Obama and the “bitter” backlash

Here is what Obama actually said:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations  (Washington Post, Huffington Post)

Here is how my wife interprets Obama:

It is my thought that Mr. Obama intended to communicate that citizens who live in areas of our country that have been in depression mode for decades feel that their government has let them down BIG TIME, and Yes! they are upset about that.  Call it bitter.  It fits!

What have they been able to depend and lean on?  Their faith!  That is what has seen them through these hard times.

They do tend to hesitate to trust their government to legislate gun control that will not infringe upon their freedom to bear arms.

What about jobs?  It seems logical that people who can’t find adequate work would be far more inclined to resent foreign laborers in our country, than would those who have steady, good paying jobs.

Comprehension of any written or spoken statement is based on far more than mere words.  Who is the speaker?  What is the context?  What have they previously said on the subject?  Consider the integrity of the speaker, and have a willingness to read between the lines, giving that person the benefit of the doubt when necessary.

Mr. Obama has at no time in the past given any reason for people to believe such a negative interpretation of his brief controversial statement.

People should attempt to give to others the same consideration they would expect to receive should they be in the spotlight, and God forbid! misspeak in some way.

                                                    –  Gretchen Johnson

(This letter by my wife was originally written to our local newspaper; but since they did not publish it, and I believe it is worth sharing, I am publishing it here.  It seems to me that battles over words like the one over Obama’s brief remarks above highlight the reality that so often our conflicts are not so much about facts as they are about what the Bible calls the inclination of our hearts. Do we really want to know the truth, or do we have some other motive? In this case the conflict seems to be largely driven by partisan politics. - Jim Johnson)

What does Wal-Mart think of us?

Success based on attention to detail is legendary at Wal-Mart, so it was surprising to notice today that identical “security envelopes” in the office supplies section were cheaper when packaged in the smaller box than in the larger box.  The same 3 5/8″ x 6 1/2″ mailing envelopes were priced as follows:

Box of 66         $1.72     2.6 cents each

Box of 125       $4.17     3.3 cents each

This does make you wonder what kind of research they are doing on the American public!

You can buy two boxes for $3.44 and get 132 envelopes if you want the larger amount.  But how many people stop to think?

There has been a lot of talk about respect for the working class who depend on Wal-Mart; but you have to wonder what the executives of Wal-Mart actually think about those workers based on their research.

Gwynne Dyer: The Olympic Games as a Three-Layer Cake

After recalling a bizarre incident in Olympic lore which gives the article its title, Gwynne Dyer, in Underpants on Fire, paints his own picture of the modern Olympic games as a “bizarre three-layer cake” –

THE THREE-LAYER OLYMPIC CAKE

TOP LAYER:  A sickly-sweet pantomime of international love and brotherhood          

MIDDLE LAYER:  An orgy of nationalist self-congratulation

BOTTOM LAYER:  An international athletics competition

Dyer reports that the Olympic torch ritual was originally invented by the Nazis as part of its public relations program for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin –

There had never been a torch connected with the original Olympic games in ancient Greece, and the revived Games got along without an international relay race just fine [until] the Berlin Olympics of 1936 — but if there was one thing the Nazis did well, it was propaganda.

Now it looks like people around the world are using the Olympic torch to send their own message.  Dyer summarizes what the peoples of many nations are saying in their protests as the torch marches on –

It isn’t “anti-Chinese,” just pro-Tibetan, but there will be much anger and many hurt feelings by the time this is done.

The top layer of the cake is not looking so pretty this year. 

One has to wonder if there is any real significance to the torch relay ritual other than the unique meaning it is given each time it is run.  

Although some may argue against “politicizing” the Olympic torch, the only other option is to mindlessly go through what Dyer has labeled “a sickly-sweet pantomime.” Only people can give the Olympic torch whatever meaning it will convey, and they are certainly doing so this year.

George Packer:
The Iraq War in a Nutshell

“The Iraq war was always a long shot. But it was made immeasurably longer by its principal architects in Washington… who ignored expert advice, reserved most of their effort for fighting each other in ideological battles, and regarded the Iraqi people as an afterthought.”

- George Packer in an NPR interview, April 9, 2008

Can you trust Wikipedia?

The world can be divided between those who were raised before and after the 1960’s.  So said a historian I worked for once, and I think he may have been right.  Whether you can trust Wikipedia is the kind of question people raised before the 60’s ask.  Like Virginia, they want to be assured that there really is a Santa Claus. And they want to know they really can trust the New York Sun, or whatever other source they are using.

