a Wonderful Life) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Stewart was eager to serve his country when drafted by the army. Though underweight and over aged to meet the requirements to become a pilot, Stewart gained the requisite weight and apparently successfully engaged in the requisite sweet talking to be admitted to the Army Air Corps (Stewart was already an accomplished pilot and had personally invested his money as a civilian to create an airfield for training military pilots, which may have factored into their decision). Not content to be used as a poster boy for the Army's recruitment efforts, Stewart became a bomber pilot, and logged over 20 official missions over Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe (although he flew many more undocumented missions) during World War II. Over the course of his military career he received numerous decorations for his valor, and eventually rose from the rank of Private to Brigadier General (President Reagan later promoted him in retirement to Major General).
After the war, Stewart of course returned to film and starred in several of the greatest and most iconic movies ever made: It's a Wonderful Life; Harvey; The Naked Spur; The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance; Anatomy of a Murder; And all of those amazing Alfred Hitchcock masterpieces: Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Rear Window, Vertigo. Though nominated five times by the Academy for Best Actor, Stewart only won once for Philadelphia Story. He was also awarded an honorary Lifetime Achievement Best Actor award in 1985. While John Wayne has always been first in the hearts of American movie lovers, there can be no doubt that Jimmy Stewart was first runner up. His charm, innocence, humility, and decency always seemed to shine through with every role--even when playing checkered characters. I've never actually seen him play the villain, though I understand he did at least once in After the Thin Man.
Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about Jimmy Stewart, his incredible career and military service notwithstanding, is that he remained married to his wife Gloria from their wedding day in 1949 until the day she died in 1994. He adopted her two sons Ronald and Michael and raised them as his own. James and Gloria also had two daughters, Judy and Kelly. He was, by all accounts I've seen, a faithful and devoted family man.
Said Gloria of her husband: "Jimmy was working with some of the most glamorous women in the world. My constant fear I suppose was that he would find them more attractive than me and have an affair with one of them. A lot of men in Hollywood became involved with their leading ladies. Jimmy was a red-blooded American male so naturally I thought it could happen to him, too. I was convinced it was only a matter of time before the telephone would ring and it would be James telling me that he had to work late at the studio or that he would be out playing poker with the boys. Well, no such call ever came. And I can honestly say that in all the years of our marriage Jimmy never once gave me cause for anxiety or jealously. The more glamorous the leading lady he was starring opposite, the more attentive he’d be to me."
The fact that a Hollywood star of Stewart's magnitude, in any era, managed to accomplish this feat is nothing short of remarkable. He's not the only one to have done it, but it's certainly far from the norm in that town.
Stewart was a model of civic virtue. Though a perfectionist on the set, he was liked by almost everyone he ever worked with. A staunch Republican and supporter of the Vietnam War, he nevertheless eshewed arguments and controversy (a virtue of his that I am well aware that I lack). Stewart once remarked that the secret to his lifelong friendship with liberal Democrat Henry Fonda was that the two agreed at an early age to never discuss politics--some suggest that they came to this agreement after a fistfight over politics early on in their friendship (It says something of Stewart's character that despite his conservative views, even the New York Times could write no ill of him in his obituary).
In short, this man is my hero, and someone who's shoes Jim Carrey would be unworthy to shine. I love Jimmy Stewart. Jim Carrey will continue to have a career of sorts. He'll never want. He'll always command a significant salary. But he'll never be loved. Not like guys like Stewart are loved. Not if he keeps acting this way.
The playbook is there, Carrey. Jimmy wrote it for you. You'll never have the opportunity to demonstrate your bravery in battle. But you can learn to emulate the humility, the decency. Give it a shot. If you try, I'll actually be in your corner. For the first time in my life, I'll be your fan.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
20 things that British murder mystery shows have taught me about England
1. There are four things that the British take extremely seriously: their drink, their gardening, their tea, and their adultery.
2. Half of the people in England are aristocracy who live in large manors. The other half is comprised of the servants, the local vicar, the pub owner, prep school students, prep school faculty, and police officers.
3. Every aristocratic family in England has at least one secret love child. This individual may either be one of the servants or a "cousin" who has conveniently come to visit right about the time someone in the family is murdered.
4. The father of the love child is always either the lord of the manor, or the local vicar. The mother is either a former servant or the barmaid at the local pub.
5. Unless there are horses on the estate, in which case the child is the product of the stablemaster and the lady of the manor.
6. Every family in England, whether gentry or otherwise, has at least one gay son.
7. All religious people in England are depraved perverts.
8. The English have no fear of or respect for law enforcement, and will often rudely cut off an officer's line of questioning by driving off in their car. Or riding off on their horse.
9. In England, there is a festival held on a different village green every day of the year.
10. There are only six places that exist in England: pubs, village greens, manors, prep schools, churches, and police stations.
11. With few exceptions, all police officers in England are either Detective Inspectors or the younger Detective Sergeant assigned to work with him.
12. With few exceptions, the DI and the DS are always male. They are never the gay son of the family.
13. In England, if the Detective Inspector is married, his wife ends up inexplicably involved in 60% in his cases, with her life in peril approximately 20% of the time. 14. Every house in England has a freshly brewed pot of tea on hand any time, day or night, without fail.
15. Every house in England has a half full decanter of whiskey and four whiskey glasses on a table in the parlor, without fail.
16. If an English gentleman is drinking brandy by himself in his study at night, he is very likely about to be murdered. This also applies to headmasters at prep schools.
17. If an English lady is out riding her horse alone upon the open countryside, she is very likely about to be murdered.
18. In England, if a vicar is ever alone in his church after dark, he's either about to be murdered, or has just returned from murdering someone.
19. Any English person walking alone in the woods at any time of day is either about to be murdered, or about to discover the body of a murder victim.
20. Every class in every prep school in England has murdered at least one of its classmates, or killed one in a school prank gone terribly wrong.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I'm not biased; you're Satan
An interesting article by Ronald Bailey at Reason.com analyzes how ideological and/or political bias can cause "moralization" of contested scientific theories or topics, leading to resistance--on moral grounds--of data that conflicts with an individual's point of view. Citing two previous studies that demonstrate how moral, political and cultural identity influence bias, Bailey says that liberals and conservatives (the article also uses the terms "Democrats" and "Republicans") each moralize their own sacred issues: "while conservatives moralize about the purity and sanctity of sex and reproduction, liberals fret about the moral purity of foods and the sanctity of the natural world." This moralization creates a barrier against accepting scientific data that goes against preconceived narratives; furthermore, not only is the data perceived to be incorrect, it's judged immoral. No, I won't accept your data that suggests that this animal should be removed from the endangered species list. And by the way, you're the devil.
Possibly owing somewhat to my own bias, I notice this moralization phenomenon more often among liberals than conservatives, and obviously not just in regard to science (You didn't vote for Obama? You must be a racist). Pertaining to science, the issue that inspires the most zealotry (apart from assertion that the fetus is not-and-I-mean-it-you-son-of-b****-not a person) is climate change. Though really just a plank in the larger environmentalist doctrine, global warming has gotten legs in the last decade as an unquestionable article of faith among a significant swath of the liberal public. As sometimes happens with dogma, the more zealous of the faithful view their opposition as morally depraved--and thus fair game for attack and dehumanization.Thus, Al Gore's characterization of global warming skeptics as Holocaust Deniers or racists. Gore, no stranger to demonization, had previously referred to his ideological opponents as "Brown Shirts."
