Story Killers - Characters Unwelcome (part 2)

(Read Part 1 of this article here first!)

I think that if we asked "what is the point of telling a story?", only someone with a really simplistic view would answer "to tell of a sequence of events". That is what a history book is about, perhaps, but isn't a story really about characters, and isn't the point of a story to either teach a principle of life or to portray a point of view so the listener/reader/viewer can understand it better? I would argue that that is the real point of storytelling. Hence, when a movie screenwriter or director messes with these aspects of a story, they are abusing the story for their own purposes. This is what really gets my goat. Let's talk about two ways that a movie maker can really screw up:

Changing the outcome or message of the story

Think of the old stories told to children by their parents and teachers. Think of fairy tales - think of Mother Goose or the Brothers Grimm. Many of the stories were gruesome or sad in their outcomes, mostly because they were morality tales - short parables to teach children some wisdom about life - don't trust strangers, don't wander off into the forest, don't obsess over something that you can't have, etc. Either they had negative examples, where foolish choices had bad consequences, or they were stories about human nobility, where the heroes made choices to do right and were held up as examples. In both of these areas the modern film industry hates to keep up this tradition. Just yesterday I heard an interview with a modern TV writer who expressed the thought that all good stories are about people being bad.

So in modern stories we find that the young, selfish person makes bad choices but gets what they want in the end, or we find that all of the characters are selfish and mean and everybody dies in the end, but for no really good reason. No nobility is expressed or implied. Look at Harry Potter, for example. He does develop some character as the story goes along, but in the beginning he is rebellious, sneaky, and never listens to anybody that gives him good advice, but it all works out in the end. (I wasn't bothered by the magic in the books but I was really annoyed that he was a hero even though he was so foolish - a bad example for kids reading the stories).

Now when a story has a noble character or a moral lesson, this is almost always the subject of screenwriting revisionism. As a set of good examples of this, take most Disney cartoons of the era starting with The Little Mermaid. In many of these, the original lesson is inverted. The original story for Mermaid, the silly, pining teen girl doesn't get the prince and hurls herself into the sea, becoming sea foam - which will cause all silly, lovesick girls to be reminded to stay unselfish and level-headed every time they look at the waves hitting the shore. Disney? Nah, too sad - let's have her get the guy even though she makes bad choices, ignoring her father, because it's "love at first sight". This happens in more than one movie but this is one of the more egregious examples. (For another, consider the happy nuclear family of Zeus and Hera in Disney's Hercules versus the actual story from Greek mythology with infidelity and Hera's persecution of Hercules).

In other movies, the director seems determined to take a happy story and make it a miserable one, evidently because his own life is empty and depressing and he wants to share it with everybody else. Another frequent example is a story that is patriotic in the book but made into some sort of liberal anti-war theme like The Hunt for Red October, where the original story was very anti-communist but the movie changed to an anti-first-strike-weapon movie (evidently at the prompting of Sean Connery, who thought that Clancy's motives for the captain's defection were not believable). This last example also deals with characters, so it's a good segue to the last movie sin that infuriates me...

Changing the character of the characters

Why do directors hate characters so much? It always amazes me that people who make books into movies (and claim that they liked the books) change the motivations and personalities of the major characters with such aplomb. I will illustrate with a few examples:

The book Patriot Games introduces the character of Jack Ryan to us for the first time. He is a hero because he does the right thing, for the right reasons. The terrorists in the book are not screaming, violent thugs but are instead scary figures whose very humanity seems to have been obscured by their evil ideology. One of the scariest scenes in the book is when Jack is in the British courtroom to testify gainst the terrorists, and he looks at the eyes of his nemesis, trying to see a common humanity there but fails to find any - just quiet coldness. In the movie, the terrorist screams death threats against Jack as he is dragged out of the courtroom. The end of the movie is worse. The high point in the book is when Jack gets the drop on this scary guy after he almost kills Jack's family. He wants to shoot this guy so badly, and knows that he will get away with it, but he decides not to take personal revenge by shooting this guy who is at his mercy and turns him over to the law. Jack is a strong believer in the rule of law. In the movie, Harrison Ford as Jack fights the bad guy in a flaming motorboat zooming out of control over the sea at night, finally impaling him on an anchor. Yeah, it makes a great action scene, but Jack Ryan as a character is lost.

An even more awful example (and why I hate Peter Jackson) is The Two Towers. That masterful book sets up for the final battle in the third book by telling of a series of important events that establish the moral qualities of the major characters. Big decisions rest on several rulers.

• In the book, Treebeard and the ents, who know very well the depredations of Saruman, decide (without much input from the hobbits) in the entmoot to take action. In the movie, the ents decide to be selfish isolationists and have to be tricked into fighting by Merry and Pippin. Huh?
  
• Theoden, who Gandalf heals from Wormtongue's lies by giving him the truth, shows his nobility by declaring (after Helm's deep) that he has every intention of honoring his age-old defense treaty with Gondor. In the movie, Gandalf heals Theoden by some sort of exorcism. Theoden basically says that Gondor can take their treaty and shove it until he is forced to change his mind later.
  
• In Ithilien, Faramir, when he determines what Frodo is doing, makes it very clear that, though he understands the temptation that had ensnared his brother Boromir, he has no intention of falling to that temptation. "I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo". In the movie, he goes "cool! I'm taking the ring so we can win the war!" and is forced to give it up mostly against his will.
• Aragorn in the book goes and helps with the defense of Helm's deep, cementing a deep friendship with Eomer which leads to a triumphant meeting in the battle outside Minas Tirith "though all the hosts of Mordor stand between us". In the movie, Aragorn never even goes to Helm's deep (Jackson instead has elves from Rivendell showing up there) so that he can have another soul-searching scene with Liv Tyler to convince him to be the king of Gondor after all.

All in all, this was a travesty of a movie. It is all the worse because there will probably not be another LOTR movie like that made in my lifetime. It makes absolutely no sense to me why Jackson did this, unless he was convinced that Tolkien wrote a nice story, but didn't do well on the characters. SORRY?? The hostility I feel about this is really hard for me to even express. Idiot.

Characters are (at least for me) the main part of a story. Change the motives and you change the story. The song in Gethsemane in Jesus Christ Superstar is another great example of a personality inversion. The real Jesus comes to lay down own His life to "seek and to save the lost". In JCS the Jesus character says "God you hold every card ... kill me, before I change my mind." Yeccch.

Somebody save us from film directors with an inflated view of their own storytelling skills. If you guys are so good, why don't you write your own stories and leave ours alone?

Story Killers - Characters Unwelcome (part 1)

It is almost always a great disappointment to watch a movie that is based on a book that you really like. I use the universal "you" rather than "I" because I have found a great deal of commonality with nearly everyone I have spoken to on the subject. It seems to be a pretty universal experience. Interestingly enough, though, I have found that my reasons for this disappointment differ from what others have told me of their own feelings a lot of the time. In what way can a movie be a bad adaptation? I think that there are at least three:

1. Changing the storyline or the characters in the story,
2. Changing the outcome or message of the story, or
3. Changing the character of the characters

Let's look at each of these in turn.