It seems like people raised after the 60’s assume a “whatever” attitude and negotiate around the “facts” as they change with each breaking news broadcast and scientific discovery that reverses long held beliefs.

Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar, by Katharine Q. Seelye, presents the latest gaffe by Wikipedia, in which John Seigenthaler Sr. was wrongly accused of being involved in the assassinations of both John and Bobby Kennedy.

The author goes on to focus her article on whether the online encyclopedia can be trusted.  I think she is barking up the wrong tree for reasons I will mention in a minute.  But first…

One thing she does get right is an excellent definition and description of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a kind of collective brain, a repository of knowledge, maintained on servers in various countries and built by anyone in the world with a computer and an Internet connection who wants to share knowledge about a subject. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have written Wikipedia entries.

Mistakes are expected to be caught and corrected by later contributors and users.  (Seelye)

How does Wikipedia compare to other sources?

This is a much better question.  The answer to this question includes the concept of reliability, but it also includes concepts such as accessibility and comprehensiveness.

Experience is increasingly finding that Wikipedia compares favorably to other online reference resources in all three ways.    

One writer throws in his support and summarizes with his own case study:

I did a quick test on my own, looking up Nancy Mitford (I’m a fan) and judging the results on time and accuracy. Wikipedia gave me four pages of almost 100 per cent accurate information (I rang her niece, Emma Tennant, who spotted one small error), together with 33 links to related characters and a 16-line bibliography suggesting further reading. I got the whole lot in ten seconds.

The Britannica required a 20-minute trip to my nearest library. It gave me 350 words and a bibliography with one entry (Harold Acton’s memoir). The online version offered the chance of signing up to a 30-day free trial, but still required my credit card details, replete with reassurances about taking my privacy “very seriously” - always a worrying sign. The DNB provided by far the best and fullest entry (but so it should). However, a month’s subscription costs £29.35, and a year will set you back £195 plus VAT.  (Linklater)

Asking only whether you can trust Wikipedia is an inane question.  All information from all sources should be received critically and judged for its reliability.  When you research a topic you develop a sense of what data is common knowledge and which data needs to be confirmed in other sources.  

But since Wikipedia does not have single authorship, there is no person to trust.  However, you could say you are trusting the process (which is what Wikipedia is by definition - a “brain” in the process of development as Seelye defined it above) even though the content at any one time may not necessarily be completely accurate. 

Seelye’s question (Can you trust it?) is very much like asking whether you trust yourself.  You know you are not perfect; but that does not mean you are not fairly reliable and also open to improvement.  That is the same process that is going on with Wikipedia.

The problem is that most people probably think that Seelye’s question has to do with the elusive quest for 100% trust in the information itself.  Or maybe that depends on the 1960’s watershed we mentioned earlier.

Going along with those focusing on information content for the moment, however, one of the advantages of an online source such as Wikipedia is that most articles usually provide online references one can immediately check.  When documentation is lacking and the data is not confirmed elsewhere, then one is immediately cautioned about being dogmatic in citing an article.  You do not “trust” information that is not widely acknowledged.  As the biblical proverb says, “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”

It’s not simply a question about trusting Wikipedia - it’s about the citation of sources in particular articles. And that is an issue that must be reckoned with in every reference source that one uses.  Whether it’s the New York Times or even the New York Sun.

Retelling the Old Testament
 

I discovered a large number of biblical videos after I was given a Netflix subscription.  And I also discovered that a few of them are actually fairly good, enabling the viewer to empathize with those ancient now well-known characters. 

The films in the list below are dramatic depictions of the Old Testament account from Abraham through Jeremiah that I have found particularly worthwhile for various reasons.  They are suitable for audiences of all religious persuasions since they simply present the biblical story as the Bible presents itself.

Although these are low budget operations, they are better than average religious films because they actually offer genuine interpretative insights into the meaning of the biblical text.  They may legitimately be seen as literary interpretations of the Bible and not just as attempts to make the stories fit our biases or preconceptions.

The biggest drawback of this series is the length of these films. They are not action-packed, and therefore will not appeal to those with short attention spans.  But for the most part they are not tedious either; they just demand thoughtful attention.  If the time commitment is a problem for you, try the last one, Jeremiah, which is one of the best and also one of the shortest on this list. 

The descriptions of these films are from the Netfilx website.  I suppose these videos are also available from other services such as Blockbuster; but I have discovered them through Netflix.