To be sure, conservatives, can also use ad hominem, sometimes viciously so, a recent example being Rush Limbaugh labelling Sandra Fluke a "slut" (Rush apologized a few days later. I'm pretty sure he never called her a Nazi. Still waiting for an apology from Al, btw). In the months leading up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of conservatives questioned the patriotism and the intestinal fortitude of those who opposed the wars. And of course, we on the right have had our little jokes about the President being a socialist. Although, in fairness, he's a socialist. But in general, I don't often observe conservatives characterizing their opponents as the lowest forms of humanity for simply having the audacity to disagree. I think that Richard Dawkins' belief in Darwinian evolution is wrong; I don't think he's stupid, a racist, a misogynist or any other cruel or sub-humanizing term one could conjure. Dawkins, by contrast, wants to separate the "brights" who believe in macroevolution from the..."not-brights?" "Dims?" ... such as myself, who do not accept the theory. That might be a softer marginalization, but which group do you want to be in? You want to be considered bright, don't you? Don't you?
Do I as a conservative moralize science? Owing more to being a Christian than a conservative, I am obviously biased against the theory of naturalistic evolution. Thankfully, I believe there are very good scientific reasons for rejecting the theory, but I can certainly understand how someone who does not believe as I do could see me as dogmatic and irrational. Yes, it would cause a "moral" crisis in me if this theory were somehow proven incontrovertibly true. Indeed, the entire meaning of life for me would be destroyed. But again, I feel no contempt toward those who disagree with me. So my "moralization," such as it is, does not extend to defamation.
There are other science-related bones of contention about which conservatives tend to be like minded, but which don't necessarily involve moralization. I am skeptical of Anthropomorphic Global Warming--or at least the most hysterical renderings of such--but I feel no moral compulsion whatsoever to hold this view (whereas, according to Bailey, this as an environmental concern tends to be a moral issue for liberals). I'm open to having my mind changed. But I'm not impartial, and the Yale Cultural Cognition Project that Bailey cites identifies one of the reasons: AGW skeptics have a deep mistrust of Al Gore. I confess, I wouldn’t trust Mr. Gore to demonstrate the correct way to affix a paper clip. His reputation as an ethically-challenged, disingenuous, opportunistic hypocrite was established long before his dreams of making a quick billion from the climate change racket became apparent. Of course, Gore's defects don't make him wrong. But add to this the “Climategate” scandal, in which a veritable who's-who of the world’s leading climate change scientists (indeed, some of the very same scientists whose work was used in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth) were found to be falsifying data, intimidating journals that dared to publish against the narrative, and demonstrating a willingness to delete damaging documents rather than comply with a FOIA request, and the AGW brand appears damaged, to say the least. And, there is this pesky and ever increasingly corroborated trend (corroborated even by the CRU's Phil Jones!) that would seem to indicate that the planet hasn’t warmed in at least a dozen years. Now, I could be completely wrong and ultimately found out as a fool for my stance, but for now I am not buying into the hysteria.
Anyway, back to the article. Having compiled survey responses from liberals and conservatives on a handful of science-related issues, Bailey compares them to "majority scientific opinions" to suggest how the particular biases of the left and right lead to inaccuracy in their understanding of specific areas of scientific study. (yes, consensus of scientists is not science, yes it's not a very rigorous study, no, it can't account for the political biases of the scientists themselves--but the results are interesting nonetheless). The areas of research analyzed are: "climate change, biological evolution, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, exposure to synthetic chemicals, concealed carry of guns, vaccines, [harmful effects of] video games, fracking, organic foods, and sex education. A quick rundown, if you're too lazy to read the article (or haven't abandoned this one yet): As I more or less expected, the findings suggest that scientific opinion more often aligns with conservative opinion on nuclear power (good), modified crops (good), synthetic chemicals (benefit outweighs risk), conceal/carry (does not lead to increased violence), and fracking (good). Conservatives also "win" on organic foods, on the basis that there's no benefit to the environment or remarkable nutritional value from buying organic. As I likewise guessed, liberals were more harmonious with broad scientific opinion on global warming (real), evolution (real), video games (not harmful), and sex education (beneficial). The one area where both the right and left are complete whackjobs, it turns out, is vaccinations.
I take exception with Bailey's oversimplification/lumping of non-naturalistic evolutionists into the categories of “young Earthers” and “intelligent designers”--the latter defined as those who believe that God used evolution to guide life. While there are non-young Earth Christians who are comfortable with evolution (Dinesh D’Souza being one example), most "I.D.ers" of whom I am aware reject macroevolution outright (for the record, I'm an “old Earth Intelligent Designer"). By and large, the article is an interesting and fair examination of the correlations between the things we value and how that bears upon the "science" we believe.
Possibly owing somewhat to my own bias, I notice this moralization phenomenon more often among liberals than conservatives, and obviously not just in regard to science (You didn't vote for Obama? You must be a racist). Pertaining to science, the issue that inspires the most zealotry (apart from assertion that the fetus is not-and-I-mean-it-you-son-of-b****-not a person) is climate change. Though really just a plank in the larger environmentalist doctrine, global warming has gotten legs in the last decade as an unquestionable article of faith among a significant swath of the liberal public. As sometimes happens with dogma, the more zealous of the faithful view their opposition as morally depraved--and thus fair game for attack and dehumanization.Thus, Al Gore's characterization of global warming skeptics as Holocaust Deniers or racists. Gore, no stranger to demonization, had previously referred to his ideological opponents as "Brown Shirts."
To be sure, conservatives, can also use ad hominem, sometimes viciously so, a recent example being Rush Limbaugh labelling Sandra Fluke a "slut" (Rush apologized a few days later. I'm pretty sure he never called her a Nazi. Still waiting for an apology from Al, btw). In the months leading up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of conservatives questioned the patriotism and the intestinal fortitude of those who opposed the wars. And of course, we on the right have had our little jokes about the President being a socialist. Although, in fairness, he's a socialist. But in general, I don't often observe conservatives characterizing their opponents as the lowest forms of humanity for simply having the audacity to disagree. I think that Richard Dawkins' belief in Darwinian evolution is wrong; I don't think he's stupid, a racist, a misogynist or any other cruel or sub-humanizing term one could conjure. Dawkins, by contrast, wants to separate the "brights" who believe in macroevolution from the..."not-brights?" "Dims?" ... such as myself, who do not accept the theory. That might be a softer marginalization, but which group do you want to be in? You want to be considered bright, don't you? Don't you?
Do I as a conservative moralize science? Owing more to being a Christian than a conservative, I am obviously biased against the theory of naturalistic evolution. Thankfully, I believe there are very good scientific reasons for rejecting the theory, but I can certainly understand how someone who does not believe as I do could see me as dogmatic and irrational. Yes, it would cause a "moral" crisis in me if this theory were somehow proven incontrovertibly true. Indeed, the entire meaning of life for me would be destroyed. But again, I feel no contempt toward those who disagree with me. So my "moralization," such as it is, does not extend to defamation.
