Conservatives Have Been Too Patient

I wonder how many people hold politically conservative values but shy away from labeling themselves conservative due to the baggage they associate with the term. I wonder how many people hold these values while voting for political leaders who oppose them. I know voters are individuals, voting and abstaining for good and bad reasons, but I think part of the blame for this disparity falls on those of us who call ourselves conservative. We have not communicated well enough, or as Bertie Wooster might say, we’ve flubbed it before giving it a good go. Ok, he wouldn’t say that, but you get the idea. Don’t you? Nevermind.

On Monday, we honor Martin Luther King, Jr., and columnist Jackie Gingrich Cushman writes about the typical ideas associated with the day, but I have another idea. I think King’s words are apt for today’s conservatives.

“For many years we have shown an amazing patience,” King said, and I think conservatives have shown a good bit of patience as well. We have, as King went on, sometimes given our American brothers in government and elsewhere “the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated.” But today I say we need to be “saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice.”

Freedom and justice are what conservatives promote. We want nothing less for our American brothers than life, liberty, and opportunities to pursue happiness. I tend to think we have been too patient in our attempts to be understood—-patient and a bit wrong-headed.

Conservatives don’t want to cut government spending. We want to keep bureaucracy from hamstringing your freedom.

Conservatives don’t want to cut taxes. We want you to keep as much of your hard-earned paycheck as possible. We also don’t want to punish you for succeeding in business or saving over the years by taxing you unfairly.

We don’t want to throw out immigrants who are trying to make a new life for themselves in our country. We want a stable process for welcoming immigrants into our country.

And we don’t want to deny women healthcare choices. We defend the lives and freedoms of every man and woman from conception to old age.

Conservatives champion loving our neighbor as we would ourselves, which includes defending the helpless and helping the poor and orphaned, but here’s the rub between us and liberals; Continue reading Conservatives Have Been Too Patient

Stop Abridging the Freedom of Speech

Alisha Harris of World blogs on a law firm that has asked the IRS to scrutinize one of the firm’s clients, a pastor who delivered a political sermon. Harris writes that the firm, The Becket Fund, “maintains that a pastor should even be able to endorse or condemn certain candidates from the pulpit, as long as he is speaking privately to his congregation.” The tricky IRS code has only been on the books since 1954. One of the Becket Fund lawyers said, “For a hundred and seventy odd years of our history, people were allowed to speak freely without fear of losing any tax exemption and our country was not turned into a theocracy because of it, not even close.”

I agree. I don’t know what problems must be overcome in our current tax code, but I don’t understand why pastors or non-profit organization leaders must mussel themselves on specific political issues or people. People should be able to talk openly about anything, especially government.

Cold weather and cold judgment

Last night on the radio, a thoughtful newslady explained to us what she said were “warning signs of frostbite.” This is a subject of more than theoretical interest just here and just now.

“The first sign of frostbite,” she said, “is a tingling sensation in the face or extremities.”

Oh yeah?

A tingling sensation in the face or extremities is not the first sign of frostbite for me. For me, a tingling sensation is the first sign of being outside in the winter. Even when it’s a whole lot warmer than it is right now.

The stages that follow are numbness and aching.

All these stages occur within the first thirty seconds of exposure.

God bless the U.S. Air Force, which invented the arctic snorkel parka that’s the only thing that makes it possible for me to actually leave the house between November and April.

The January Smithsonian Magazine includes an article on Norman Mailer by Lance Morrow.

Here’s a paragraph that struck me:

In Mailer’s work, one feels more in the presence of energy and virtuosity than of truth… Except for some journalistic bull’s-eyes in the reportage (riffs on politicians like Nixon and Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy), Mailer simply does not feel true. Reading some of his more strenuous cosmic exertions is a little like watching an actor onstage who picks up a suitcase that is supposedly full, but is, in fact, empty: the actor by body English tries to make the bag look heavy, as Mailer tries to make the sentences profound. But the audience knows.

I get the impression that when Morrow speaks of “truth” he’s writing about something he probably can’t define and doesn’t really believe in. But even for intellectuals, the heart knows. The heart can tell.

