Contemporary American churches in particular do not require following Christ in his example, spirit, and teachings as a condition of membership—either of entering into or continuing in fellowship of a denomination or a local church.... Most problems in contemporary churches can be explained by the fact that members have not yet decided to follow Christ.

- Dallas Willard
The Spirit of the Disciplines

The ultimate challenge of Jesus' ministry was to go to the city, the city of Jerusalem. This city, which was the center of education, religion, and politics, was also the place where corruption and crimes abounded. Yet, Jesus went there anyway. Following Jesus to the city was a risky business. Many would-be followers dropped out when they saw this ultimate danger. What will it require of us to move to the city? I ask this question whenever I find myself wanting to settle down in the comfort of material well-being. God may not ask us to physically move to the city, but God does require that we reach out to hurting people with the gospel, wherever they might be.

- Kyungsig Samuel Lee
Korean Family Devotions

Greed, I say, is a great flood; it is a whirlpool sucking one down, a constant yearning, seeking a hold, continually in movement; difficult to cross is the morass of sensual desire. A sage does not deviate from truth, a brahmana stands on firm ground; renouncing all, he is truly called 'calmed.'

-Sutta Nipata

Strange, this love announced by our Lord turns all of life right. To love others is to fill our own empty spaces.

- Thomas A. Becket
 

It is only by the constant cultivation of wisdom and compassion that we can really become the guardians and inheritors of happiness.

~ Matthieu Ricard

Obama's victory speech

Last one out of Iowa...

please turn out the lights.

Experience v. Judgment

This is the dichotomy presented on the Democratic side between the front-runners Clinton and Obama. Clinton presents herself as "experience" and Obama as judgment.

Well, the Pilgrim chooses judgment.

Two thoughts on this matter.

First, what good is experience if it is not a guide to good decision making? Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, demonstrating that her experience, whatever it is, did not help keep her from throwing her support behind a self-destructive foreign policy. Rumsfeld and Cheney are supremely experienced, and yet they are the architechts of the Iraq invasion, and Clinton fell right in line. Even now she won't admit to her failure- meaning she hasn't even learned from this most recent experience.

Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. He made that clear. His judgment was superior to Clinton's.

Secondly, just what is her experience? Yes, she's served a full Senate term, and he only a part of a term, but that doesn't seem to be what she refers to in her use of the word "experienced." She seems to be referring to her time in the White House with her discussions of foreign heads of state she's met and her being "battle tested" by previous campaigns. Let's remember, when in the White House she was First Lady- not a decision maker. She's obviously an intelligent woman and capable politician, and she clearly advised her husband (not to great success when it came to her healtcare proposal, however). But she was not a policy maker. Her 8 years in the White House were largely ceremonial. She met many people, but did not have an accountable policy making role- she simply delivered messages she was supposed to deliver for the President. Just how important is this experience? Not very when it comes to policy issues, but perhaps very important when it comes to political calculations. Is that what we want- another political calculator as President?

In the end, for all her experience, she gave this nation no better than what Cheney and Rumsfeld fed her.

Clinton's vote for the war in Iraq and her unwillingness to admit her error should be a fatal flaw in the eyes of voters. It may not be, but it should be.

It is for the Pilgrim.

Will Obama win Iowa?

Maybe, Mrs. Clinton, a black man can win.

New Iowa Poll: Obama widens lead over Clinton

Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, up from 28 percent in the Register's last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was virtually unchanged at 24 percent.

Far from a lock. But, the trend towards the end is key. Voters have to decide and stick w/ a decision. They begin to do that in the final days. So, the 32% may not change much.

That said: (1) margin of error is going to be around 5%; (2) 6% are undecided; (3) voters' second choice is very important because voters can shift to their second choice if their first choice gets insufficient support in their caucus (I believe the number is 15%).

Remember the Howard Dean collapse 4 years ago? The collapse of expectations can be hard to recover from. If Clinton were to follow up an Iowa loss with a New Hampshire loss (not unlikely given that Obama is w/in 4% in New Hampshire), her campaign could be over. She would then have to adopt a 'southern strategy' that would play, however gently, the race card and hope she could build up delegates there. Not a strategy that endears one to the Democratic electorate.

Remember a couple of months back when Guiliani and Clinton seemed inevitable?

Clinton Campaing nastiness

First, a campaign official has to resign for offering the proposition that Obama sold cocain as a youth. Now, another raises the spector of race in a sly, sinister way:

In Cherokee, one Clinton precinct captain who asked that her name not be used questioned his prospects: “We’ve got to keep an eye on electability,” she said. “Is America ready for a black president?” (source: Politico)

Who did it?