There are other science-related bones of contention about which conservatives tend to be like minded, but which don't necessarily involve moralization. I am skeptical of Anthropomorphic Global Warming--or at least the most hysterical renderings of such--but I feel no moral compulsion whatsoever to hold this view (whereas, according to Bailey, this as an environmental concern tends to be a moral issue for liberals). I'm open to having my mind changed. But I'm not impartial, and the Yale Cultural Cognition Project that Bailey cites identifies one of the reasons: AGW skeptics have a deep mistrust of Al Gore. I confess, I wouldn’t trust Mr. Gore to demonstrate the correct way to affix a paper clip. His reputation as an ethically-challenged, disingenuous, opportunistic hypocrite was established long before his dreams of making a quick billion from the climate change racket became apparent. Of course, Gore's defects don't make him wrong. But add to this the “Climategate” scandal, in which a veritable who's-who of the world’s leading climate change scientists (indeed, some of the very same scientists whose work was used in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth) were found to be falsifying data, intimidating journals that dared to publish against the narrative, and demonstrating a willingness to delete damaging documents rather than comply with a FOIA request, and the AGW brand appears damaged, to say the least. And, there is this pesky and ever increasingly corroborated trend (corroborated even by the CRU's Phil Jones!) that would seem to indicate that the planet hasn’t warmed in at least a dozen years. Now, I could be completely wrong and ultimately found out as a fool for my stance, but for now I am not buying into the hysteria.
Anyway, back to the article. Having compiled survey responses from liberals and conservatives on a handful of science-related issues, Bailey compares them to "majority scientific opinions" to suggest how the particular biases of the left and right lead to inaccuracy in their understanding of specific areas of scientific study. (yes, consensus of scientists is not science, yes it's not a very rigorous study, no, it can't account for the political biases of the scientists themselves--but the results are interesting nonetheless). The areas of research analyzed are: "climate change, biological evolution, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, exposure to synthetic chemicals, concealed carry of guns, vaccines, [harmful effects of] video games, fracking, organic foods, and sex education. A quick rundown, if you're too lazy to read the article (or haven't abandoned this one yet): As I more or less expected, the findings suggest that scientific opinion more often aligns with conservative opinion on nuclear power (good), modified crops (good), synthetic chemicals (benefit outweighs risk), conceal/carry (does not lead to increased violence), and fracking (good). Conservatives also "win" on organic foods, on the basis that there's no benefit to the environment or remarkable nutritional value from buying organic. As I likewise guessed, liberals were more harmonious with broad scientific opinion on global warming (real), evolution (real), video games (not harmful), and sex education (beneficial). The one area where both the right and left are complete whackjobs, it turns out, is vaccinations.
I take exception with Bailey's oversimplification/lumping of non-naturalistic evolutionists into the categories of “young Earthers” and “intelligent designers”--the latter defined as those who believe that God used evolution to guide life. While there are non-young Earth Christians who are comfortable with evolution (Dinesh D’Souza being one example), most "I.D.ers" of whom I am aware reject macroevolution outright (for the record, I'm an “old Earth Intelligent Designer"). By and large, the article is an interesting and fair examination of the correlations between the things we value and how that bears upon the "science" we believe.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Meanwhile, in Bloombergistan
It would appear that King Michael the Diminutive has found a new way to wave his freak flag high.
Next on the docket: a ban on Mike and Ike candies in order to prevent impressionable children from popping pill-like objects into their mouths.
Next on the docket: a ban on Mike and Ike candies in order to prevent impressionable children from popping pill-like objects into their mouths.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
More thoughts on causality
Yes, this is actually the kind of drek that I think about on my lunch break. Let the beating commence.
I stumbled across this in an anthology of Aristotle:
Therefore nothing either is or happens by chance or as chance has it; nor will it be nor not be thus. Rather, everything happens from necessity and not as chance has it, since either the affirmer or the denier speaks truly. For otherwise, it might equally well happen or not happen; for what happens as chance has it neither is nor will be any more this way than that.
Further, if something is pale now, it was true to say previously that it would be pale, so that it was always true to say of any thing that has happened that it would be. But if it was always true to say that it was or would be, it could not not be, or not be going to be. But if something cannot not happen, it is impossible for it not to happen; and what cannot not happen necessarily happens. Everything, then, that will be will be necessarily. Therefore, nothing will be as chance has it or by chance; for if it is by chance it is not from necessity.
It appears that Aristotle is making an argument here which then he goes on to refute, namely that nothing happens by chance. His reason for refuting "fate" is the (to him) self-evident fact that until an event has occurred, any number of variables may work to derive numerous possible outcomes:
For we see that both deliberation and action originate things that will be; and, in general, we see in things that are not always in actuality that there is the possibility both of being and of not being; in these cases both being and not being, and hence both happening and not happening, are possible.So when I opened my closet to decide what tie I was going to wear today, it was not necessary that I pick the paisley tie that I am currently wearing; as many ties as existed in my closet were available to me as potential options (not to mention I could have stopped at work to buy a new tie, stolen one, etc.). I had to put thought into the decision (about .00000000000234 nanoseconds, as it turned out). I had to consider if it would be appropriate for a meeting, how it would go with the suit I planned to wear, etc. Now, if 2000 years ago, someone had said "on March 14, 2013, Geoff White will wear a paisley tie to work," it would have been a factually true statement, and never not true from then until today. But it would not be necessarily true--rather it would be coincidentally true.
Aristotle seems to be hanging his straw man argument on the influence of the declarer to affect the outcome: "everything happens
Unless of course, the one making the statement has the power to cause the outcome to be. The first excerpt is an accurate depiction of reality if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, ubiquitous-to-all-times-and-places God, who "works all things after the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11)", issuing the decree.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
I'm sure there's a metaphor in this story...
...for being a Cubs fan.
And hey, half the team is almost not broken anymore.
It's going to be a banner year. Banner.
And hey, half the team is almost not broken anymore.
It's going to be a banner year. Banner.
WaPo: Chosen One's popularity waning
Looks like the American people were not amused with the SEQUESTRAGEDDON(!!!!!!!) scare tactics.
As America's Sweetheart famously asked: What difference does it make?
Barack Obama could spend his next SOTU address clubbing baby seals to death and you hacks at the Post would find some way to spin it as a cautionary metaphor for the Republicans' Medicare designs. So Barry's taken a hit in the polls. You people still remember how to skew a sample, right? He'll be back in the mid 50's by Easter.
Sigh. Hit it, boys.
As America's Sweetheart famously asked: What difference does it make?
Barack Obama could spend his next SOTU address clubbing baby seals to death and you hacks at the Post would find some way to spin it as a cautionary metaphor for the Republicans' Medicare designs. So Barry's taken a hit in the polls. You people still remember how to skew a sample, right? He'll be back in the mid 50's by Easter.
Sigh. Hit it, boys.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Michael I the Diminutive
So, a question to New Yorkers: why do you tolerate this jackass?