Changing the Storyline or the Characters

Obviously, the most frequent thing that happens is the first, and this is for a fairly simple reason. Books are usually either too short or two long for a two hour movie format. Many childrens' books are just too short (for instance Where The Wild Things Are or The Cat In The Hat) and are just a few short pages of rhymes with lots of pictures, and any screenplay must invent an entire storyline that will encapsulate or give the background story of the beloved book. The real question is - does the added part match the feeling of the original story? Is it a good story, or is it just a waste of time (for instance The Cat in the Hat - ugghhhh). In the case of more adult-length novels, the opposite is true. The screenwriter must chop out lots of detail and exposition from the book to make it 2-3 hours of action on a screen. Often this will call for carefully removing entire sub-plots and characters from the story. Sometimes the screenwriter will even combine a couple of minor characters into one character to streamline the story.

I think that this is what most people complain about. For instance, many people complained, saying "Where's Tom Bombadil?" after watching The Fellowship of the Ring. I did not mind that so much because I knew there was just no way to get even a 3 hour movie from that book if too much time was spent on the adventures that the hobbits had just getting out of the Shire (I had many other complaints against Peter Jackson, however, which I will give in later sections). While this is an understandable thing and just part of making a screenplay, some do it better than others, who seem to delight in ripping up the story in a quite shameless fashion, in ways that do not even make any sense. Some of the more annoying things that they do are

• take out entire sections of the story that explain why people are doing something,
• add extra scenes just so there will be some gore or sex in the story,
• take out sections because of time and then inexplicably add in entire other A-Plot items that weren't even in the book (the entire first invasion in "Prince Caspian", Aragorn getting lost on the way to Helm's Deep just to have his own battle scene, etc).

Sometimes I can forgive a director or screenwriter for altering a story. As an example, take "2001 A Space Odyssey" . Though Kubrick made the plot of a lot harder to understand (compared to the book), he made it his own art in a way that captured the 'feel' of the story (and it was very cool). The same goes for his "The Shining". In fact, this is an example of where this kind of thing may actually be good. In general, Stephen King novels don't transfer well to the screen, because the first part of the novel (where the suspense is) usually is easy to show, but the denouement is usually so overblown in the book it is hard to show it in the movie and maintain believability ("IT" is a good example of this). What Kubrick did to "The Shining" was to play with the viewer in a really creepy way up to the end. Who did not want to crawl out of their skin when the ball rolls up to the boy while playing alone in the hall. Eeek! (Actually I read that King did not like Kubrick's interpretation. I liked both the book and the movie. A later, more faithful tv version that King supervised, seemed a lot less scary to me than the Kubrick version, or the book).

There are certain genres, however, where the movie writer/director play with a story at their peril. This would include beloved young people's novels and historical or religious movies. Almost every Jesus movie leaves me yelling at the screen as they mangle a story that I believe is historical, and whose historical details are important. Note that the Harry Potter movies (especially the early ones) follow the books very closely indeed. I actually heard an interview with the first movie's director about how he knew that Harry Potter fans would kill him if he messed up the story, so he was being very careful to get that right.

For me, the worst plot changes are the ones that affect the message of the story or who the characters are as people, though. I will deal with these in the next part of this article.

Spiritual vs Natural Gifts

It is an element of Christian doctrine that at the moment that a person becomes a believer and is converted, they are given a "spiritual gift". Usually we talk about spiritual "gifts" (in the plural) because they are described that way in various lists in scripture. This has led to a gift-directed method of determining God's will for the believer. The process is as follows: first, you will take various tests to determine what your spiritual gifts are. People sometimes do this for themselves, and sometimes it is done by church leadership when new members come in or when a new pastor arrives. Then, the results of the test are tallied and the information is used to help steer the member in a ministry direction that is indicated by the spiritual gift test.

An alternative view is given by teachers like John MacArthur, who believe that the best way to determine one's spiritual gifts is to be obedient to God and minister in one's local church. While following the leading of God and exercising your gifts, they will become evident. In addition to this, I have recently heard a clarification that I also liked. In much the same way as the "fruits" of the Spirit often quoted from Galatians 5 are actually different aspects of a single fruit of the Spirit, we are given a spiritual "gifting" that consists of a unique combination of the gifts, as listed in scripture, that is tailor-made for our unique position in the body of Christ.

This supernatural enablement for ministry is given at the moment of spiritual birth (salvation) with the "seal" (or baptism) of the Holy Spirit that places us in the body of Christ for eternity (1 Cor 12:13). These gifts are part of our new nature (2 Cor 5:17) and are never taken back (Rom 11:29) by God, just like our salvation. There are two aspects of our spiritual gifting that deserve some consideration: (a) how and when they are exercisable, and (b) the relation between spiritual and natural gifts.

The more difficult of these questions is the latter. What is the relation between spiritual gifts and natural gifts? The lists as given in 1 Cor 12-14 and Romans 12 include things like word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, effecting of miracles, prophecy (prophet), distinguishing of spirits, various kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues, apostles, teaching, service, exhortation, giving, showing mercy and hospitality. Leaving out the more supernatural things, like tongues and miracles, and offices, like apostle, the rest could be generalized to sound like evangelizing, helping the suffering, exhorting the weak or sinful, teaching God's word, preaching to affect hearts, sharing goods and home with others, and wisdom involving people and scripture. I am generalizing the "official" lists in many books for a specific point. My point is that many of these, especially those involving people skills or attitudes or even general insight and wisdom, are also available in large measure as natural skills. In other words, while someone exercising mercy in the flesh may not have eternal or higher spiritual effectiveness (John 15), the person whose hand you are holding in their hospital room will appreciate it nonetheless!

The reason this is an interesting question is that many people have a personality that immediately lends itself to service, even before any spiritual growth has happened, or even before real salvation has occurred. Contrarily, many others have less appealing personalities or skill sets that make them stand out in a church as "unspiritual". It has been my observation that having a sweet or compliant personality can actually shield a person from the type of humble "iron-sharpens-iron" interaction that causes real spiritual growth through pruning. It can also cause rampant spiritual pride that will destroy a church!

A few examples should illustrate this. I will use myself as my first example. I have natural strengths and interests in teaching and contemplating and comprehending philosophical issues. I also am often good at organizing things and have some talent with music as well. My personality is somewhat contemplative and non-assertive and I don't have a problem following someone else's rules - I prefer a framework of organization or behavior as long as it is clear. I like structure and cooperation. On the bad side, my social skills are not great - I tend to be an introvert and find socializing, especially in large groups, to be difficult. So, on the positive side, I enjoy studying theological and philosophical subjects, I am not naturally overtly rebellious and respect authority for the most part. I have always enjoyed helping other people understand things, and I am usually (pitifully) anxious to please. This means that if I am measured by my ability to respond to rules or traditions in church or seem to be able to understand and explain deep theological issues, I can get a free pass without having to grow spiritually at all. On the other hand, those to whom social interactions come as easily as falling off a log have often seemed to look on me with contempt and suspicion because, for instance, speaking with strangers is natural for them but is a difficult ordeal for me.