Abraham (1994, 187 minutes)

“This engrossing dramatization of the life of Abraham (Richard Harris), the most tested servant of God and the father of Judaism, spans from the patriarch’s quest for the Promised Land to the sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Barbara Hershey costars as Abraham’s wife, Sarah. Vittorio Gassman and Maximilian Schell are also featured in this award-winning installment from TNT’s “greatest stories of the Bible” series directed by Joseph Sargent.”

Jacob (1994, 94 minutes)

“In this inspiring tale from the biblical book of Genesis, young shepherd Jacob (Matthew Modine) falls in love with and wants to marry pretty Rachel (Lara Flynn Boyle), the daughter of his Uncle Laban (Giancarlo Giannini). Lacking a dowry, Jacob toils seven years as his uncle’s indentured servant to win Rachel’s hand — only to have the calculating Laban dupe him into another seven years of labor. Irene Papas portrays Jacob’s iron-willed mother.”

Joseph (1995, 145 minutes)

“As the Bible says, Joseph (Paul Mercurio) was cast into a pit by his jealous brothers and pled for mercy, but the brothers turned a deaf ear and sold their youngest sibling into slavery in Egypt. There, Joseph used his gift for divining dreams to become Pharaoh’s most trusted aide, saving Egypt from seven years of famine. When his brothers traveled to Egypt in search of food, they ran straight into … a forgiving Joseph! Ben Kingsley and Martin Landau co-star.”

Moses (1996, 182 minutes)

“An ordinary man is called upon by God to do the impossible in this lovingly told production of the Old Testament story. When the Pharaoh of Egypt begins to tighten the noose on his Jewish slaves, Moses (Ben Kingsley) leads them to freedom. Philip Stone, Anthony Higgins, Anton Lesser and Anita Zagaria are featured in this award-winning installment from TNT’s “greatest stories of the Bible” series directed by Roger Young.”

Samson and Delilah (1996, 180 minutes)

“Dennis Hopper and Diana Rigg star as the biblical Samson and his nefarious lady-in-waiting, Delilah, in this retelling of the age-old story. Gifted with enormous strengths that also leave him vulnerable to the selfishness of others, Samson soon learns what kind of person Delilah truly is. He must prove himself a hero during his darkest hours by avoiding Delilah’s wily ways once and for all and staying true to his God-fearing spirit.”

David (1997, 182 minutes)

“The saga of David (Nathaniel Parker), a shepherd boy who grew to be king of Israel, comes to life in this epic production originally broadcast on TNT, part of a series of tales from the Old and New Testament. From his legendary battle with the Philistine giant Goliath to his struggles with King Saul (Jonathan Pryce) — and his love for a forbidden woman (Sheryl Lee) — David’s life is full of unforgettable dramas. Leonard Nimoy also co-stars.”

Solomon (1997, 172 minutes)

“King Solomon’s ascent — from mama’s boy to a sovereign famous for his wisdom and international coalitions — is recounted in this two-part, made-for-TV movie. Part 1 depicts the rivalry between Solomon (Ben Cross) and his half-brother, while Part 2 explores the notion that Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (Vivica A. Fox) shared more than just a political partnership. The script interleaves background information to provide a historical framework.”

Jeremiah (1998, 96 minutes)

“Jeremiah tells the story of the prophet who abandons his family, and also the woman he loves, in order to relay God’s message in Jerusalem. Although his warning about the destruction of the Holy City results in him being branded as a traitor and persecuted, he continues fearlessly with his mission. His prophecy comes true and he is forced to experience first hand how Jerusalem is destroyed by the Babylonians and how the inhabitants are taken as prisoners to Babylon.”

“I felt helpless - not about God’s mercy - but helpless with my situation“

Majid Hameed

Iraqi Civilian Disabled by War Struggles to Find Aid

NPR  interview by Eric Westervelt

December 7, 2007

36-year-old  Majid Hameed, father of five children, used to work as a blacksmith and night guard in Baghdad; but then he was crippled by a car bomb at work, losing both hands and forearms just above the elbow.  He says…

Before, I was a complete human being, but now I feel like I’m half human. Others have to do most everything for me. It’s like a child’s situation. They feed me, wash me and change my clothes.

NPR reports that, “Now without hands or a job, Hameed provides for his wife and five young sons by selling trinkets on Baghdad’s still precarious streets. These days he hawks little plastic spray bottles of car air freshener. Using string, he hangs the trinkets from what is left of his mangled arms, which he covers with torn socks.”

