For those of you interested in the Belgian racing pigeon market

I don't know why, but I felt I needed to post this.  One of those strange notions that the focus on the news is beginning to slide ever eastward.  Note the origins traced back to Europe.

Man vs. Machine: Jeopardy style

I  definitely am going to watch this.  We'll see how it plays out, and find out information about how the computer was programmed in the meantime. In the 1990s. then world chess champion  Gary Kasparov famously beat an IBM computer in a much watched - and amazing - performance.  But then, the computer was reprogrammed with a more Kasparov-focused approach to chess, and the computer won.  That caused many to cry foul, because the idea was could a computer simply programmed to beat anyone beat the best?  The computer that finally did Kasparov in had been reprogrammed to beat, well, Kasparov.  Others, of course, said it was fair since any opponent worth his or her salt would study someone like Kasparov in advance.

Still, this will be fun to watch.  Hopefully the computer has been programmed in general, not to defeat the two Jeopardy champs.  The big question is, will the computer be able to get wrong answers, or simply will the contestants have to be faster.  We'll see. 

Jewish leaders demonstrate the problem with rhetoric

Now I haven't blogged much in the last couple days, owing in part to some other obligations. Also, while I did point to a few things that hopefully dispelled the shameful attempts by many to exploit the Arizona shootings for political gain, I didn't want to go down there myself.  Giving some time and quiet reflection for those who were the victims seemed good enough.  But now I'm back to things, and thought I would comment on a strange issue that has come up.

Apparently, a barrage of criticisms from Jewish groups has erupted because Sarah Palin used the term blood libel.  File this under WTH?  Even the criticism is confusing.  The Anti-Defamation league admits it is a term that has become part of common parlance, but then criticizes Palin for using it.  Why?  Are only some people allowed to use it?  Because they don't like Palin?  What does that mean - it's become common parlance but she shouldn't have used it? 

That is one of the problems in our modern discourse.  I've spent days insisting that our rhetoric now is no different than in previous years.  But that's NOT to say that the context of our rhetoric is not different.  It's very different.  The presence of 24 hour news channels, the existence of the Internet, can take a simple statement and run it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and build up anger and resentment where it may not have been without the constant overplay. 

Plus, we are an immature society.   I heard Rush Limbaugh reflecting on his birthday yesterday.  He made an interesting point.  Baby Boomers (and I would say those generations that came after), didn't have to grow up fast.  In fact, the argument could be made that many never grew up at all.  The celebrated Greatest Generation had to grow up fast.  At 14, my Dad had to work in a lumber yard to help the family.  A lumber yard.  Today, at fourteen the worst our kids are even allowed to do is bag groceries.  And that was par for the course.   So by the time that generation as storming the beaches at Normandy, or landing at Iwo Jima, sure they were just kids.  But they were kids already more mature and with more common sense wisdom than many Baby Boomer retirees today. 

So there are differences in the context.  But I also think a big, BIG, part of the angst in our dialogue is that we are dealing with foundational differences. We are literally seeing one side or the other side not really give a damn about anything but their own perspectives, because each side is rooted in conflicting foundational truths.  The Anti-Defamation League didn't come out with any condemnation of Palin's accusers that I'm aware of, despite basing its existence on righting injustices because of the horrors of all the false accusations that the Jewish people had to bear throughout the centuries.  But suddenly, Palin uses a word that the League admits is common, and Bam!  Palin is playing to anti-Semitism.  She can't use that word.  Can anyone use it?  Can only Jewish people use it?  Who can use it? 

And that's an issue.  Each side wants to impose its values on everyone else, while opening the field for anyting it wants to do.  So on one side we see the growth of harsh rhetoric, the F-Bombs, the accusations of this or that because we happen to like or disagree with this particular set of values, while on the other hand a growing list of Forbidden Terms is being imposed on us.  You  can say this, you can't say that.  You don't dare say that's so gay.  But Christianity is an evil myth?  No problem.