Example #2: I knew someone who expressed for years their love of being in church. This person was always generous with their things, and would think nothing of giving the keys of their new vehicle to a teenager with a new license. In fact, this person was so unattached to things that they would frequently give away things to others without a thought, even if they were things that they had painstakingly collected over time. This person was very involved in evangelism and youth work, and was open and loving to others. Later I found out that this person was regularly visiting the nude bar down the street from their church and grew more and more bitter about some things that eventually made complete shipwreck of their faith. During all this time, all of the positive traits mentioned above manifested with very little visible variation. We all know cases like this - someone who has enough good traits that they are given a pass for a consistent personal problem or who are kept on a pedestal. Images come to mind quickly (these are all composite general examples by design, hopefully not aimed at anyone in particular):

• the person who is involved in everything in church and beloved by everybody even while everyone knows that you don't cross them or you will find yourself in a meeting with the pastor to defend yourself or who will pin you against a wall for 45 minutes complaining about how you fall short of their view of what a good Christian should do,
• the person who has been a part of church forever but who openly admits that they never bother to study the Bible and don't care (that is evidently only for special people to do),
• the person who teaches but can't be taught, who leads but won't accept that any rules they don't like should apply to them, who teach forgiveness but often take personal offense that general policies are somehow aimed at them, who will serve but only in their own way, who will be part of a ministry but only if they are in charge of it,
• the person who sits and reads unrelated secular magazines during bible study and group prayer (excused because a family member is leading the activity),
• the person who expounds how things should run in the church but never seems to implement what they propose in their own life.

So many hundreds of examples (including mine) can be thought of, but my main point was just to set up this premise: The semblance of a "spiritually gifted" Christian life can be counterfeited by a believer in a carnal state or even by an unbeliever, especially if natural friendliness can be easily manifested in the social fabric of a church body. A quick mind and basic understanding of the gospel can also lead to actions that look like spiritual activity. An understanding and merciful disposition can win friends and be a force for good, but it can also (combined with a sense of self-sufficiency) prevent pressure that would otherwise force self-evaluation in other areas that need to be addressed. So, what is the measure of spiritual growth if all this is true?

Years ago, example #2 above caused be to think about this a lot, and I formulated the following idea: We all have natural strengths and gifts, and these become sanctified, useful, and even more powerful after we are saved and submit them to God for use. Generally a church can be quite functional, at least from the outside, with no further growth. Unless there are very few people in membership, any grouping of people will include many types, and if people are of a mind to serve, a body of sorts will be built. But are the spiritual gifts we are given always just glorified versions of our natural gifts, or are we mostly empowered in *new* directions, either redirecting our natural tendencies or "filling out our portfolio"? While the likelihood is that all of these are true in different cases in the sovereignty of God, I think that the measure of spiritual growth of any individual Christian is probably in those areas that are weak in his portfolio of natural gifts, not in those that are strong. For instance, I scored high on an old spiritual gifts test for "hospitality". That was because the questions had to do with actions, and we open our house to others as much as we can. Two possibilities exist, though. It could be that this is a clear manifestation of a spiritual gift, or it could just be that as an introvert I prefer to meet people on familiar ground. Which is it? Hopefully both, with a trend toward the first. But a better measure is needed.

A better measure for me, for instance, would be how much I grow in areas where I don't tend to be as obedient because I am weak there - those involving public speaking and personal communications, for example. Mostly, though, I just need to be humble enough to accept exhortations in others, and in the types of relationships where I invite others to evaluate me. Accruing lots of "pats on the back" is not only useless, it is destructive to growth. Churches are really spoiled by those who start believing their own success story and forget 'from where they have fallen', (Rev 2:5).

more later...

What I hope for in this blog

Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, describes a group of friends that he drew together for debate and mutual edification:

I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of the preceding year, [1727] I had formed most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the JUNTO; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy [physics], to be discuss'd by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positive opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties.

I must admit that since the first time I read about B.F's Junto, I was envious of his ability to get together such a group. This is really what I hoped for in this blog. So far I have mostly sent invitations to friends to read and reply to my ramblings, and except for two replies (one from my wife to humor me) I have seen no other response except for a word or email here or there that said "that was good". Though I appreciate the comments, I was really not so much looking for a pat on the back so much as a dialog on more weighty issues. At work, nobody is allowed to discuss anything that will cause controversy or offense. At church, one must limit most discussion to things that are in accordance with good doctrine and more speculative ramblings are (appropriately) discouraged.
Where are the debater's clubs of old? The talks that gave rise to the Federalist Papers? The polite discussions among friends in the library with your compatriots, sipping brandy, smoking cigars, and discussing politics & religion? (I would personally do without the drinking and smoking, but you get the image...) Imagine what it was like at the Junto meetings, or perhaps the the Inklings with C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams and their friends. On Facebook there are tidbits and mental flotsam, but no discussions of any worth. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only person who enjoys discussing philosophy, religion, and things like that.
I guess that the main point of this post is to say - if you read any of the essays I have written and it stimulates a thought, please feel free to post a response. If you start a blog, send me a pointer and I would be glad to follow. And, to my 'secret' follower out there, feel free to drop me a line and say hi!
And anyone who is interested in starting something more regular and formal, say so in response to this blog.

aTdHvAaNnKcSe!

It Matters Why We're Bad and Good (part 1)

Over the ages, the human mind has pondered many great mysteries of life, like "why am I here?", "What is my purpose in life", "Who is God?", or even "Is there a God?". The answers that have been proposed have been nearly as numerous as the minds that have been pondering these issues. Along with these high level questions are those which try to explain our current condition. For instance, why is there evil and suffering anyway? Or, is there even such a thing as good and evil?

One of the great subjects pondered by the human mind over the span of recorded history is the question of the human condition. Why do people do such terrible things, especially to each other? Or, for that matter, why do human beings aspire to be good in spite of this? It is the answer to these why questions which perplexes many but is so very important to answer, because in the answer to the question is its solution, and the solutions that have been proposed through history vary widely in their outcomes. While none have been successful at wiping out evil, I would submit that it is obvious that some have done demonstrably better than others at achieving relative peace and freedom.

Internal or External?

The fundamental question about evil-doing in people is whether the evil is built-in or whether it is due to external sources. In other words, do people do bad things because they are broken or because external conditions force them to? You can easily see that the way we respond to evil will depend completely upon which view we have. Take the story of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas as a whimsical example. The Grinch's evil "[he] hated Christmas, the whole Christmas season" is treated as a mystery, on which the narrator speculates "it could be perhaps that his shoes were too tight, or perhaps that his head wasn't screwed on just right; but I think that the most likely reason of all is that his heart was two sizes too small." Indeed, if the Grinch's problem was his shoes, the whole story would find a happy ending when the Grinch got new shoes. If the problem was the Grinch's heart, then the solution to the problem becomes much more complicated!

In Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" these two viewpoints correspond closely with what he calls the "Constrained" and "Unconstrained" visions. The former would correspond to the view that the problems with the human race are internal, a part of our make-up. The latter would correspond to the idea that our problems are from external sources. In his discussions, the constrained vision has humans that are inherently flawed and imperfect, while the unconstrained vision has people who are ultimately perfectible. Again, you can easily see how this might work itself out in real life. In the case of the Grinch, if the people who believe in human imperfection are right, the solution is probably a good police force and a long stay in prison for the Grinch for everyone else's well being (after he is sued in civil court for damages). If the problem is external (tight shoes) then the solution would be to have the Whoville council mandate correctly sized shoes for everybody. (Paid for by taxes, fines or jail time for wearing small shoes?)

Those philosophies of governance based on the external evil model are usually Utopian in scope. I used to have similar views, due to a steady diet of humanistic school teaching and science fiction in my youth. By the time I was in junior high my thoughts were like this: As the sciences of sociology and psychology advance, eventually scientists would discover the perfect way to raise children, eliminating all of the mistakes that fallible (and non-professional) parents made which caused kids to go wrong. At that point it was inevitable that, for the good of society, all children would have to be taken from parents and raised "scientifically" so that the human race could enter a time with no crime, bullying (a constant problem in jr high) and other ugliness in the social fabric. I used to expound on these theories to a Catholic friend of mine, who was (quite appropriately) horrified at my ideas. Even in my example (and the Grinch one above) you can see the problem - utopian visions require restricting freedoms of everybody to achieve their goals.

My thesis in these posts will be that that the philosophies that have the highest view of human nature will ironically lead to the most destructive and repressive regimes in the world, in which finally the individual is lost and destroyed. Conversely, I will try to show that a lower view of human nature have produced more freedom, liberty and happiness, and have led to a higher status for individual humans. (Note that I have separated the concepts of human nature and human worth, which I believe have to be kept separate.) The seeming contradiction of this should make sense by the time I finish.

(Stay tuned for part 2...)

Heart to Heart Response

What strategies can be used to deal with an uncomfortable situation brought about by another person? Fight or flight? Ignore, resolve, or counterattack? Obviously it depends on the type of situation. There are of course times when the situation is hopeless and it is best to do the "ignore it and maybe it will go away" tactic, for instance when a crazy or drunk person is challenging you, hoping for an excuse to get into a fight. Or in some political discussions it may be best to "fight fire with fire" to counter arguments. For the purpose of this discussion, however, I am speaking of times when another person (especially a friend or relative) confronts us about something uncomfortable - either a personal request for emotional support or a rebuke for hurtful behavior on our part. There are only two choices - our response will be either be a good-faith helpful response, or it will not. In the latter case, if we choose to not respond in good faith then we will do one of three things: attack, ignore, or emote. It is these four responses that I would like to discuss.

ATTACK
A counterattack can take many forms. A purely defensive move when confronted with something uncomfortable, a counterattack usually is instinctual rather than premeditated. In the case where someone points out something about you that seems wrong to them, it is usually easiest to question their right to criticize you by pointing out their own faults. There is always something wrong with them that you can see, and, even if you can't change their mind, you can at least shut them up for a time and leave the conversation feeling justified. What about if the uncomfortable situation is not confrontational? For instance, what if someone comes to you for help? Is there a way to do a self-defense attack in that case? Of course there is, but the counter-attack is different. In that case, we counterattack by either (a) being more pitiful than them or by (b) acting like their request is causing us great emotional stress. This will certainly deflect all requests for help, except from the most desperate people - those who are either totally insensitive to others or who are at least willing to play the "I am more pitiful than you" game.

IGNORE
A more effective (and more often used) strategy is to pretend to listen and respond, but not actually give anything that has been asked for. How many times have we been in the situation where we attempt to ask a friend a question or bring up a painful subject and we have a discussion with the other person, but after we get home we realize that, though we talked for a long time, we can't remember a single, specific answer to anything. Not only this, but generally we can't actually remember anything that the other person said. This is a very effective method, because it takes a considerable emotional effort to have a *second* conversation with the person on the same subject, and besides, they usually now have time to erect defenses to prevent a second discussion anyway. The problem with this strategy is that it allows us to be shabby and mean without too much conviction. The person ignored has their pain doubled by our callousness and is now left hanging, wondering if it is worth the trouble to try again. It is also a clear violation of the admonition of the Lord in the sermon on the mount: "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt 5:23-24) Sadly, if there wasn't offense before, there is now. Eventually, a family, workplace, or church will be filled with a lot of isolated islands as the walls get stronger between people.

EMOTE
Another strategy is to produce a lot of strong emotions to simulate action. A great display of repentance or caring can be produced without a single actual instance of change or help. This is often the response of a "feeler", who will often convince himself/herself that they have had a beautiful experience of friendship or personal revelation - often without any actual measurable change whatsoever. There will often be a great public testimony given by the Emoter about the exchange and how meaningful it was: "We had a heart to heart and we both cried", or "so and so challenged me to be a better person", etc. The real question is: did the person originating the interchange go away with their questions or concerns answered? Or will they just feel too guilty to bring it up again?

MEANINGFUL RESPONSE
So what is the alternative? I believe it can be found in the words of Paul to the believers in Corinth, found in 2 Corinthians chapter 7 verses 8-11:

For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while. I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.

I like this passage because the people in Corinth, whatever their faults (which were many) actually got it. Many people think that they are responding to criticism or other communications when they emote strongly and freely. In this case, the Corinthians could have spent the next month publicly crying in repentance, weeping and gnashing their teeth, or alternatively they could have gotten all offended and gone on the warpath, issuing a strongly worded defense to Paul, vindicating themselves and disavowing his right to criticize them. Instead of these responses, they showed that they understood both Paul's heart and his intent. Paul didn't want to make them feel bad at all. He wanted them to be happy! By his own words Paul said as much, as he expressed his relief at seeing that the sorrow that they had was not a morose, pitiful outpouring of emotion but merely a correction with the result that they experienced joy - joy that they shared with Paul. Look at how specific their response was:

1. They changed their behavior ("repentance")
2. Earnestly - from the heart with no fakeness or ulterior motives,
3. they vindicated themselves - checking against all charges, making sure everything was fixed,
4. they were indignant - they agreed with Paul's charges, adopting his values and not just doing 'lip service',
5. they had fear - they took it seriously, not flippantly,
6. they showed longing - they really wanted to do the right thing,
7. they had zeal - their response was not left "on the back burner" to do "when they had time" but was a first priority for them until it was complete,
8. they avenged their own wrongdoing - justice was done, they took care of the results of their wrong actions and made things right,
9. they demonstrated themselves innocent - not only did they fix things but they made sure that the change was complete and permanent.

I like to call this passage "the eight steps of real repentance". If someone comes to us with a problem, even if it is not an offense but a plea for help - can the steps above guide us? If someone comes to us and says "I have really been depressed lately", do we run away or would they say that we were earnest, longing and zealous to help? If someone has a problem with something that we have done or said, do we show fear, avenge our wrongs and demonstrate our changes? Or do we just avoid them in the future?