With all the problems that must beleaguer the Mayor of the largest city in the country--terror threats, a 9% unemployment rate, continued fallout from Hurricane Sandy, and yes, cannibal cops, Michael Bloomberg has chosen to die upon a mound of > 16 oz soft drinks.
This is the guy who took the baton from Rudy? This the guy who holds the office once held by Ed Koch? By striking down this pathetic ban, Justice Tingling handed the Mayor a gift; Bloomberg now has a chance to be remembered as something other than a nanny state wet nurse who followed 8.2 million people around with a blood glucose meter and a bottle of Lipitor. Instead he's going to fight on, because it's just that darned important to him to control your Nehi intake. Seriously, New Yorkers, aren't you just a little bit embarrassed to be represented by this dope?
This is not the New York I remember.
I have only been to New York City once in my life--back in the mid-'90s--and the experience was so jarring I vowed I would never go back. You people used to be so badass.
I remember being offered crack literally at every entrance to every park in the city.
I remember going into a record store, seeing the item I wanted, and leaving without buying it because the store owner couldn't interrupt his prolonged, profanity-saturated polemic to the hapless soul on the other end of the phone line long enough to ring up my purchase. Seriously, this guy didn't stop to breathe for 10 minutes. It was a thing of beauty.
I remember being in Times Square on New Year's Eve, wishing one and all a Happy New Year, and receiving in reply from one and all, a hearty "f*** you."
I remember my buddy and I nearly getting the guano beaten out of us by some goons on the subway Flushing line because they mistook us for a gay couple (I think it was our matching Yves Saint Laurent duffles). Luckily some cops, divinely appointed to be at the station when the train stopped, saved our lives.
I can't believe this is how you're going to let yourselves be treated, Gotham. You have got to throw this bum out. Look, it's a given that you're always going to elect someone to the left of Abbie Hoffman as your mayor. That just goes without saying. You're New York. Rudy was a guilty pleasure for which you must forever atone. I get it. But for goodness sake, next time elect a liberal who still suffers your self respect.
With all the problems that must beleaguer the Mayor of the largest city in the country--terror threats, a 9% unemployment rate, continued fallout from Hurricane Sandy, and yes, cannibal cops, Michael Bloomberg has chosen to die upon a mound of > 16 oz soft drinks.
This is the guy who took the baton from Rudy? This the guy who holds the office once held by Ed Koch? By striking down this pathetic ban, Justice Tingling handed the Mayor a gift; Bloomberg now has a chance to be remembered as something other than a nanny state wet nurse who followed 8.2 million people around with a blood glucose meter and a bottle of Lipitor. Instead he's going to fight on, because it's just that darned important to him to control your Nehi intake. Seriously, New Yorkers, aren't you just a little bit embarrassed to be represented by this dope?
This is not the New York I remember.
I have only been to New York City once in my life--back in the mid-'90s--and the experience was so jarring I vowed I would never go back. You people used to be so badass.
I remember being offered crack literally at every entrance to every park in the city.
I remember going into a record store, seeing the item I wanted, and leaving without buying it because the store owner couldn't interrupt his prolonged, profanity-saturated polemic to the hapless soul on the other end of the phone line long enough to ring up my purchase. Seriously, this guy didn't stop to breathe for 10 minutes. It was a thing of beauty.
I remember being in Times Square on New Year's Eve, wishing one and all a Happy New Year, and receiving in reply from one and all, a hearty "f*** you."
I remember my buddy and I nearly getting the guano beaten out of us by some goons on the subway Flushing line because they mistook us for a gay couple (I think it was our matching Yves Saint Laurent duffles). Luckily some cops, divinely appointed to be at the station when the train stopped, saved our lives.
I can't believe this is how you're going to let yourselves be treated, Gotham. You have got to throw this bum out. Look, it's a given that you're always going to elect someone to the left of Abbie Hoffman as your mayor. That just goes without saying. You're New York. Rudy was a guilty pleasure for which you must forever atone. I get it. But for goodness sake, next time elect a liberal who still suffers your self respect.
So Claire...
You're not a fan of the Love Touch either, eh?
Maybe you wanna, I dunno, have a talk with the leader of your party? The guy who presently resides at 1600 Penn? Maybe some of you and your fellow Democratic Senators could ask him to get Auntie Bad Touch to lay off a little?
Just a thought.
Maybe you wanna, I dunno, have a talk with the leader of your party? The guy who presently resides at 1600 Penn? Maybe some of you and your fellow Democratic Senators could ask him to get Auntie Bad Touch to lay off a little?
Just a thought.
Monday, March 11, 2013
WIAAC Part II: Free Will
In my previous post, I stated my belief that God controls and in fact causes everything, including the outcome that some and not others come to saving faith in Christ.
There are a more than a few objections to this position and I'll try to devote some posts to some of the more common ones. This post is devoted to the concept of free will.
Before I go any further, allow me to state what a debt of gratitude I owe to Wayne Grudem for helping me make sense of this topic (and of Reformed theology in general). His chapters on God's Providence and Election and Reprobation in Systematic Theology have been extremely helpful to me in attempting to understand this and a great many other theological concepts. My friend Greg gave me Dr. Grudem's book as a present for standing in his wedding (Greg's, not Dr. Grudem's) and it's one of the best presents I've ever received. I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to go deeper in their knowledge of Christian Theology.
Prior to embracing my faith, and for many years thereafter, my understanding of free will was something like: "complete autonomy as a sentient, moral being to make any decision I chose, without being compelled in any way." Maybe not the best definition, but I think it gets at the general idea: I, and I alone, was the ultimate causal agent for every choice I ever made. Obviously, things like circumstance, mood, fatigue, misunderstanding of the present situation in which I found myself, etc, could influence my decisions. But ultimately, there was no other force, be it God or fate, pulling the trigger on "my choices." I had ultimate self-determination.
I have since come to understand that this is a crock of haggis.
To properly explain my present understanding of the relationship between God's will and our own, I have to start by saying that there is in fact no way to explain it--at least not completely; it is a mystery which human understanding can only begin to approach: namely, that God controls everything, including us, and yet we willingly make real decisions that have real consequences. Dr Grudem describes the paradox this way:
Consider the following verses:
Proverbs 16:1: "The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord."
Proverbs 16:9: "The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps."
Proverbs 19:21: "Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel [sometimes translated: purpose] of the Lord will stand."
Proverbs 20:24: "Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?"
Proverbs 21:1: "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord. He turns it wherever He wishes."
Jeremiah 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct himself."
While some of these verses acknowledge that humans play a role as intentional, willing beings, all indicate that it is not people who are the ultimate causal agents of their decisions and actions: The answer that your mouth speaks is from the Lord. The Lord directs your steps. Your every step has been ordained by God from eternity. God turns your heart whichever way He wishes. It is not for your to direct your way. And yet, the Bible is stuffed with examples of people who make decisions and engage in patterns of behavior which in every case are recognized as having been done willingly, and for which the individuals in question are held accountable. In every case where someone sins, God regards the individual in question as a moral being who has acted willingly, and God holds the individual morally responsible for their sin.