It's a bi-polar society that not only tolerates, but encourages an extremely disrespectful, and even hateful round of dialogue as long as it suits this or that ideology, while closing the noose on a growing number of phrases, words, and idioms simply because this or that group may be offended..  A sort of tolerant/censorship approach which, I can't help but guess, causes a lot of the tension and creates the impression that free speech belongs to only such as these, and not those over there.  And that's almost sure to cause the blood to boil in some sectors, more than any posters or slogans could ever do, if I'm any judge of human nature.

Elizabeth Hughes learns the better side of human nature

After days of wrangling with the post-Arizona shooting conundrum, as we've seen the worst humanity had to offer, have celebrated the heroics of the best humanity has to offer, and watched the worst creep back in as humanity slid back down the sin slide to exploit the best and worst for their own selfish gain, things can sometimes be discouraging.  And yet, us humans are often capable of spontaneous reminders of that divine spark within us, that part that just automatically kicks in and gives that little cup of cold water simply because we want to help, to do the right thing.  No heroics.  No storming the beaches.  Just helping a little girl avoid embarrassment.   Note immediately there is some laughter, but that ends almost at the blink of an eye as the audience quickly turns a potentially hurtful moment into one great lesson on the lighter side of human nature.  Well done hockey fans!

The reason for the Arizona massacre

Is best summed up in this little phrase:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

You see, this tragedy, like so many, showed something we just don't want to admit.  IT showed we live in a fallen world.  Why did the shooting take place?  Why was Julius Caesar assassinated?  Why did William invade England to seize the crown?  Why did Muslims and Christians fight over the Holy Land?  Why did Christians sell slaves to Muslims by way of Jewish merchants?  Why have there been wars and atrocities, torture and crime?  Why did the 19th century, convinced that by eradicating old, worn out notions of God and religion, and replacing it with the latest revelations of scientific thought, give birth to the 20th century - a century almost entirely motivated by secular ideals that would kill more human beings in a hundred years than any five hundred year period before?

It's because we are sinners in a fallen world.  We can't help it.  No matter what good, we can still corrupt it.  No matter how noble the cause, or pure the ideal, the sinful nature of humanity will cause it to warp and become a tool for short sighted, self centered interests.  Hence the immediate politicizing of this horrific mass murder before even the blood on the streets had dried.  Hence many in the media using it to attack those on the 'other side', and those on the other side defending themselves by bringing out endless streams of examples of the hypocrisy behind assuming only one side is the problem.  It's in our genes.  Our Founding Fathers were not post-19th century secularists, influenced by the likes of Freud and others to think that humans are a blank slate with the potential for unfettered goodness.  They were still heavily influenced by the historic Western Christian tradition that insisted, among other things, that humans will sell their birthright for a bowl of stew every time.

That is why this happened.  It's why leaders, journalists, pundits, and other notables were flagrant in their attempts to seize upon this carnage.  They may not even have realized what they were doing.  Sometimes as I watch our society in decline, and see what people are capable of, I wonder how aware a slave owner in the South really was of his sins.  I wonder just how justified the most heinous inquisitors of Europe were.  I wonder how any humans, when living out the capacity of our sinfulness, may be so immersed in their own way that they are oblivious to what is so obvious to everyone else.

But then, as I have said so many times, sinfulness is like body odor.  We tend to recognize it in others long before we recognize it in ourselves.  Perhaps if anything is to be learned, it's the lesson that no one movement has the sinless path, or for that matter, wants the sinless path.  For all the talk I heard growing up of relative truth, no country having the right to impose morality, and the dangers of closing a debate, it's all I see today. Are those who once screamed open mindedness and tolerance, but now call for the stumping down of debate, or even utilize the deaths of innocent people to gag those with whom they disagree, evil or liars or hypocrites?  No, maybe not.  Maybe they are just children of sin in a fallen world.  A lesson the Christian tradition has taught for 2000 years, but sometimes I think we have forgotten.

None of this is to say we should throw our hands up and say let's sin boldly.  It's not to say we can't learn from lessons, see where problems are, and try - preferably through self refelction, but with the ability to diagnose problems - to fix what we can in the time we've been given.  But the thought that something new has happened.  The idea that we are at some plane that has never been, or the events of Saturday could ever and only have happened because of, well, all the things we disagree with, is simply false.  It's happened ever since the serpent said, "Indeed, did God really say?"