The Cops of Yesteryear

Cranach blogs about “Life on Mars,” a BBC cop show about a modern cop who was thrown back to 1974 and encounters cultural difficulties while trying to solve crime. G.E. Veith writes, “What I like most about the show is not so much that science fiction overlay but the well-scripted mystery plots, which are stellar examples of the police-procedural mystery genre.”

NY Times Can’t Please Anyone

The NY Times has taken flak for hiring Bill Kristol as a regular op-ed columnist from readers and its own editor. Now, Gaius points to criticism from The Times of London. “Excuse me, but what on earth is going on?” Times’ op-ed editor Daniel Finkelstein asks. “[C]onsidering that Kristol represents a large strand of American opinion (even if it is a smaller strand of NYT reader opinion) it is entirely unremarkable that his columns should be commissioned.”

Dynamite, and other basic needs

On-site report: It’s cold outside.

Editorial comment: I don’t like it.

Watch for updates as the situation develops.



Our commenter Aitchmark
sent me a link to this YouTube video on the Engadget site.

The 24-barrel, tripod-mountable monster you see above, lovingly known as the Disintegrator, was rather amazingly hand-carved and assembled by Anthony Smith of the UK, who spent four months on the ambitious build. Unlike your dinky little six-shooter, this model boasts a 288-band capacity and 40-round-per-second firing capability…

You’ll note that this device was created in the United Kingdom, where gun ownership is illegal.

This, my friends is what happens when you deny men real weapons.

Actually, it puts me in mind of the days when I was an avid shooter of cap-and-ball revolvers. It took what seemed like twenty minutes to load the things (actually about five, but I was eager). Then you got to shoot for about thirty seconds. Then you had to spend an hour cleaning the things (and you’d better do a good job, because that powder residue is mostly salt).

But it’s what a man’s gotta do.

In my own part of the world (known in the reference books as the Walker Sphere of Influence) we have this story, in which a man took the utterly reasonable and sober-minded action of blowing up his old pickup truck by loading it with explosives and shooting at it from a distance with a high-powered rifle. Note that he exercised role-model-level prudence in not trying to light a fuse with a match and run away, like Wile E. Coyote. He did the job at a prudent remove. And yet people are criticizing him.

(I don’t know the guy, but the story takes place in the county where I grew up. Makes me proud, it does.)

Listen, it’s a man’s testosteronic birthright to blow things into the stratosphere and send objects hurtling at high rates of speed toward distant targets. What shopping is to women, explosions are to guys.

And if you don’t understand that, you’re a woman.

Just Can’t Stan’ It

Bud has a list of peeves with things such as “Novelists who can’t think of something more creative than to have novelists as characters” and “Publishing people who use the word ‘best’ and other silly superlatives to describe things they know are not.”

You know, I think political polling is becoming a pet peeve for me. It’s addictive but pointless. It’s the same as carefully unwrapping a gift so that you can peek at a corner of the box. Can’t wait for Christmas. Can’t focus on making cookies. No, you have to count, shake, and peek at your gifts under the tree. Course, my guy isn’t doing great in the polls right now, so that encourages my irritation, but still the national and state polling for the last several months has gotten oppressive. Please stop.

Speaking of political peeves, I don’t understand what internal party politics has to do with honest voters in various state primaries. How is it just for a party to declare the votes in Michigan worthless? Is the same thing happening in Florida? That’s not right. Those people should be able to vote in their primaries just like the rest of us.

Getting back to literary peeves, I think my only real peeve is hearing that a book deals honestly with hard subjects from the author or marketer and finding that it does not. I don’t guess that’s a big deal though. You see that kind of thing all the time in different ways.

Am I completely off base here?

What to do? The gag about how you’d welcome a little Global Warming just about now has been done to death, but honestly, remind me again why marginally warmer winters would be a bad thing?

We had global warming back during the Viking Age, and that worked out pretty well, you know. If it hadn’t been for Global Warming, Erik the Red and his son Leif would have frozen to death on a glacier in Greenland, and then Leif would never have gone on to discover America, and we wouldn’t be speaking Norwegian today.



I had a thought
while reading my Bible today. I’m not sure whether it’s a good one or not. Let me run it by you.