In a story that seems like it could have come out of a Dicken’s novel, NPR describes the hardships Hameed faces in his new life on the street; but I want to focus on Hameed’s own words:

This job now, I feel I’m humiliated in the street all the time, dealing with some bad people and people who just don’t care. Some people encourage you, others do not. Some just dismiss me saying, ‘Let God help you.’ Such things drive me crazy. I’m not a beggar.

It is in response to his largely unsuccessful efforts to obtain good medical care, prosthetic arms and workman’s compensation that he says…

I felt helpless - not about God’s mercy - but helpless with my situation, with the government and the Americans. They don’t keep their promises. Until now, we are colonized by someone stronger than us. They made us a government of empty chairs only….  I don’t feel completely broken. I’m helping my family to live.

No Doubting God’s Mercy

What I find particularly interesting about Hameed’s report is that despite all he has been through, he states “I felt helpless - not about God’s mercy.”  He does not doubt God’s mercy.  It is quite possible this represents an idiomatic or rote expression; but even if it does, it is still significant that he chooses to use it because it demonstrates the deepest orientation of his heart.  It is quite possible that, like the Psalmist, he is telling us of an inner resource within his heart.

Hameed’s testimony is that God is good to him, despite his terrible circumstances, which are also directly controlled by God according to Islamic doctrine.  We have no way of knowing to what extent Hameed has ever thought through the Islamic doctrine of God’s will or what his actual beliefs are; but we have an insight on his spirituality because of his testimony under extreme duress, which also challenges us to wonder how we would respond in similar circumstances.

People have been known to lose their faith for far more trivial reasons. 

In MySpace suicide case, community fights back

By P.J. Huffstutter

Los Angeles Times

November 22, 2007

You probably saw the story of the 13 year old girl who committed suicide after becoming distraught over being rejected by a boy she only knew through her MySpace account, but who turned out to be a lady in her neighborhood.  The girl was subject to depression among other problems, and the lady pretended to be a boy who was interested in this girl, but then cut off all ties with her because he said he heard she wasn’t nice to her friends.  At the same time he also began sending out negative messages about her. That tipped this girl over the edge and she committed suicide within a day.

Now we hear in this latest update to the story that the authorities have not been able to find a charge to level against the lady imposter, even though she was an adult interfering with a minor child’s well-being. 

This article does point out one law that might possibly apply…

Parry Aftab, an Internet privacy lawyer and executive director of WiredSafety.org, points to one federal statute that may apply in the Meier case: the telecommunications harassment law. Amended in 2005, the law prohibits people from anonymously using the Internet with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person.

But an even more fundamental question this case raises is about the nature of child abuse.  What constitutes child abuse?  

Why can’t the authorities conceive of this case as child abuse?  If an adult somehow had managed to do these kinds of things in a face to face encounter would they have also been “legal”?  Is it permissible for adults to use deceit and subterfuge to deliberately hurt children?

Does the Israel Antiquities Authority Want to Destroy BAR?

“First Person” by Hershel Shanks

Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December 2007)

Israel seems intent on proving that Bible-believing Americans have nothing to do with continuing American support for their country.  In fact, reading between the lines of this report and filling it in with other news from Israel, it almost looks like they are engaged in a long range plan to undermine any good will they may have among Americans interested in biblical archeology.

Following the pattern so common in government and business today, the Israel Antiquities Authority is not headed by a subject specialist or by someone experienced in that field, but by a professional soldier, Shuka Dorfman.  And as so often happens in these situations, disruption follows since command decisions are often made that frustrate the functioning of those under their authority, since they do not fully understand what they are managing.

Hershel Shenks reports that Shuka Dorfman has now virtually denied BAR staff access to all archeology sites and information requests by BAR representatives throughout Israel, knowing full well that BAR is the leading popular disseminator of biblical archeology information to laypeople and non-archeologists throughout the world.

Why is Dorfman doing this?  Shenks claims it is a personal vendetta because of a slight he describes in this column, not even worth repeating. Obviously Dorfman is not as tough a soldier as you would think a general would be.  Maybe you get more thin-skinned as you age and move up in rank, but it also seems to make you more bitter.  Is this what happens to Israeli generals?