Only conservatives hate!

For those who insist that is true, Michelle Malkin  gives you this.  Warning, it can be pretty disturbing.  Of course this is NOT to say there is no such rhetoric on the Right.  It's all over the place.  It always has been.  Just like there have always been fringe elements on the Left who say such things.  And sometimes those fringe elements can find a voice in a radio talk show, a daytime television talk show c. 1980s, a political rally, a comedy routine, a poster, you name it.  It's always been there.  And if we want to talk about our current climate, go for it.  If we want to use this horrible mass murder in Arizona for some self reflection, that's fine.  If we try to improve ourselves then that's making good out of something bad. 

But the shame, the crime if I may wax rhetorical, of this has been those in the media, including the supposedly 'repsectable mainstream media', who have tried to cash in on this nightmare killing in order to shut down debate and therefore ram through the pathway of their own agendas.  Who have tried, despite the existence of the Internet ad the ease of finding the above cases, to act as if vitriol is of 'them' along.  Some I admit, like Joe Klein, have pointed at least a limp finger at the like of Keith Olbermann or MSNBC in general.  But far too few have. 

And nowhere do you hear other names, like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or Joy Behar, who has her own show on CNN HLN.  How about such academic lovelies as Sam Harris or media darling Christopher Hitchens, who have made a career saying they nothing less than hate all religions, or the religions they deem unworthy to continue.  Where is that?  But enough of this.  Anyone who has a brain knows that any group, any ideology, any institution has its zealots, its extremes, its bad apples. 

In all of this, my biggest question is why does the media, why do journalists, continue to act as if the Internet isn't there.  As if multiple media outlets with competing biases aren't able to dig and find facts that contradict what they are trying to say, the bias they are trying to advance?  Do they have contempt for people?  Or my biggest fear, do they figure we are at a point where we don't care about facts at all, just our agendas?  The latter concerns me the most, and more than anything, is the factor of modern discourse I worry about.

Of course, then there's Joe Scarborough

Missing the change in the wind's direction, Joe Scarborough, MSNBC's important conservative spokesman, reminds everybody that everything from Arizona back to Oklahoma City is more or less the conservatives' fault.  Naturally he doesn't come out and say it, nor does he miss the fact that there was a rush to judgement on Saturday.  But note his lack of holding anyone other than those on 'the Right' accountable. He does end with a sort of 'everybody needs toned down', but note the lack of examples of 'everybody' not associated with conservatism.

Of course that's what he does.  As a dutiful Republican spokesman, he repeatedly reminds us that it's the Republicans' fault, that conservatives are to blame, that extremists are pretty much on the Right causing problems, and our country would be better off if the Republicans dropped all those moral things and more or less helped President Obama and various Democrat initiatives.  Of course it's a joke.  And there's plenty of betting money out there that if Mr. Scarborough runs at all, it won't be as a Republican.  For me, who has ever only had a mild affection for the GOP anyway, I wouldn't be surprised.  To me be what you are.  And Mr. Scarborough might have a bright future as an independent or a Democrat.  But a Republican?  No, I still want one party, no matter how flawed and wrong about so many things, that stands against the wave of secular progressive values attempting to seize our country.  And people like Mr. Scarborough, if they have their way, will give us a two party system with a choice of one.  And that will not do.

Poll suggests Americans might be smarter than media

Or at least less politically motivated.  Still, polls are polls after all.  We have 310 million people in our country, and this poll talks to 673 of them.  Still, if polls (and common sense and general water cooler discussions are to be believed), it appears the majority of Americans, and a growing number of journalists, are beginning to back away from the 'Right Wing rhetoric kills!' meme that was promoted on the back of this tragedy.  It's one of those cases where we should be thankful for both a diverse option in terms of media, as well as the Internet.  For it didn't take long for folks to say, "Wait a minute, but didn't they say....?'  Coupled with some old timers like me remembering some pretty harsh words about such notables as Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Dan Quayle. 