As a brief aside: If the implications of the previous paragraph don't make you tremble, consider the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. God ordained/willed/directed that these two to feign that a financial gift to the church was the entire proceeds from the sale of their property, when in fact they had pocketed some of the cash (making themselves look good and making some money at the same time). God wills that this happen, and they willingly comply. The result is that God is angered and kills them both. God wills that they do something that outrages Him, so that He can punish them. Reading an event like this causes me to praise God for His mercy that He has not seen fit to deal with me in like manner.
How does the Bible describe God's sovereign direction of human will when it comes to the salvation of Christians? Here are a few verses for your consideration.
Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Romans 9: 16: "So then, it does not depend on the man who wills, or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
Philippians 2:12c-13: "...work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
These verses seem to rule out human beings as the ultimate determining agent for their salvation, or in the case of Philippians 2:12-13, continuing on in their faith. Ephesians 2: 8-9 and Romans 9:16 seem to disqualify human will from as playing any role whatsoever in the believer being saved. Salvation is "not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as a result of works." "It does not depend" on man's will or man's striving. It's like Paul is writing out in capital letters, underscored, "YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER" in salvation. Yes, as with all other decisions we make, we who are believers willingly responded to God's call. But these verses make clear that (as with all other decisions we make) the necessary cause for this outcome was not our will, but God's. If you are saved, you are saved because God willed for you to be saved, not because you willed it.
Furthermore, and without straying too far into the doctrine of Total Depravity (to which I hope to devote another post in the future), you couldn't have decided to accept Christ on your own.
Romans 3:10-12:
In this passage, Paul is quoting certain passages in the Psalms to underscore the fact that we're all born into this world so thoroughly sinful that we never choose to do good, and we never choose God. We are all bent in our fallen state to the degree that, given a choice between running to God or running away from Him, we will run away from Him every time. That is the natural state of anyone who has not been saved.
This brings me to my next point about free will, namely that it's a problematic term because we are not completely free to do good, only evil. Quoting from John Calvin, as excerpted by Grudem in his chapter on God's Providence:
So "free" will isn't an accurate description of what we exercise when we make decisions. God is the ultimate causal agent behind everything we do, and, at least in our flesh, the range of possibilities available to us as "deciders" and "actors", are all sinful. For years, this was so hard to get my head around, and even harder to accept. The thought that I wasn't free to make my own decisions and determine my own future was almost as outrageous to me as the notion that some people were born into the world with no chance of ever being saved. Sure, I would pray and ask God for wisdom and advice as I made my decisions, but I, and no one else, was the ultimate causal agent of every decision I made. I, and no one else, had ultimate self determination over my life. And yet, here were verses like Proverbs 16:9 and Romans 9:16. I could only deny reality for so long.
Understand, the position I have come to embrace is one that involved a lot of frustration and confusion. Interpret nothing that I write as flippant. For someone spiritually raised as an Arminian Christian, accepting this understanding of the role of human will vs. Divine will, as well as other elements of Calvinist doctrine, has been a difficult process.
One last thought. As I intimated above, the single greatest objection to Calivinism raised by non-Calvinists is of course the idea that some people are born into this world with absolutely no opportunity to repent and be saved. This was appalling to me as an Arminian (I'll devote a longer post to the doctrine of Election and Reprobation). I drew comfort from the hope that any of my unsaved friends and family had the opportunity to accept Christ, and might do so in the future. The thought that some of them would never have this opportunity was just too unbearable to contemplate.
But I now have come to believe that not even Arminian theology allows the possibility that all could come to salvation. The hope that all can be saved, even in the Arminian framework, is an illusion.
Romans 8:29-30 says the following:
Generally, Armenians interpret this verse this way: God, from eternity past, looked forward into the future and saw the faith that would exist in the hearts of His followers, and "predestined" them for salvation as a preemptive response to the decision that they would one day make.
I would ask the Arminian to consider: regardless of whether you were saved on the basis of God choosing you or you choosing God, if in fact the salvation of all believers has been predestined by God from eternity, and cannot be changed (in other words, it's not possible for you not to be saved--furthermore, it was never possible for you not to be saved, for your salvation has been predestined since before the dawn of time. Regardless of whether you would ever want to, you cannot decide to renounce your faith. So not even the Arminian position offers total "free will." But I digress), conversely, it necessarily follows that everyone outside of that camp has not been predestined for salvation from eternity, and thus will not be saved. So how does the Arminian position really offer salvation as a possibility for everyone?
By now I'm sure you're almost as exhausted from reading this as I was from writing it, so I'll call it a day. Again, my coming to the position I now hold on this subject involved a lot of forehead pounding against various furniture, walls and assorted inanimate objects (mostly blunt objects, gratefully). The millions upon millions of Arminian Christians in the world today are a testimony to how difficult this concept is to swallow. But I'm just trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and trying to follow where I believe the Bible is leading me, and this is where I've ended up (I think). If you can't let go of the idea of total free will, then God bless you. The mystery of how God's will relates to our own will be revealed, eventually.
There are a more than a few objections to this position and I'll try to devote some posts to some of the more common ones. This post is devoted to the concept of free will.
Before I go any further, allow me to state what a debt of gratitude I owe to Wayne Grudem for helping me make sense of this topic (and of Reformed theology in general). His chapters on God's Providence and Election and Reprobation in Systematic Theology have been extremely helpful to me in attempting to understand this and a great many other theological concepts. My friend Greg gave me Dr. Grudem's book as a present for standing in his wedding (Greg's, not Dr. Grudem's) and it's one of the best presents I've ever received. I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to go deeper in their knowledge of Christian Theology.
Prior to embracing my faith, and for many years thereafter, my understanding of free will was something like: "complete autonomy as a sentient, moral being to make any decision I chose, without being compelled in any way." Maybe not the best definition, but I think it gets at the general idea: I, and I alone, was the ultimate causal agent for every choice I ever made. Obviously, things like circumstance, mood, fatigue, misunderstanding of the present situation in which I found myself, etc, could influence my decisions. But ultimately, there was no other force, be it God or fate, pulling the trigger on "my choices." I had ultimate self-determination.
I have since come to understand that this is a crock of haggis.
To properly explain my present understanding of the relationship between God's will and our own, I have to start by saying that there is in fact no way to explain it--at least not completely; it is a mystery which human understanding can only begin to approach: namely, that God controls everything, including us, and yet we willingly make real decisions that have real consequences. Dr Grudem describes the paradox this way:
God causes all things that happen, but...does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible choices, choices that have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable. Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture.
Consider the following verses:
Proverbs 16:1: "The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord."
Proverbs 16:9: "The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps."
Proverbs 19:21: "Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel [sometimes translated: purpose] of the Lord will stand."
Proverbs 20:24: "Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?"
Proverbs 21:1: "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord. He turns it wherever He wishes."
Jeremiah 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct himself."
While some of these verses acknowledge that humans play a role as intentional, willing beings, all indicate that it is not people who are the ultimate causal agents of their decisions and actions: The answer that your mouth speaks is from the Lord. The Lord directs your steps. Your every step has been ordained by God from eternity. God turns your heart whichever way He wishes. It is not for your to direct your way. And yet, the Bible is stuffed with examples of people who make decisions and engage in patterns of behavior which in every case are recognized as having been done willingly, and for which the individuals in question are held accountable. In every case where someone sins, God regards the individual in question as a moral being who has acted willingly, and God holds the individual morally responsible for their sin.