But when you pair this report with the following recent story from the Jerusalem Post you have to wonder if Dorfman’s approach is really more intentional than personal:

Archeologists slam authorities again for allowing Temple Mount dig. Month-old Wakf infrastructure work intended to repair electrical lines

A group of Israeli archeologists on Monday renewed their blistering condemnation of the Antiquities Authority… The work started last month on the northern section of the Temple Mount in the area of the outer courts of the ancient Jewish Temples with the approval of the Israel Police and the state-run Antiquities Authority…  (8/28/07)

There seems to be a controversy brewing now over whether the prime minister ordered this project, which the archeologists claim endangered underground antiquities and was undertaken illegally, since a committee of the Knesset is now investigating this incident and has received the following response…

Dorfman acknowledged that he had not asked for permission from a ministerial committee established to oversee Temple Mount excavations, as required by the regulations. However, he and the Jerusalem District architect, Yuval Baruch, told the panel, “There was no damage to the remains of buildings or artifacts.” Dorfman also said he had been more lenient regarding the terms of the excavation because it was the only way he could be sure the authority would be able to supervise the excavation.

Dorfman strongly denied allegations by a member of the archeologists’ committee, Yisrael Caspi, that he had been ordered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to give the Wakf permission to dig the trench.

(MKs want to probe Wakf for Mount dig, Jerusalem Post 10/22/07)

Eventually we may know whether Dorfman’s strange actions are just personal idiosyncrasies, or whether they represent calculated choices for the future of Israeli archeology.  Either way, let’s hope they modify their course and allow for the free flow of information.

Gutsy Guilt

Don’t let shame over sexual sin destroy you

John Piper

Christianity Today  (October 2007)

“It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,” is what Jesus told Saul on the Damascus road according to the KJV.  That is the perfect summary of how John Piper deals with the problem of sexual sin in this article.  He has grand ambitions, but he does not ground them in everyday realities.  He proclaims God’s word, but does not connect it to life as it is really lived.  What he is offering in fact is largely contrary to reason and evidence.  It is way too hard to face the facts.

Piper is concerned that too many young Christians are failing to pursue their spiritual ambitions because of sexual guilt.  His burden is that they should not end up wasting their lives because of guilt.  He is not so much concerned that they completely overcome their sexual problems.  As long as they are resisting temptation even though they give in again and again, then he is satisfied.

Although this article gets somewhat convoluted at times, the essential ethical argument is as follows:

# 1  Piper places masturbation, fornication, and pornography all in the same category, which he refers to as sinful.  By this grouping and his few examples he seems to be referring primarily to single young adults. He says,

The great tragedy is not masturbation or fornication or pornography. The tragedy is that Satan uses guilt from these failures to strip you of every radical dream you ever had or might have. In their place, he gives you a happy, safe, secure, American life of superficial pleasures, until you die in your lakeside rocking chair.  [emphasis added]

# 2  God’s holiness will be revealed by his wrath against sin in judgment, but in Christ’s death God completely forgave all our sins.  This means if we place our faith in Christ we are already forgiven.  As one paraphrase (not used by Piper) puts it…

You were dead because of your sins and because your sinful nature was not yet cut away. Then God made you alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sins. He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14 (New Living Translation)

# 3  Those who have true faith in Christ can live lives of bold confidence in their forgiveness even though they may still sin from time to time.  The sign that they have true faith is that they are fighting sin: they are resisting temptation.  Piper says…

The distinguishing mark of saving faith is not perfection. It is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight not with fists or knives or guns or bombs, but with the truth of Christ. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life….  So if all you can see in the Cross of Jesus is a license to go on sinning, then you don’t have saving faith.

I think any thinking person can readily determine how they will evaluate this argument.

For myself, I think the basic structure is sound; but lumping all three topics (masturbation, fornication, and pornography) in the first category leads to wrong conclusions.  The argument is based on the assumption that all three of these activities are sinful; but I think that masturbation is not necessarily sinful.  Piper seems to assume otherwise.  In so doing, I think he is denying the physical dimension of human experience the space it needs for one to develop and affirm either the gift for marriage or singleness, depending on God’s will.  He is not acknowledging that sexual energies emerging in the maturing person demand an outlet.  Rather than channeling them toward accepting the gifts God has offered, he is suggesting that people should resist those energies as if they are sinful rather than natural.  

By suggesting that young people should try to fight against their sexual feelings rather than learn how God may be directing them through those urges, John Piper has lost sight of the goodness of God’s creation and has not quite helped young people to fully reorient their minds to God’s new creation in Christ.

Yes, we need gutsy guilt.  But let’s feel guilt about the right things.