This, in addition to the stark raving lunacy that appeared to come out of the killer's mind, any links that made it clear all was part of a vast, right wing conspiracy began to come apart.  Except for some holdouts on places like MSNBC and Huffpost, most quietly have begun to move on.  Some have even stopped to think we might need to focus more on the victims and their families!  Kudos for common sense.  Kudos for common decency.  And for those who tried to make political hay while the blood flowed?  Well, not much else needs said.

Kirk Cameron: CNN Science correspondent

Zillions of birds have been dropping from the sky while boat loads of fish have washed up on the shore.  Rivers of birds and oceans of fish I guess.  Anyway, who does Anderson Cooper fetch to give some insight into this?  Why, Kirk Cameron of course.  Because Cameron is a scientist, veterinarian, or ecologist?  Heck no. Because he is a former sitcom star who is famously a born again Christian who is now making movies based on the rather theologically vacant Left Behind series.  That's all you need!

Terry Mattingly at Get Religion has some fun with it, wondering why exactly Cooper and CNN would think Cameron would represent some widespread notion that the apocalypse is happening.  For his part, Mr. Cameron seemed to share the same 'what the heck?' view of why he was even on there. 

But a reader, michael, points to a more sinister reason that Cooper and company might decide the best way to delve into this mysterious phenomenon is to pull out ex-sitcom actors who happen to be religious to discuss a theory so wacky no serious religious person would give it a second thought:

It bears repeating. This is how (sometimes even good) journalism helps to keep religion in its place in a secular society, by rendering it banal…albeit not without plenty of help.

Meanwhile, Pope Benedict just gave a remarkable speech to the assembled diplomatic corps of 181 countries with ties to the Holy See (a remarkable thing in its own right). It was on the nature of the human being as homo religiosus and how the precarious state of religious freedom throughout the world therefore threatens what is most human in us. It is serious food for thought, at the very least. But you would never know it from watching the news or reading the papers where it remains all but invisible.

1/11/11 at 11:11

Or 111111111.  Do you know where your kids are who care about this sort of thing?

I want to be like Richard Winters

A nice piece from closer to home.  The death of Richard Winters, in light of the recent tragedy in Arizona, probably didn't get the media attention it otherwise might have.  But several outlets, especially from those near to his home, have given the matter more attention.  I liked this one from pennlive.com.  It focuses on his character, and what it was about him - and in many ways that generation - that has cast such a long shadow over those of us who came after.  As Stephen Ambrose is quoted as saying, he hoped young people would want to be like him; that they would say, "I want to be like Dick Winters."  Given the selection of role models today, they could do a whole lot worse.

It's worth noting that while Richard Winters overall like the miniseries' portrayal of the realities of war, without, as he said, glorifying or demonizing it, there were some bones of contention he seemed to have with some of the episodes.  He particularly spoke about the 5th episode, which not surprisingly focused on him.  He was on record as saying he felt it a little melodramatic, that he didn't tend to reflect on what happened on the battlefield until many years later.  He also said the iconic scene from that episode, where he is shone gunning down a boyish German soldier caught completely unawares, didn't actually happen that way at all. The soldier in question was, in fact, a crusty old veteran who attempted to kill Winters, but Winters was the quicker of the two.

Like most things on film, liberties had to be taken.  Some characters were switched around for the purposes of drama or storyline.  But on the whole, Band of Brothers is very faithful to the book, which almost reads like a script for the miniseries.  Generally much better than Saving Private Ryan in its accuracy, and its perspective told from the point of view of those who were there*, not from the point of view of Baby Boomers and younger generations who were not only not there, but had little experience at all in the world of warfare.  Highly recommended viewing.

*Many of the veterans famously asked for the language that was so prevalent in Saving Private Ryan to be whittled down.  Not that they didn't cuss, but as one vet said, they didn't cuss like that.  There was a bit of a compromise, though the language, and a gratuitous sex scene, were left in.  Ironically, it was the episode Tom Hanks directed - episode five - that removed most of the language, for the series was actually the passion of Tom Hanks. 