As a brief aside: If the implications of the previous paragraph don't make you tremble, consider the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. God ordained/willed/directed that these two to feign that a financial gift to the church was the entire proceeds from the sale of their property, when in fact they had pocketed some of the cash (making themselves look good and making some money at the same time). God wills that this happen, and they willingly comply. The result is that God is angered and kills them both. God wills that they do something that outrages Him, so that He can punish them. Reading an event like this causes me to praise God for His mercy that He has not seen fit to deal with me in like manner.
How does the Bible describe God's sovereign direction of human will when it comes to the salvation of Christians? Here are a few verses for your consideration.
Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Romans 9: 16: "So then, it does not depend on the man who wills, or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
Philippians 2:12c-13: "...work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."
These verses seem to rule out human beings as the ultimate determining agent for their salvation, or in the case of Philippians 2:12-13, continuing on in their faith. Ephesians 2: 8-9 and Romans 9:16 seem to disqualify human will from as playing any role whatsoever in the believer being saved. Salvation is "not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as a result of works." "It does not depend" on man's will or man's striving. It's like Paul is writing out in capital letters, underscored, "YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER" in salvation. Yes, as with all other decisions we make, we who are believers willingly responded to God's call. But these verses make clear that (as with all other decisions we make) the necessary cause for this outcome was not our will, but God's. If you are saved, you are saved because God willed for you to be saved, not because you willed it.
Furthermore, and without straying too far into the doctrine of Total Depravity (to which I hope to devote another post in the future), you couldn't have decided to accept Christ on your own.
Romans 3:10-12:
as it is written:
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
In this passage, Paul is quoting certain passages in the Psalms to underscore the fact that we're all born into this world so thoroughly sinful that we never choose to do good, and we never choose God. We are all bent in our fallen state to the degree that, given a choice between running to God or running away from Him, we will run away from Him every time. That is the natural state of anyone who has not been saved.
This brings me to my next point about free will, namely that it's a problematic term because we are not completely free to do good, only evil. Quoting from John Calvin, as excerpted by Grudem in his chapter on God's Providence:
Man will then be spoken of as having this sort of free decision, not because he has free choice equally of good and evil, but because he acts wickedly by will, not by compulsion. Well put, indeed, but what purpose is served by labelling with a proud name such a slight thing? ... But how few men are there, I ask, who when they hear free will attributed to man do not immediately conceive him to be master of both his own mind and will, able of his own power to turn himself toward either good or evil...If anyone, then, can use this word without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account...I'd prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, if they seek my advice, to avoid it.
So "free" will isn't an accurate description of what we exercise when we make decisions. God is the ultimate causal agent behind everything we do, and, at least in our flesh, the range of possibilities available to us as "deciders" and "actors", are all sinful. For years, this was so hard to get my head around, and even harder to accept. The thought that I wasn't free to make my own decisions and determine my own future was almost as outrageous to me as the notion that some people were born into the world with no chance of ever being saved. Sure, I would pray and ask God for wisdom and advice as I made my decisions, but I, and no one else, was the ultimate causal agent of every decision I made. I, and no one else, had ultimate self determination over my life. And yet, here were verses like Proverbs 16:9 and Romans 9:16. I could only deny reality for so long.
Understand, the position I have come to embrace is one that involved a lot of frustration and confusion. Interpret nothing that I write as flippant. For someone spiritually raised as an Arminian Christian, accepting this understanding of the role of human will vs. Divine will, as well as other elements of Calvinist doctrine, has been a difficult process.
One last thought. As I intimated above, the single greatest objection to Calivinism raised by non-Calvinists is of course the idea that some people are born into this world with absolutely no opportunity to repent and be saved. This was appalling to me as an Arminian (I'll devote a longer post to the doctrine of Election and Reprobation). I drew comfort from the hope that any of my unsaved friends and family had the opportunity to accept Christ, and might do so in the future. The thought that some of them would never have this opportunity was just too unbearable to contemplate.
But I now have come to believe that not even Arminian theology allows the possibility that all could come to salvation. The hope that all can be saved, even in the Arminian framework, is an illusion.
Romans 8:29-30 says the following:
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren, and these whom He predestined, He also called, and these whom He called, He also justifed, and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Generally, Armenians interpret this verse this way: God, from eternity past, looked forward into the future and saw the faith that would exist in the hearts of His followers, and "predestined" them for salvation as a preemptive response to the decision that they would one day make.
I would ask the Arminian to consider: regardless of whether you were saved on the basis of God choosing you or you choosing God, if in fact the salvation of all believers has been predestined by God from eternity, and cannot be changed (in other words, it's not possible for you not to be saved--furthermore, it was never possible for you not to be saved, for your salvation has been predestined since before the dawn of time. Regardless of whether you would ever want to, you cannot decide to renounce your faith. So not even the Arminian position offers total "free will." But I digress), conversely, it necessarily follows that everyone outside of that camp has not been predestined for salvation from eternity, and thus will not be saved. So how does the Arminian position really offer salvation as a possibility for everyone?
By now I'm sure you're almost as exhausted from reading this as I was from writing it, so I'll call it a day. Again, my coming to the position I now hold on this subject involved a lot of forehead pounding against various furniture, walls and assorted inanimate objects (mostly blunt objects, gratefully). The millions upon millions of Arminian Christians in the world today are a testimony to how difficult this concept is to swallow. But I'm just trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, and trying to follow where I believe the Bible is leading me, and this is where I've ended up (I think). If you can't let go of the idea of total free will, then God bless you. The mystery of how God's will relates to our own will be revealed, eventually.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Why I Am a Calvinist, Part One
So I'll just state right off the bat that I don't have any specific plan for a series on this topic, or an outline of which topics I'll cover in which order, or a time frame in which I'll complete them. I just may return to this topic periodically, and I figured this title was as good as any since it's the first time I'm writing about it.
Also, I'm going to try to keep these posts as bite-sized as possible, which is always a challenge as I am rather susceptible to diarrhea of the blog (it's as unsightly as it sounds).
To me, the best place to start an inquiry into Reformed theology is on the topic of the Sovereignty of God, and how my understanding of it informs my belief that the Calvinist, or Reformed, position is the correct one (note, some people assign different meanings to "Sovereignty" and "Providence," with the former referring to the characteristic of God's supreme position as Lord of all, and the latter referring to God's action in the execution of His will (including the sustaining of all things). I'm kind of blurring the two concepts in this post, so forgive me if this offends your theological sensibilities).