Did US ally Musharraf put the hit out on Bhutto? Did his buddies in the Pakistan military act independently on his behalf in what they thought was his interest?

India's counterintelligence points the finger at the Pakistan military.

Hard to evaluate this report. The Indian intelligence community is not particularly objective when it comes to the Pakistani military. That said, who has better sources and intelligence capabilities than the Indians?

Just seems to me that the rush to pin this on the radical Islamists is not very helpful. And the Pakistani government seems just a little to happy to encourage that rush- not the least example of which would be the police using hoses to wash down the scene of the crime w/in relative minutes of the assassination, washing away any evidence that may have remained.

Imagine a major assassination in the US where days pass and there are no suspects. No hard evidence disclosed- only vague, although logical, speculations. Further, the cause of death can't even be agreed upon.

It seems to me that, at the very least, the government of Pakistan doesn't want to know who did it out of fear that it may in fact have been one of their own.

It's been relatively quiet of late, but...

2007 was deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq

The year was the deadliest for the U.S. military since the 2003 invasion, with 899 troops killed.

One lazy blogger...

Just have not been able to get here of late to make entries. Time has passed amazingly quickly over the last few months- and my ability to get things done both at home at work have not kept pace.

I thought as my hand healed more time would come free. Not so. I had to make up for lost time, and I had to prepare to teach a new class. Sigh. Maybe the situation will relax soon.

I hope to get back to work here at the site after the holidays.

Items on my 'watch list' (much less sinister than a government watch list):

• Pakistan- with the assassination of Bhutto that nation looks to be in a very precarious position. There is no democracy when opposition candidates are killed.
• Our own election- Iowa votes this week. Will Edwards stay alive with a win? Does Guliani even matter any more? If Romney and Clinton are willing to be this mean this early in the election process, just how mean will they be willing to be when it comes down to the wire? Those are two nasty politicians.
• Relative calm in Iraq- does that matter, or are the terrorists simply keeping their powder dry waiting for our withdrawl?
• The media- is our excessive focus on Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, the (departed) Anna Nicole Smith, etc., a passing fancy or a depressing trend that is gaining strength? How can any self-respecting journalism organization devote 1 minute of news coverage to the topics above while American troops are at war? (Maybe that's the issue- are there any self-respecting journalism organizations???)
• Faith and politics in the upcoming election- will anyone truly exercise their faith through their politics, or will we get more of the same- exploiting faith (and the faithful) through politics? Does any candidate- all of whom profess to being a Christian of some sort- have the courage and moral compass to clearly state that they will not accept torture as a method of interrogation?
• The environment- how long will Americans continue to whine about the price of oil but do NOTHING about it? Supply is dwindling. Demand is growing. Prices will continue to rise.

Those are some issues for me.

For now, I'm enjoying the holidays, and hope you are doing the same.

Peace!

gp

First the Shah, now...

 

The cartoonist could have added the US one-time support for Saddam, right Mr. Rumsfeld?

Continued dis-service

In an earlier post I made note of how some Presidential candidates who are also Senators abstained from a key Iraq war funding vote.

They're at it again. This time, they fail to vote of the nomination of Attorney General Mukasey.

Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Obama, McCain all did not cast a vote.

Do they no longer need to represent the interests of their states and nation while they campaign for President. I understand that they will miss votes, but on fundamental matters? Especially fundamental matters on which they express strong opinions on the campaign trail?? Where are they when needed to keep another person who does not know if waterboarding is torture and illegal from assuming the position of chief law enforcement officer?

If they can be so cavelier about representing their states interests, how can we trust them to represent ours once they assume the office of President?

These individuals should be ashamed of their failure.

"All must be friends
All must be loved,
All must be held dear,
All must be helped."

- Teresa of Avila
The Way of Perfection

God is Great, God is GREEN

I've always seen care and concern for the planet- stewardship of God's gift to us- as a matter for people of faith.

 

Now an increasing number of typically Republican voters of an evangelical persuasion are coming to a similar conclusion.  To these individuals I say, "Welcome!"

 

[A] movement called "creation care," which asserts that Christians are the stewards of God's creation, has rapidly been been gathering momentum, said the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, or NAE.

"What is really happening is that American evangelicals are becoming, well, green, if you will," Cizik said...

"This is going to be an issue which evangelicals are going to look at when they cast their ballots," Cizik said.

"I think it should be on par with all the other issues," like abortion and same-sex marriage, he said. "When you think about it ... hundreds of millions of people around the globe are already being impacted by climate change."

In a poll last month by Ellison Research, 70 percent of self-described evangelicals said they believed global warming would have an impact on future generations, and 64 percent said action should begin immediately.

More than half — 54 percent — said they would be more likely to support candidates who worked to curb global warming.