Why Bill O'Reilly should NOT be the source of Catholic instruction

A pretty solid piece on what Bill O'Reilly gets wrong when he discusses the key issue of abortion.  I know Mr. O'Reilly, like so many in the media today, frequently gets things wrong when it comes to subjects I know and understand - religious studies, history, biblical studies.  I can't imagine how many other things they get wrong.  But it's enough to remember the most important rule of our modern age: do not, I repeat NOT, get your education from our modern news media. 

I gotta get back in time

On a much lighter note, and for a little dose of nostalgia for us 40 somethings, here is a fun little piece on the year of 1985, when video games were pushing the envelope and going places we could only hope were the beginning.  The focus might be on the graphics, but consider the out of the ballpark imagination and creativity behind these installments. 

Richard Winters' death covered by The Lookout

A better job of covering his death than I've seen in some outlets.  Complete with some footage from the miniseries.  The comments are also kind.  Glad to hear he is getting some of the respect he deserves.  Tom Brokaw summed it up well:

"Dick Winters was the quintessential American infantry officer - brave, canny and modest,"  Brokaw told The Lookout. "His heroic leadership of The Band of Brothers is a one man course on how to become a warrior without losing your humanity."

Everything you know is wrong!

I'm always skeptical about any history book written with the underlying theme that everyone is wrong about what they think really happened.  Usually, that means everyone who really doesn't study history but gets their knowledge from the History Channel, the Movie Channel, or USA Today.  Most historians have a pretty good idea of what we know about this or that period of time - even if they argue about different interpretations of events.  Oh, you have disagreements, and usually those can be traced to the biases and belief systems of the historians in question.  But it's typically not because they just don't know.

I also find books like this can overstate the case, and try to make too much out of a little anecdote here or document there.  Most historians worth their salt know that the picture presented in the popular mindset about the Middle Ages is inaccurate.  It's more in line with a Hollywood fantasy film than accurate history.  Also, this book appears to be written by someone with more interest in science than history.  The fact that the period of time properly falls within the period of the Early Middle Ages, rather than the Dark Ages as the book's title suggests, gives me pause.  Still, I haven't read it, so perhaps it will be a great resource for Medieval Studies.  We'll have to see.

In fact, it could be a good companion to help add to the documentation that our popular perception of the Medieval Period is largely based on myth, fables, and fairy tales.  They weren't everything we are often led to believe, and therefore, even something as over the top as 'everything we know is wrong' can't help but set some of the record straight.

Remembering Richard Winters

He never won the Medal of Honor, but in some ways he came to represent that entire generation for an age that, at that time at least, had largely forgotten what it accomplished.  Here he is, giving a speech for the acceptance of the Emmy Award for the miniseries Band of Brothers. 

Rest in Peace Richard Winters

Richard Winters, c. 1944, as he'll be remembered by so many

Richard Winters, who was famously chronicled in the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers, as well as the book by Stephen Ambrose upon which the series was based, has died.  He was 92 years old. He stepped out of the public some years ago, citing his age and desire to enjoy some of that peace he promised himself all those years ago.  I would say he earned it. 

This is a sad day, and ironic time, for him to pass.  As we as a country tip toe around dealing with the chronic issues of our age that lead to the problems of our day, Richard Winters represented that Greatest Generation in many ways.  His quiet, self controlled dignity and courage, while living a life of gentle humility, seemed to be what we all imagined was best about that generation.  Of course it, like any, had its bad apples.  Yet when you look back, as much as we have salved our egos by convincing ourselves that whatever is bad today has always been that bad (and the absence of proof is just because folks weren't honest about such things back then), we can't help but feel there was something in that era, some foundational characteristic, that has been absent for some time.  A 'maturity' about them, something that suggested your average teenager then was about as mature as a fifty year old today.

I don't know.  I just know he was loved by his men, who held him in almost god-like veneration.  He didn't let things get to his head.  He lived the ultimate life that we ascribe to that era, and he along with those who served at that time did everything our country today no longer seems capable of doing.  Perhaps we'll pull out in time, who knows?  Maybe it will be from admitting that those generations had something that wouldn't be bad if we were to reclaim for ourselves. 