For the first several years of my life as a Christian, I had a vague understanding of God's sovereignty, which I accepted without much thought. I happily, wholeheartedly believed, declared, and/or sang such proclamations as "He is in control," "this is part of His plan," "He is Lord of all," "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven," or even "God is sovereign" without thinking about the larger implications of any of these statements. It was only later, after reading various commentaries and being challenged to think a little harder, that I began to probe the concept of sovereignty and started asking questions like:
What does "God is in control" mean? Is He actually controlling everything, or just kind of keeping watch over everything and making sure that stuff doesn't get too out of hand, intervening periodically? And what about the "will" of God? Some passages, like Romans 9:19 and Psalm 33:11, seem to suggest that God's will can't be resisted--but then what is sin? Surely, you're resisting God's will when you sin, right? Because otherwise, that would be like saying that God wills evil to happen--and that can't be right. Because God hates evil, and therefore wouldn't will it to happen. He just allows it to happen...right? Because He gives people free will, and if they have free will, they can choose to do evil. But if they have free will, then is God really in control of anything related to human behavior? I've been taught that God has this plan that involves making a bride for His Son in the church, and that He's going to come back and destroy evil and punish the wicked and take His bride to Heaven, where He will be worshipped and glorified forever. But what if, just hypothetically, everyone on earth turned away from God? Logically, it could happen, right? Everyone has free will. How would God's purposes be accomplished then, if He was completely dependent upon the decisions of people to bring them about--and they all turned Him down? I mean, God knows that's not going to happen, because He has total foreknowledge of everything. God has known from before time began who would choose Him and who wouldn't and He knows how this is all going to end, but if that outcome--the end of God's great plan--is based on the decisions of people, can we really say that it happens according to the will of God? It may be congruent to the will of God, but because of it? Alternately, maybe God's will can't be resisted. Again, this is what Romans 9:19 and Psalm 33:11 seem to be saying. So could it be that He does will for people to refuse him, and for people to sin, and for evil to happen as part of some larger purpose He has to bring glory to Himself...
And so it went.
Like I said, I'm going to try to keep these posts from getting too verbose (too late). Rather than wade too deep into the tall grass now, I'll try to devote future posts to topics like free will (as a preview, I think it's far more complicated than I used to think it was) or whether or not God wills evil (hint: it's more complicated than yes or no).
Here, let me just say that I have come to accept that God controls everything.
For me, one of the clearest passages on the topic of God's sovereignty is Ephesians 1, just before verse 11 and through verse 12 (NASV):
The NIV, in my opinion, puts it even more bluntly:
And God's sovereignty, by definition, must extend to everything--including who gets saved and who doesn't. If this is not the case, specifically in the case of election, then God is dependent upon human beings to make a decision in order for His will to be accomplished. And if that is the case, then God is not sovereign.
But He is sovereign over this, as over all things, which is where the first part of verse 11 comes in-- we have "been predestined according to His purpose." God decided that you would or would not be saved, as He decides all things, according to His purpose--regardless of what yours might be. Why? Because, verse 12: for the "praise of His glory." God makes everything happen according to His will, with the ultimate aim that He will be glorified. Amen.
I said I wasn't going to get into free will in this post, but there is one objection that one might raise which presently occurs to me (I'm sure there are others): one could ask if God couldn't will that people have free will, and still work through their free will to accomplish His ultimate will. Far be it from me to say what God can't do. However, I interpret Ephesians 1:11 as not leaving a lot of wiggle room on the question of whether or not God is completely sovereign over everything, including human will. Romans 9: 14-18 seems to be an even stronger declaration of God's unmitigated sovereignty especially as pertains to election, free from deference or constraint to, or the need to work around, the will of mankind. There are other rebuttals that I can think of to this objection, but I think I'll save them for future posts.
So, allowing that I might be misunderstanding the verses I've cited, or otherwise wrong, my understanding of the Sovereignty of God is the primary principle that leads me to embrace the Calvinist view.
Also, I'm going to try to keep these posts as bite-sized as possible, which is always a challenge as I am rather susceptible to diarrhea of the blog (it's as unsightly as it sounds).
To me, the best place to start an inquiry into Reformed theology is on the topic of the Sovereignty of God, and how my understanding of it informs my belief that the Calvinist, or Reformed, position is the correct one (note, some people assign different meanings to "Sovereignty" and "Providence," with the former referring to the characteristic of God's supreme position as Lord of all, and the latter referring to God's action in the execution of His will (including the sustaining of all things). I'm kind of blurring the two concepts in this post, so forgive me if this offends your theological sensibilities).
For the first several years of my life as a Christian, I had a vague understanding of God's sovereignty, which I accepted without much thought. I happily, wholeheartedly believed, declared, and/or sang such proclamations as "He is in control," "this is part of His plan," "He is Lord of all," "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven," or even "God is sovereign" without thinking about the larger implications of any of these statements. It was only later, after reading various commentaries and being challenged to think a little harder, that I began to probe the concept of sovereignty and started asking questions like:
What does "God is in control" mean? Is He actually controlling everything, or just kind of keeping watch over everything and making sure that stuff doesn't get too out of hand, intervening periodically? And what about the "will" of God? Some passages, like Romans 9:19 and Psalm 33:11, seem to suggest that God's will can't be resisted--but then what is sin? Surely, you're resisting God's will when you sin, right? Because otherwise, that would be like saying that God wills evil to happen--and that can't be right. Because God hates evil, and therefore wouldn't will it to happen. He just allows it to happen...right? Because He gives people free will, and if they have free will, they can choose to do evil. But if they have free will, then is God really in control of anything related to human behavior? I've been taught that God has this plan that involves making a bride for His Son in the church, and that He's going to come back and destroy evil and punish the wicked and take His bride to Heaven, where He will be worshipped and glorified forever. But what if, just hypothetically, everyone on earth turned away from God? Logically, it could happen, right? Everyone has free will. How would God's purposes be accomplished then, if He was completely dependent upon the decisions of people to bring them about--and they all turned Him down? I mean, God knows that's not going to happen, because He has total foreknowledge of everything. God has known from before time began who would choose Him and who wouldn't and He knows how this is all going to end, but if that outcome--the end of God's great plan--is based on the decisions of people, can we really say that it happens according to the will of God? It may be congruent to the will of God, but because of it? Alternately, maybe God's will can't be resisted. Again, this is what Romans 9:19 and Psalm 33:11 seem to be saying. So could it be that He does will for people to refuse him, and for people to sin, and for evil to happen as part of some larger purpose He has to bring glory to Himself...
And so it went.
Like I said, I'm going to try to keep these posts from getting too verbose (too late). Rather than wade too deep into the tall grass now, I'll try to devote future posts to topics like free will (as a preview, I think it's far more complicated than I used to think it was) or whether or not God wills evil (hint: it's more complicated than yes or no).
Here, let me just say that I have come to accept that God controls everything.
For me, one of the clearest passages on the topic of God's sovereignty is Ephesians 1, just before verse 11 and through verse 12 (NASV):
In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.Now, ignore the part about predestination just for a minute and concentrate on the second half of verse 11: "who works all things after the counsel of His will." Works all things. All things. After the counsel of His will. God fashions everything so that it happens in accordance with His will.
The NIV, in my opinion, puts it even more bluntly:
having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will...I believe an accurate paraphrase of this portion of verse 11 could be "...who makes everything happen the way He wants it to happen." In my mind, this is the definition of total sovereignty.
And God's sovereignty, by definition, must extend to everything--including who gets saved and who doesn't. If this is not the case, specifically in the case of election, then God is dependent upon human beings to make a decision in order for His will to be accomplished. And if that is the case, then God is not sovereign.