HEART TO HEART
I think that a lot of this passage hinges on the attitude of the Corinthians. They could have decided the "sorrowful letter" that Paul had previously sent them was for the purpose of making them feel bad, and acted accordingly. This would have been childish thinking - sort of like a teenager who tells a friend "my parents hate me and don't want me to ever have any fun" when told that they can't go to the midnight movie on a school night, instead of saying "they don't want me to go out that late on a school night. Sorry. Could we go on Friday night instead? I could go then!" If the Corinthians had responded that way then both they and Paul would have spent their time sorrowful. What a waste that would have been. How wonderful it is that they decided to give Paul the benefit of the doubt and not decided in advance that he just wanted them to emote.

This passage brings up one more interesting item. If we chose the "I'll just feel bad" route, it produces terrible things in our own lives. "the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, ... but the sorrow of the world produces death." There are two kinds of sorrow - there is the kind that produces quick life change and happiness, and there is the kind that produces wallowing in sadness and death - emotional and even physical.

This makes me think of the parallel stories of Peter and Judas. Both of them betrayed Jesus the same night - Peter denied knowing him three times (as predicted by Jesus) and Judas betrayed him to be arrested. Both Peter and Judas felt bad, though there was a marked difference. Before we undersell the betrayal of Peter, remember the emotional scene after his third denial, when from inside the house where the trial was taking place, Jesus looked right into the eyes of Peter with a "I told you that you would do this" look, and Peter went out and "wept bitterly". Wow. It almost looks like Judas repents more quickly than Peter even. While Peter is out weeping, Judas goes back to the high priest and throws the money back at them that he had received for his betrayal. But we can see the true source of the sorrow if we look more deeply. Judas felt *regret*, but this seems to be out of a sense of unfairness. Instead of true repentance, he went out in self-pity and killed himself, forcibly taking away from himself the chance of turning from his sin - he confirmed himself in it for eternity. I am sure he cried and emoted and demonstrated his unhappiness all the way to the field where he hung himself, but his self-pitying sorry resulted quite literally in death - physically and eternally.

Peter, on the other hand, while he did withdraw from ministry at first and went back to his old profession, when Jesus confronted and comforted him (at the end of the gospel of John) he turned back, turning his back on the sin he had committed, and became a leader in the church. He preached the first sermon in the history of the church (with 3000 converts), wrote some of our scriptures, and bravely died a martyr's death at the hands of the Romans many years later after a fruitful life of service. He had "repentance without regret" resulting in life - not only for him but for many others! Certainly the opposite outcome from Judas.

CONCLUSION
What does all the above have to do with my original premise? Everything. Part of keeping relationships healthy is making a heart connection to the other person. If someone comes to us with a need, we can either discern what they need or we can do what serves us - avoiding the uncomfortable either by giving empty help with big demonstrations of emotion or by doing something that will keep them at arm's length. Can we then go to God and expect his help, though, if our response to our friend was "be warmed and filled" with no actual help? Or if we responded "sorry, I will try to help you later (which will probably never come)"? Probably not. Can our families/workplaces/churches/clubs thrive if we sit behind our walls when others have reached out to us? Or looking at it another way, how much better would it be if we made it a point to always respond - even negatively if we need to - rather than leaving people hanging for the sake of our comfort?

"Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed". (Prov 27:5)

An Islamic Reformation?

Obviously one great problem facing civilization today is the problem of "radical Islam" with its jihad against the west. (Actually, the east is a target also, but in places like China there is not much opportunity due to the stronger control over the populace by an authoritarian police state). One topic that is frequently bandied about in the media and blogosphere is the need for Islam to go through a "reformation". The general argument goes like this:

• Christianity used to be a brutal, totalitarian religion with ecclesiastical control of government, torture, and crusades. After 1500 years of this, there was a reformation of Christianity that produced a kinder, gentler version of the religion that concentrated on personal religion and was compatible with modern pluralistic society.
• This kinder, gentler version of Christianity that was invented in the reformation was a more civilized version, which is the sign that the religion is past its uncivilized infancy and is now mature.
• Islam, coming several hundred years after Christianity, is due to be "matured" in the same way as Christianity. It is necessary and inevitable, and all we need is some "moderate" Muslims to take control of the religion and produce Islam 2.0 that will be compatible with our modern culture. Given as evidence of this possibility is the existence of nominal Muslims all over the world who have no problem mixing in with western culture, who are friendly and basically non-religious.

In a way, it is very surprising to me that this idea has so much traction in the current cultural dialog, because to me the whole idea has holes in it large enough to drive the Titanic through. On the other hand it is very understandable, since it seems to solve our problems without argumentation and bloodshed. In other words, "wouldn't it be nice?"

Personally, I don't think that this is a realistic or rational hope. The problems with this idea are many and I would like to discuss them. Once you wade through all of the wishful thinking and fantasy, the view is based on several misconceptions, which either show a lack of historical perspective or willful ignorance. For instance:

They Misunderstand Original Christianity
The assumptions mentioned above about the early stages of Christianity are not true at all. Jesus was decidedly apolitical. His own nation was waiting for a political messiah to overthrow the Romans and reestablish the earthly throne of David. Instead, he refused (at that time) to take a political position, even to the point of telling the leaders to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's". He sent his disciples (down to the current day) to preach the gospel of salvation "to every creature" and "make disciples of all nations", but this was to be a mission of making invitations by appealing to hearts, not killing those who would not join. He rebukes Peter in the garden, telling him that "those who live by the sword will perish by the sword". All but one of the apostles died a painful death at the hands of unbelievers, and not even the aggressive evangelist Paul advocated anything but preaching and reasoning with unbelievers to try to woo them to God. The gospel was to be spread through love and friendly outreach. This is original Christianity.

The crusades, torture, and political control came after Constantine and making Christianity the state religion of Rome - an empire whose political structures of religion were left in place but "Christianized". An entire empire filled with non-believers suddenly found themselves conforming to the new order out of a desire to stay in good standing with the new "Christian" state. Those who were what I would call actual Christians (by conviction and heart conversion) were outnumbered by citizens who said "sure, I am a Christian". An empire which had just a few years before been feeding Christians to lions is now telling everyone "you must be a Christian, or else". To the public perception, the persecuted became the persecutors. The structure of the church had an uneasy relationship with the government and over time the old ways changed. A thousand years later it was not only very difficult to recognize the teachings of Jesus in what was now called the church, but when people came along and compared the organized religion called Christianity with the words found in the Bible, the church took the astounding tack of putting the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books!

They Misunderstand the Reformation
The reformation was therefore not a new "re imagining" of Christianity, but a return to the original religion as described by its founder. It was a stripping off of over a thousand years of accumulated non-christian ideas from the world and its other religions. What Jesus taught was radical. What the "church" became was what all human religions of the time were - a works based, governmental body selling access to God with rules and special favors. The reformers rejected that (at the cost of many of their own lives) to try to get back to the teachings of Jesus. Did they do it perfectly? No, but there was steady progress. For instance, Martin Luther took a bold stand and was wonderful in many ways, but he still held some beliefs of the old church (for instance transubstantiation - there's a big word) and held strongly anti-Semitic views that tarnish his reputation now.

The point of all this is that the Christian reformation was a returning to the content of the Bible. The closer a believer is to the teaching of the Bible, the less like the medieval religion of Christianity they will be.