In Philippians 1:12-18, the Apostle Paul tells his readers that they shouldn’t be troubled by the fact that he’s been imprisoned by the Romans. “Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel,” he says (NIV). Then he explains that some people are preaching Christ out of goodwill, but others are preaching Christ out of “envy and rivalry… supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.” But, he says, “the important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”

I’ve never been sure who these people were who were preaching Christ out of envy and rivalry toward Paul, and what sort of preaching they must have been doing. As best I can understand, scholars aren’t entirely sure whom he was talking about either.

But this seems like a likely scenario to me—I’d guess there’s a good chance the rival preachers were members of the Circumcision party, people who preached salvation through Christ plus the law. We know they were constant opponents of Paul’s everywhere else he went.

Paul opposed their legalism, and could be pretty cutting in talking about them in his letters. Yet his attitude here seems (to me) to be, “Even if their preaching is in error, the very fact that they’re talking about Jesus is a good thing in itself.” Maybe he’s saying, “I don’t really care what anyone says about Jesus, as long as they talk about Him. Because just talking and thinking about Him gives an opening to the Holy Spirit.”

And that leads me to the idea that maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to get upset over things like “The Last Temptation of Christ” and “The Da Vinci Code.” Maybe (I could be wrong) the proper attitude is that we should just be glad that people are thinking about Jesus at all, and trust to the power of His name to turn their hearts the right way.

Or maybe I’m reading too much into it. Let me know what you think.

Bach on a cold day

Actually it’s not all that cold. About 20° F today. I’ve seen it a whole lot worse than this.

What’s got the whole state (nay, the whole region) bloodhound-faced today is the knowledge that tomorrow will be colder, and the day after that colder still, and on and on through the end of the week. I haven’t looked at the forecast past Sunday. I suspect the Monday one will say, “Supercooled through the afternoon; heat death of the universe after sunset.”

Yet we survive. We persevere. That’s what makes us better than you.



Here’s an article
by Uwe Siemon-Netto, from Paul McCain’s blog Cyberbrethren, about the odd (though welcome) phenomenon of Asians converting to Christianity through the music of J. S. Bach.

I would have never expected this. I’ve always seen music as essentially non-propositional, unsuited to changing people’s minds, except by means of the lyrics.

But Bach’s music has no lyrics. It’s just very fine, intricate music on which the composer has written (at the end of every piece), “Soli Deo Gloria” (To God alone be the glory). And the testimony of an artistic job so brilliantly done seems to have an evangelistic appeal.

I suppose I shouldn’t be as surprised as I am. It actually harmonizes well with some things I’ve been thinking for a while. I’m just always surprised to be right… or anything in the neighborhood of right.

Back in the misty years of the 1970s, when I was touring with the Christian musical group for which I was lyricist, a guy came to talk to us after a concert. He said he was a follower of Francis Schaeffer, and I thought, “Great. We’ll be friends.” But he wasn’t interested in being friends.

His reading of Schaeffer had convinced him that the gospel was about reason—reason and nothing else. In evangelism, no appeal should be made to anything but the “law of non-contradiction.” Because our songs appealed to feelings as well as reason, he informed us that we were heretics and tools of the devil. I suppose he’d hoped for syllogisms in song.

I hadn’t thought the whole thing out at that point (still haven’t, for that matter), but I think I argued that, although reason is important and much neglected, it’s not the only thing.

As the years have passed, I’ve grown more convinced I was correct. Schaeffer concentrated on reason in his books because that’s the element that’s being most neglected in theology and apologetics today. But if you read those books and pay attention to more than just creating bullet points, you’ll see that he talks about the importance of love and relationships and beauty, too. His book The Mark of a Christian was not about logic, but about love.

This is entirely consistent with essential Christian theology. We believe in the Incarnation. “The Word became flesh.” (John 1:14) It’s as heretical to neglect the soft, subjective side of our lives as to neglect the rigorous, rational side.

Which is why the Lord can even call souls to Himself through music.

Hey! Maybe He could use novels too!

Four Studios Drop Writer Contracts

The LA Times reports that writers contracts have been canceled by 20th Century Fox Television, CBS Paramount Network Television, NBC Universal and Warner Bros. Television. Over 65 cancellations since Friday.