On a personal note, a few years back, one of his great grandsons had a Veterans Day performance that our local intermediate school puts on each year.  He was in attendance when the veterans were asked, as they always are, to stand up and be recognized.  My oldest boy informed me of this after it was over.  I could have screamed for missing it (my oldest boy was a year younger than the grade who put on the program).  Just missed him.  If only to have said thanks.  Oh well.

Nonetheless, God bless you Major Winters, may the perpetual light shine upon you, and may you rest in the peace of our Lord.

It's the rhetoric, stupid!

As everyone is sitting around bemoaning the current state of our discourse, this little video - Land of Confusion by the group Genesis - came to mind.  I remember hearing the song on the radio coming home from work a few years ago.  The DJ said 'wow, they had trouble getting that played back then!'  I wondered what he meant.  Who had trouble?  This was played round the clock when I was in college.  It was that time when, sadly, it turned out Ronald Reagan hadn't plunged the world into nuclear annihilation as many had predicted.  Hence, the emphasis on 'I can see the fire's still alive' referencing the problems still around.  Old prophecies die hard I guess.  Now, in terms of our modern discourse, try to imagine a video like this - exactly like it in tone and contempt - aimed at President Obama.  I won't hold my breath.  Certainly not by any public personality with any hope of continuing a career.  So, is it the rhetoric, or is it something else?



Fun note: The 'generation that would put it right' has been in charge for some time now.  How do you think they're doing?

The Tuscon Massacre

I may not blog much today.  I'm trying to get my head around what happened Saturday in Arizona.  I have a lot of opinions, and am trying to work them out.  I know already there are plenty trying to make political hay out of this, insist it's 'those people's fault', and try to advance whatever agendas they have.  Few will be pointing the fingers at themselves.  Most of what folks are saying now is 'discourse, discourse, discourse.'  Yet I know that's false.  Some of what I remember hearing 30 years ago is far worse than anything any public figure would say today.  It's gotta be something more foundational.  Something in the bloodstream of our society.  Something that is either the fault of our divisions, or the fault of whatever has led to our divisions.  But I don't want to say too much until I have time to sort it all through.  Right now I'm sort of working on a couple other obligations, plus keeping tabs with the news, the blogs, the websites that are covering this.  I'm no genius, but I know it's more than just a simple slogan 'it's the rhetoric stupid'.  It has to be deeper than that. 

So let me retreat into my hazy sanctum and tend to a few of my other obligations, and maybe some Holmseian deduction will hit me after looking at all the elementary facts.  Maybe not.  We'll see.

In the meantime, the best - and probably most mature - thing we can do is remember in our prayers those who are the real victims of this horror, their loved ones who must live forever with their losses, and all who were affected by the one who is ultimately to blame no matter what.  Till then, au revoir

The Arizona Shootings

My post for the Huffington Post:

As I listen and watch, I have a feeling I know where the discussion will go.  Most will talk of our modern discourse.  Others will focus on the potential role of this or that policy.  Gun control will be mentioned as it always is when this happens.  But the trend emerging is our discourse.  I am the first to admit that things get out of hand today, and sometimes I can get caught up in the over-the-top labels and adjectives.  But I don't think it's just the discourse.  Like many things, that's probably a symptom, not the disease.  I think it's because social issues and political issues have taken an almost religious turn, and in a way that we think of when we think ill of religion.  They are what define us.  We hate because of who is on the wrong side.  We are divided.  Nothing trumps our political divisions.  In fact, everything simply becomes fodder to advance them.  I'm old enough to remember when people still set aside differences for a common cause.   Not today.  Not 9/11, not Oklahoma City, not Hurricane Katrina, not anything.  Nothing trumps what appears to be the most important thing in our nation - socio-political issues.  It's how we define who has stars on their bellies and who doesn't.  And perhaps due to other issues, we have no feeling of respect, regard, or patience for those who don't.  I don't know.  But I can't help but feel we will touch at the surface of the symptoms, but never go deeper as yet one more chance for self reflection comes and goes.