I should mention at this point that many people (including, sadly, our current president) try to discredit the Bible by pointing to verses in Leviticus and other places with strong punishments for religious crimes. Two things need to be said about that. First, the religious laws in the Torah are administrative laws for a theocracy. The biblical nation of Israel was a theocracy ruled by God and yes, it did have very strict laws. The nation of Israel was to be a special, holy people and these laws were part of their covenant with God and only for their local self-government. Secondly, the Jews were never commanded to go out and subdue the world for God and make everybody else submit to these laws. As Michael Medved has described it: Judaism is political but not evangelistic, Christianity is evangelistic and not political, but Islam is both evangelistic and political. That is the difference in a nutshell. To Islam the whole world is (or at least should be) a theocracy. A couple of real-world examples: While an observant Jew will refuse to eat pork, observant Muslims in this country have tried to force companies to take down billboards with cartoon pigs on them. Devout Christians will dress modestly and try to keep nudity off of prime-time TV, while often Muslims in England and France are right now justifying raping girls in western dress because they "dress like whores".

Author's Note: I don't want to be unfair in my characterizations above. Of course every religion has sickos (for instance the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas). The difference I am speaking of is not what many people might be doing in a religion but what the religion's founding documents, founder, and major leaders say. For example, Christians pretty much universally condemn Fred Phelp's church, as well as racists and abortion clinic bombers - quickly and decisively. Conversely, on 9-11 Muslims danced in the streets and celebrated all over the world. In the U.S., Muslims complain about persecution because people ask them to condemn terrorism (never gonna happen) or suggest a 13 story mosque should be built more than 600 ft from ground zero or make women show their faces for driver's license photos. On the other side, in many Muslim countries Christians hold services outside their burned-down churches which they can't re-build because it is against the law for them to do so. That is the difference I am speaking of.

They Misunderstand Islam
I understand that I am coming from an outside position on this one so I will try to not overstate my case. Islam started with political conquest. Unlike Christianity, the conquest did not start hundreds of years later but started with its founder, who established his religion with the point of a sword. Since then there has never really been a time where this has stopped. The initial spread of Islam reached up into Europe and was only stopped with bloody war. The Koran and other founding documents recount the initial military conquests of Islam and give rules for its continuance. This is a fact.

Some will point out that the Koran contains friendly and unfriendly verses. Established rules in Islam, though, include the law of abrogation, which states that later verses supersede the older ones, and the nastiest ones just happen to be the latter ones.

The very word "Islam" means "submission", and the essence of Islam is a strict system of works-based religious control that includes every part of life. It includes high religious duties as well as details as intrusive as which side to sleep on, what compass direction your bed should point in, which foot to use first when entering a room, which foot to put the most weight on when going to the bathroom, how to pick your nose correctly, etc. etc. etc. All of the individual's life comes under the control of the religion, all politics and family life comes under the control of the Mosque, and in a country under the control of Islam, non-Muslims will be tolerated but will live as second-class citizens, paying a special tax to the Muslim majority for the privilege of living and without any real rights. In countries where there a non-controlling but comparatively large population of Muslims (like Nigeria) there is constant violence - murder, kidnapping, burning down of churches and riots. These kinds of things are not limited to third-world countries but can be seen in places like Denmark, England and especially France. Again, these are the facts.

Moderate Means Different Things to Different People
The existence of large populations of generally nice Muslims in different countries is used to show the feasibility of "moderate" Islam. Added to this argument is the existence of those who call themselves Christians who "don't act all religious" all the time. To many modern people this is the best kind of religion and should be the goal of society. Sort of like a club people belong to. I remember the last episode of "7th Heaven" that I ever watched - one of the pastor's sons had a crisis of faith and went around to all of the different religions represented in his neighborhood. They were all friendly and in agreement with each other and it turned out that dad was regularly meeting with them and in unity with them. That is to be expected, I suppose, in a Hollywood show about a pastor who only mentioned the name of Jesus in one episode that I ever saw (he sang it after his heart attack as part of the song "do Lord"). That is the kind of moderate religion that the world likes. We're all on the same side and believe the same things - even pastors of churches are not "too religious".

The reason that this is important is because those who talk about Islam needing a reformation like Christianity had are thinking that modern, nominal Christianity was created by the reformation, which is totally false. There are nominal believers in every religion, including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity, both Roman Catholic and protestant.

If We Go "Back to the Book"
If Christians go back to the book, they will be "in the world but not of it". They will seek to love and coexist. There is nothing in the New Testament about establishing a state church or forcing converts or fighting bloody wars "for Jesus". Conquering the world will have to be in hearts, by invitation, one person at a time, through conversation. The final destruction of the enemies of God will be at the spoken word of the returning Son of God, not by his followers. To achieve the same thing in Islam, you would have to get rid of the Koran, and disavow most of its founding. This just ain't gonna happen. Sorry. No way. Just a rumor of destruction of one Koran causes deadly riots all over the world.

The most that non-Muslims can hope for is that Muslims will not follow their religious documents closely, or that they will pick and choose just their nicer doctrines (like nominal Christians who pick and choose but don't really follow Christ). But nominal believers in any religion will not all stay that way. Nominal Christians may read a Bible at any time, become convicted and decide to follow Christ. Nominal Muslims become radicalized by the Koran all the time also. Just think about it. If your neighbor becomes a fundamentalist, biblical Christian, you may have to put up with someone asking you about whether you know Jesus and if you have eternal life. They might (horrors) ask you more than once! (Insert scary music here) But your neighbor becomes a fundamentalist Muslim, he may try to kill hundreds of people to guarantee his entrance to heaven. (Some of the 9/11 terrorists went to the Islamic center about a half mile from my house.) Slightly different outcomes....

Conclusion
The upshot of all this is that all of these hopeful articles about how "Islam needs to go through a reformation and then everything will be hunky-dory" are living in a fantasy world and do not understand the issues involved. Either that or they are hoping for the world described in the song "Imagine", which describes a paradise coming in some wonderful future time where nobody has any beliefs! Ah, wonderful. Only two problems with that view. One, it will never happen unless there is a planet-wide lobotomy reducing all people to little more than vegetables. Secondly, even if you could magically cause the human race to get rid of all organized religions, I believe the world would immediately descend into anarchy or totalitarianism. Besides, that state wouldn't last long. People need to believe in something. If not a god, then some sort of pseudo scientific political philosophy with an all-powerful state. No, a reformation of Islam is not going to happen, and hoping for one will just distract us from dealing with the world that is.

Favorite responses from the Web

On this post I will constantly be putting comments put in by readers on other blogs that I think are as good as the articles, or which contain some small bit of information or wisdom that are useful. I will mention the source article but obscure the name of the poster here. These are not MY original thoughts but things that I thought were worth saving or passing on. It will become obvious that I think some of the smartest responders are on Pajamas Media's articles, especially those by Victor Davis Hanson. How different these are than the trolls who throw out an insult or other and run away. I think VDH scares them away with big words. Anyway, check these out...
-----------------------------------------------------
On Dec 11 2013 a commenter named Polybius said this about "income inequality"

To counter the 'income inequality' fallacy, two points need to be shouted from the rooftops:

1.  The natural economic state of any human society is universal poverty. It is false to ask why so many Americans live in poverty. Poverty is the natural, common state of all people, in all places, at all times. Instead, the correct question is to ask why so many Americans are able to escape poverty.