But He is sovereign over this, as over all things, which is where the first part of verse 11 comes in-- we have "been predestined according to His purpose." God decided that you would or would not be saved, as He decides all things, according to His purpose--regardless of what yours might be. Why? Because, verse 12: for the "praise of His glory." God makes everything happen according to His will, with the ultimate aim that He will be glorified. Amen.
I said I wasn't going to get into free will in this post, but there is one objection that one might raise which presently occurs to me (I'm sure there are others): one could ask if God couldn't will that people have free will, and still work through their free will to accomplish His ultimate will. Far be it from me to say what God can't do. However, I interpret Ephesians 1:11 as not leaving a lot of wiggle room on the question of whether or not God is completely sovereign over everything, including human will. Romans 9: 14-18 seems to be an even stronger declaration of God's unmitigated sovereignty especially as pertains to election, free from deference or constraint to, or the need to work around, the will of mankind. There are other rebuttals that I can think of to this objection, but I think I'll save them for future posts.
So, allowing that I might be misunderstanding the verses I've cited, or otherwise wrong, my understanding of the Sovereignty of God is the primary principle that leads me to embrace the Calvinist view.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
The Depths of Human Depravity
There are few people in this world who piss me off quite like Holocaust deniers, or mitigaters. Just felt like expressing that.
New data revealed on the Holocaust makes it quite clear that it was even more horrific than previously thought.
Researchers at the US Holocaust Museum have spent the last 13 years attempting to chronicle all of the death camps, ghettos, POW camps and other sites of torture, murder and dehumanization established by the Nazis from 1933 until the fall of the Third Reich.
While you won't find many today who (openly) laud the Hitler, anti-Semitism or the Holocaust, my but weren't there countless masses who got swept up in the fervor of the moment. And though mindless zealotry may have given way to shame and regret with the passage of time, look at what evil can be accomplished in the heady passion of a season.
All of this, and ten times worse, could happen again. We're human beings, just as the Nazis were. Just as our descendants will be. Jesus help us.
New data revealed on the Holocaust makes it quite clear that it was even more horrific than previously thought.
Researchers at the US Holocaust Museum have spent the last 13 years attempting to chronicle all of the death camps, ghettos, POW camps and other sites of torture, murder and dehumanization established by the Nazis from 1933 until the fall of the Third Reich.
When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500.And as for the revised estimated death toll:
The numbers astound: 30,000 slave labor camps; 1,150 Jewish ghettos; 980 concentration camps; 1,000 prisoner-of-war camps; 500 brothels filled with sex slaves; and thousands of other camps used for euthanizing the elderly and infirm, performing forced abortions, “Germanizing” prisoners or transporting victims to killing centers.In Berlin alone, researchers have documented some 3,000 camps and so-called Jew houses, while Hamburg held 1,300 sites.
The lead editors on the project, Geoffrey Megargee and Martin Dean, estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died or were imprisoned in the sites that they have identified as part of a multivolume encyclopedia. (The Holocaust museum has published the first two, with five more planned by 2025.)The depravity revealed in something like the Holocaust is in part why I am a Christian. I laugh when I hear people say things like "people are basically good." People are basically repugnant. People are basically depraved. People in their hearts basically enshrine evil. As the Apostle Paul put it:
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. --Romans 1:28-32People basically deserve to go to hell forever, and are in need of a savior.
While you won't find many today who (openly) laud the Hitler, anti-Semitism or the Holocaust, my but weren't there countless masses who got swept up in the fervor of the moment. And though mindless zealotry may have given way to shame and regret with the passage of time, look at what evil can be accomplished in the heady passion of a season.
All of this, and ten times worse, could happen again. We're human beings, just as the Nazis were. Just as our descendants will be. Jesus help us.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
What the heck is George doing?
Besides lookin' all buff and HAWT, I mean.
With ropes and leather. Heh.
There are certain artists, such as John McLaughlin and Allan Holdsworth, who play on a level at which my brain does not compute. I would throw the odd George Lynch solo into that category as well.
And I have always more or less presumed that these artists would forever be only semi accessible to me, but researchers at the University of Melbourne have just published a paper that sheds new light on how we learn to appreciate music.
Update: it just occurred to me that I should point out that I love what George is playing here, even if I can't exactly wrap my head around it. Lack of understanding does not necessarily imply dislike.
With ropes and leather. Heh.
There are certain artists, such as John McLaughlin and Allan Holdsworth, who play on a level at which my brain does not compute. I would throw the odd George Lynch solo into that category as well.
And I have always more or less presumed that these artists would forever be only semi accessible to me, but researchers at the University of Melbourne have just published a paper that sheds new light on how we learn to appreciate music.
“Our study shows that musical harmony can be learnt and it is a matter of training the brain to hear the sounds,” Associate Professor McLachlan said. “So if you thought that the music of some exotic culture (or Jazz) sounded like the wailing of cats, it’s simply because you haven’t learnt to listen by their rules... What we found was that people needed to be familiar with sounds created by combinations of notes before they could hear the individual notes. If they couldn’t find the notes they found the sound dissonant or unpleasant,” he said.So apparently, the longer you listen (ie, train your brain), the more it will make sense and the more you'll like it. Maybe. I'm not sure any force on earth could make me like Reggae. I've tried, people. I've tried.
Update: it just occurred to me that I should point out that I love what George is playing here, even if I can't exactly wrap my head around it. Lack of understanding does not necessarily imply dislike.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Secretary Mehgel
So, this happened.
A lot of conservatives are worked up over it. I just can’t muster the interest. So, an anti-Semite simpleton who’s
sweet on Iran is now the Secretary of Defense.
A quick review of some of the other lovable scamps to grace the President's cabinet makes me wonder exactly how Chucky’s
appointment is a jaw-dropper.
The former Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat.
The Attorney General has allowed racial prejudice to
determine which cases his office will prosecute, and presided over the fantastically catastrophic Fast and Furious gun running scheme, which, you'll recall, allowed Mexican
drug lords to waltz off with 1800 firearms —some of which were used in the murder of an American Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, as well as at least 150 Mexicans—and which was done without the cooperation or even the knowledge of the Mexican government.
The current Secretary of State possibly committed treason in
his younger days by negotiating directly
with North Vietnam, which he had absolutely no authority to do, while the US was still at war with them.
And the previous Secretary of State, resplendently adorned
with baggage before she took the gig, bears more responsibility for the slaughter of Americans at Benghazi than anyone but the President himself.
Look, like Allahpundit says in the top link, the grown up decisions about defending the country are going to be left up to the C-in-C and
whomever he’s assigned to hold Hagel’s hand at the Pentagon. Yes it’s pathetic.
Yes, if the President were a Republican, the media would be portraying this as
Hitler appointing Himmler. But look, in the last 4 years, I’ve had a tyrannical
health care law for which nobody asked imposed upon me; watched my President
seriously consider extending American jurisprudence to the architect of 9/11; been outraged by Fast and Furious, and again by Benghazi. I’m kind
of running low on outrage at the moment. It will take a bigger insult than Chuck Hagel to get my blood boiling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