2. Just as there is bad cholesterol and good cholesterol, there is bad income inequality and good income inequality. Bad income inequality is income and wealth generated by the exercise of power and influence to game the economic, social and political system to one's economic favor. Income derived from corruption, lobbying, favorable legislative and regulatory drafting, political bailouts and industrial regulatory capture are all examples of bad income inequality. They are examples of people unfairly manipulating the system to protect and build their wealth at the expense of others.

Good income inequality is income and wealth derived from hard work, talent, innovation, more than a little luck and the ability to provide people (consumers) with goods and services that people want at a price people are willing to pay. In short, good income inequality derives from actual wealth CREATION, rather than the taking of wealth from others.
If we were talking about corn inequality, would we vilify the farmer for having so much more corn than anybody else? Of course not! He has more corn because he grew it! 'Thank you, Mr. Farmer, for growing corn for the rest of us.'

If we were talking about car inequality, would we vilify the car manufacturer for having so many more cars than the rest of us? Of course not! The manufacturer has more because it built more. 'Thank you, Mr. Car Manufacturer, for building these cars for the rest of us.'

If we were talking about regulatory inequality, would we vilify a company that can afford contributions to politicians sufficient to ensure regulation in favor of itself over its competitors? Of course! The company has more wealth because it has manipulated the system in favor of itself, while harming its competitors and, ultimately, the consumers who cannot benefit from the fair competition. 'Down with you, foul company, and the politicians in your pocket!'
If I was in the position of someone like Newt Gingrich, with a voice that could carry to the American people, I would say, "Yes, I'm in favor of income inequality. That is to say, I'm in favor of good income inequality. And I oppose bad income inequality with every fiber of my being". Embrace the narrative that liberals want to impose on free-marketers, and turn it around on them. Narrative Judo.

-----------------------------------------------------
Someone posted this list of statements made by Democrats about Saddam Hussein before Bush actually did something about it and they switched to "Bush Lied, Kids Died". Hypocrites....

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding to The Teen Workplace Disengagement Epidemic
September 17, 2010 - by Tom Blumer

In the Weather Underground Manifesto they discuss keeping the youth unemployed as a strategy to overturn the gov’t. Looks like Obummer knows the Manifesto well as he’s chummy with so many Underground and SDS radicals. (Ayres, Dorhn, A Stein,Jeff Jones etc) - E

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding to Keith Olbermann, Sexist
Sep 16th 2010 - by Frank Ross

True story about Keith Olberman- I live a few blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood, and on Sept 11, 2001 I watched the attacks from beginning to end. From my roof I watched the worst things one can imagine - many people jumping to their deaths and the eventual collapse of those buildings. To see it firsthand I can tell you that TV did not do it justice.

The police and FBI evacuated my building and the entire area for several days. I was allowed back on Saturday September 15, 2001. That day I walked to Greenwich street, a few blocks from my home, because you could see directly down the street to the smoldering buildings' remains. I noticed standing there was Keith Olberman speaking into a tape recorder. So I went over, said hello, and asked if he was reporting for TV. He said at that time he was reporting for a few radio stations on the West Coast, I believe, and that he hadn't been on TV for a while.

At that point a bunch of other people had recognized him and were standing around him with me. I then asked him what he thought of this whole thing. He said

"Well, there was one good thing to come out of it. Barbara Olsen was on the plane flown into the Pentagon, and that b*tch got what she deserved." We were all shocked and there was a collective moan from the other people. I said excuse me. He repeated "That b*tch Barbara Olsen got what she deserved."

I wanted to slug him and said to him that was way out of line.

That is the Keith Olberman NBC hired. - bw

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding to "‘Like a Dog’: The Origins of Barack Obama’s Petulance"
September 8, 2010 - by Victor Davis Hanson

Dear Dr. Hanson:

Thanks for a particularly insightful article. Most impressive. May I add just a few additional ideas?

Those of us who work for a living, who have actually spent a lifetime in the world where, each and every day, reliability, accomplishment, dedication, industry, practicality and honor matter know that one of the primary indicators of character–or lack thereof–is whether a man is humble or self aggrandizing. Will he allow his work to speak for itself, or must he heap undeserved honors on himself, or allow others to do it for him, refusing to correct their misconceptions?

Two examples: Mr. Obama has, as far as I can remember, allowed others to call him a “constitutional law professor.” I know that he has often said that he has taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, but I am not certain that he has claimed professorship, so I’ll not attribute that to him. The problem is that he was never a professor, the highest academic, teaching rank in any university. He was merely an adjunct lecturer, and by all accounts, a lecturer for a position invented just for him to advance his political fortunes. He had no qualifications for such a post that outstripped those of any other law school graduate. In academia, if one is not a professor, one does not claim to be a professor, nor does one allow others to create or hold that misconception. It is not only bad manners, it is revealing of a serious character flaw. The second, previously mentioned here, is the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize committee admitted that Mr. Obama had done nothing to deserve it. Mr. Obama admitted that he had done nothing to deserve it, yet he accepted it anyway, debasing himself, and the Prize for a very long time. Perhaps the best commentary I saw on this topic was posted on a restaurant’s sign: “Free Nobel Peace Prize with Shrimp Taco.”

Who then is Mr. Obama and why is he befuddled? i’ve said it before: He’s a con man, a con man who forgot the prime directive of con men–make the con and run before the marks know what hit them. Never hang around too long. The worst sort of hubris to which the con man is subject is falling for his own cons, believing that he is invulnerable, that he is actually what he fools others into believing he is. After so many years of living with ever changing lies, of manipulative, shallow relationships, of always coming out on top without any real, honest labor involved, of believing the world to be populated with two types of people: Marks and you, it’s easy to believe your own hype. When one has the entire national media calling you a God, when women–in the media and out–talk of their sexual fantasies revolving around your glory, when you lecture in front of faux Greek columns behind your faux pre-presidential seal, emanating from the extra-constitutional, non-existant Office of The President-Elect, and every vapid, cliched, meaningless syllable you utter is met with rapturous applause and adulation and is said to surpass the Gettysburg Address, is it any wonder the demi-god con man might begin to lose himself utterly.

And so Mr. Obama is in unfamiliar territory and ill equipped, mentally, physically, and rationally to deal with any of it. The marks have caught on, and more are catching on every day, and he’s still not running. But more and more of his wanna be con men in the House, Senate and elsewhere are catching the scent of decay and are running–away from him. He will not handle it well. He will not moderate. He may very well melt down in any number of ways. And he will bring additional, new dishonor to America and to the Office of the President. And if we’re very, very lucky, that’s the worst he’ll cause to happen. - MCM

And also:

I kept all these bookmarked over the past few years:

The very astute Richard Epstein, professor of law at University of Chicago, noted that “I like Obama but I reject the suggestion that he is an intellectual. He is an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual.”

In response to the question, “How good is Obama’s mind?”, Epstein replied: “His mind is pretty good, but it is a clever ‘means-ends’ mind. He has never written a scholarly article in his entire life. ”

I am Obama’s age and knew many students like him: preppy third world wannabes and poseurs who loved to give the impression that they were both scholarly and engaged by namedropping authors like Fritz Fanon and Edward Said, both of whom Obama has cited as influences.

No real love of books, or of reading and thinking. All just a display for appearance’ sake.

The respected Thomas Lipscomb contends he didn’t write either of his books.

After Obama graduated from Harvard Law, he did not to seek work as a clerk for a prominent liberal judge, as most of his Harvard colleagues did. The work of a law clerk is demanding and it is doubtful that Obama was capable of completing such a challenge. Instead, Obama was hired by a Chicago law firm. But he didn’t do any heavy lifting there either. Instead, he spent all his time writing notes for his first book. As Allison Davis, a founding partner of the firm wrote: Some of my partners weren’t happy with that, Barrack sitting there with his key board on his lap and his feet up on the desk writing the book.

Obama referred to himself as a “law professor,” but – in truth – he had only served as a Senior Lecturer spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.

According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

The Doug Ross blog post is a telling reminder President Obama was never a professor. He was never even close to being a professor. Professors publish articles, compete for tenure, conduct research, win grants, and speak at national and international conferences. They attend faculty meetings where their expertise and skills are challenged in lively debate. In this world, the time professors spend teaching classes, creating exams and grading papers – the majority of Obama’s work as a Senior Lecturer – has only limited significance and prestige.

Obama’s insistence that he was a law school professor shows that he sought the status of being a law school professor…yet never proved he had what it took to compete among the academic elite.
a report from Carol Platt Liebau, managing editor of the Harvard Law Review at the time of Obama’s presidency there [emphasis mine]:

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote “worked from home”, which was sort of a shorthand – and people would say it sort of wryly – shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn’t around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He’s the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he’d leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

It reminds me a little bit of my experience with him when he was president of the Harvard Law Review. You know, I hesitated to say a lot about this during the campaign because I really thought maybe it wasn’t fair. That maybe, finally, when he got to be President, this would be a job big enough to engage and hold Barack Obama’s sustained interest, because really, is there a bigger job out here?

Sound familiar?

-----------------------------------------------------
Responding a liberal complaint on "Have Obama’s Policies Failed? Let Us Count the Ways..."
August 13, 2010 - by Rick Moran

Pretorian – having observed for some time the sick parade of collectivist pornography that passes for your thought processes, I have a few questions. Where do you suppose that you fit in this spectrum?

1. Wishful thinker – don’t you just wish that the world was a nicer place? If only everyone were just as smart, just as clever, just as enlightened as you, it surely would be, wouldn’t it? You, and those like you aren’t really up to doing the heavy lifting, but you surely do vote and applaud into power those who will. Trouble is, those folks typically have an agenda that doesn’t quite match yours. As witness the buyers’ remose that appears to be settling in now.

2. Coercive utopian – you just know that no one is going to do what it takes to usher in the new millennium, the New Man, that immanent eschaton that’s just around the corner. Put socialism / communism and its imperatives and consequences right out on the table in front of everyone, and most in their right minds wouldn’t buy it. Hence, Antonio Gramsci’s dioctrine of the ‘long march through the instutions.’ Trouble is, you coercive types tend to be fairly bloody-minded. For example, Billy Ayers and his wrecking crew thought that once they achieved power would have to slaughter over 25 million Americans too stubborn to toe thier utopian socialist line – that was back in the 1970’s so we’re actually giving him a bit of a discount on that 25 million figure. But what’s a few million here and there? Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian (now there’s an oxymoron) has also said as much in a BBC interview where he allowed as to how the ’sacrifice’ of millions would have been worth it in order to achieve socialism. So, Prraetorian, is that you? A little slaughter, a ‘re-education camp’ or two not too much a price to pay for heaven on Earth?

3. Lord of the flies– now we’re at the top of the pyramid of power, and those driven by that insatiable will to power. These are the ones who, once they achieve absolute power, really make things happen. And we’ve got over 260 million dead in this century and the last to prove it. Now, Praetorian – pay attention – that’s 260 million unarmed civilian non-combatants killed by their own governments. They were murdered by those exercising the power of the state. They were starved, gassed, tortured, shot, impaled, burned alive, drowned, frozen to death, hacked apart with hoes, axes and machetes – a litany of brutality and atrocity beyond human imagination. Hundreds of millions more lived their lives enslaved, impoverished and in despair. Communism, socialism, the immanent eschaton – who cares? Ideology is only the particular horse they riding in pursiut of absolute control of mankind.

Those who are driven by the will to power typically disguise their intentions under the guise of ‘achieving the greatest good for the greatest number’ or under the rubrics of social or economic justice. They may claim that they are ‘doing the business of the people’ or that they are acting according to ‘the will of the people’. The statement, ‘It’s for the children,’ should inspire instant disbelief and skepticism. When it has come to creating the ‘New Socialist Man,’ those who advance such arguments remain untroubled by the oceans of blood they would have to spill and the mountains of corpses they would have to pile up in order to realize their dreams. They are all animated by the unrestrained and unappeasable ‘will to power’. The Will to Power plays itself out at all levels. From the malice or indifference of the petty bureaucrat to the savage and demonic mass murderers of recent times. As we have seen, power and the exercise of that power is more addictive than any drug.

The need is insatiable. The result is horror.

So – where are you in all of this? If you’re a follower or apologist for today’s political and social multiculturalism, an adherent of liberal democracy, or believe that our culture can continue without a basis in moral absolutes, which camp do you suppose you belong in? Are you a cynical but clever elitist intoxicated by the will to power? Are you on to the deception but support it out of pathological spite? Or are you simply ignorant of your role in the intentional destruction of your culture, even if you think you stand in the relative right?

You may want to re-think your premises, buddy, because you are not likely to survive the consequences of the ones you’ve shown us. History is my witness.

W.D.
------------------------------------

Sigh. So many conservative commentators fall into this trap. It’s as if there were a mind-control device in operation that prevents conservatives from seeing the facts and speaking the truth.

Obama’s policies are not failing. They’re working exactly as intended. The problem isn’t Obama’s grasp of policy matters; it’s his intentions.

Obamunism aims to reduce the United States to a socialist state without the military power required to maintain an acceptable level of international order. It’s not about “combatting the recession.” It’s not about “restoring our image in the world.” It’s about transforming the last free society on Earth into a carbon copy of Sweden, if not something even lower.

A course of action “works” if it brings about the desired result at an acceptable cost. As Obama and his henchmen pay no costs — indeed, they’ve contrived to profit from his machinations — they’re getting exactly what they aim for. They’ll continue to get it until they’ve been expelled from power.

Barack Hussein Obama is a bad man, surrounded by bad men, enacting an evil agenda. Never forget it.

F.W.P.

More as I find 'em - check back frequently