Gratitude

Just read a chapter in Erwin McManus's book Uprising about gratitude. McManus is kind-of wordy, but I've quoted a long portion of the chapter below because it's pretty insightful about how gratitude, forgiveness, optimism and wholeness are linked...

Forgiveness and gratitude are inseparable. When we receive forgiveness, we grow in gratefulness. When we grow in gratefulness, we are more willing to give forgiveness. Our ability to receive forgiveness is directly related to our willingness to give it. Beyond that our model for forgiveness is Jesus himself. Paul reminds us, “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

When we are grateful, we forgive freely. A direct benefit of gratitude is the freedom from bitterness. When we are grateful, we are not bound to grudges or vengeance. Gratitude enables us to be generous with love. Forgiveness is a significant part of this. When there is a deficit of love, there is also a reluctance to forgive. This is a significant dilemma for us in our journeys toward emotional well-being in that an unwillingness to forgive will circumvent the process of becoming whole.

In the same way that gratitude is intertwined with forgiveness, brokenness is often perpetuated by bitterness. It’s not that bitterness is the cause of our brokenness, but that bitterness will circumvent the healing process. What makes this even more complicate is that oftentimes a broken person is more than justified to be embittered. Sometimes when I hear the tragic stories and the horrific experiences others have gone through, it’s hard not to take on their offenses and become embittered with them. It’s not an easy thing to tell someone who has been deeply hurt that her own road to healing is to forgive those who hurt her.

Aside from the fact that offenders need forgiveness, to forgive is essential in the process of healing. You cannot remain embittered and find wholeness. Even when those who have hurt you neither seek forgiveness nor desire it, it is still necessary that we forgive. In a reminder that we should not grieve the spirit of God, the Scriptures call us to “get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 3:31-32). This passage beseeches us to replace bitterness with forgiveness. In a conversation between Peter and Simon the Sorcerer, Peter makes this assessment of Simon’s heart: “I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin” (Acts 8:23). When we forgive, it sets us and others free. Bitterness on the other hand holds us captive. When someone desires forgiveness, it is your gift to give out of the generosity of your spirit. Even if one does not desire your forgiveness, it is critical to be free from the bitterness that will enslave you.

Again, even as gratitude and forgiveness are inseparable, so are ungratefulness and bitterness. When we are grateful, we see and experience life with a healthy optimism. When we lack gratitude, we move toward pessimism and even cynicism. A ungrateful heart always see what’s wrong with life. The longer we live without gratitude, the more embittered we become. The more embittered we become, the more we find ourselves overwhelmed with depression. Bitterness in the end leads to hopelessness. If we are to enjoy lives of gratitude, we must break free from the gravitational pull of bitterness. For in the same way that gratitude leads to wholeness, bitterness will leave us shattered and broken. In this condition we will find ourselves unable to experience the life God dreams for us, and tat the same time we will leave others cut and bleeding as they press against our sharp edges.

Bitterness creates an illusion of control and power. Bitterness is a form of hate. It is anger facing backwards. When we are embittered toward someone, we hold him prisoner to an experience or action in the past. In our minds our bitterness hold him captive and does not allow him to move forward. The reality is that our bitterness traps no one but ourselves. If the offender genuinely seeks forgiveness, even when you are unwilling to give it, he or she is made free. The only person you keep trapped in yesterday when you are unwilling to forgive is yourself. If you remain bitter long enough, you will eventually move to despair. Bitterness requires that you live in the past; hope requires that you live for tomorrow. Gratitude not only allows you to enjoy the present, but keeps you looking forward to the future.

Contagious Laughter

In 1962, there was an outbreak of contagious laughter that infected hundreds of people and forced several schools to close in Tanzania and Uganda. I am not making this up. Read about it here or here.
Also, this is pretty funny:

If you've ever called for a point of order in church...

Christine and I invented a new comedy series this week that is sure to have evangelicals rolling in the aisles soon - and not from the Holy Ghost. With a nod to Jeff Foxworthy, let us suggest a few ways to know if you're a Southern Baptist.

• If you've ever done anything "in view of a call", you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever been upset about changing the name from "potluck" to "covered dish", you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If your church posts attendance on a big wooden board, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've never sung a third verse, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever asked God to bless "the gift and the giver", "this food and the hands that prepared it," or "this food to the nourishment of our bodies and our bodies to your service", you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever moved your letter, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever voted in church, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever checked a box verifying that you prayed, memorized scripture or brought your Bible to church, you might be a Southern Baptist.

These are the ones I can remember but there have got to be more. So jump in everyone! Let's get the "you might be a Southern Baptist" comedy series up and flying.

My one baseball post for the year

Ok, I'm not a baseball fan, but I listen to sports radio all the time and I haven't heard anyone make this point, so I'm going to make it.
Has anyone ever heard of major league baseball doing so many wacky things in preseason?

• Billy Crystal a Yankee for a day
• Opening day game in Japan
• And now some crazy game in LA with a left field fence about 3 steps behind the third baseman.

I just wondered if this looks like a desperate PR scramble to anyone but me: "Please forget Roger Clemens (et al) and think about Billy Crystal! He can't play, but at least now we can say that the league has one player who isn't juiced!

A Folksy Review

Christine and I had a "nerd date" this week. That's where we go to Borders and each pick out a book and a comfy chair. We read for about 10 minutes and then discuss what we read. Do we know how to party or what?

Anyway, this time I picked a book called The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby. The jacket said Americans are dumber than ever before and I have watched enough Jay Walking to think that might be true. But, it turns out, that's not Jacoby's point. Her point, as far as I could tell, is that we must be dumb because we elected a Republican president.

Admittedly, I only read the book for 10 minutes but I got a pretty good idea of Jacoby's thesis - enough to make me want to write a negative review. So here is a poorly-researched, yet passionately-delivered pan of The Age of American Unreason...

I started in Chapter 1 (why not?) where Jacoby laments about the "dumbing down" of public discourse. She uses the example of the word "folks" and points out how "folks" is used by news anchors and politicians and presidents with regularity and impunity. Jacoby thinks our society's use of colloquial language is proof of its ignorance. She asks us to image Abe Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson using a word like "folks."

I think Jacoby is absolutely right that American discourse has gotten considerably more informal and redundant in the past century. I don't think, for instance, that anyone among the current crop of presidential candidates really has anything new to say or says it with particularly powerful prose. But I don't think that's proof of an Ignorant America. Poor standardized test scores - falling American wages - these may be evidence of Americans becoming less educated. "Folks" is evidence of Americans becoming less formal.

So I skipped ahead to about the middle of the book to see if Jacoby would warm up to a more salient point. She didn't. Instead, she spent a few pages railing on Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia (hmm, a conservative. whadya know?) and his position on the law (did I mention he's on the Supreme Court?) and God (he's also a Christian).

Jacoby disagreed with Scalia's idea that the authority to govern, while of course must involve at least tacit approval from those governed, ultimately comes from God. Then Jacoby attacks Scalia's comments about capital punishment. She quotes a speech in which Scalia said that the more Christian a society is, the less problem it has with the death penalty because, to Christians, death is "no big deal." Jacoby found this appalling on the grounds that it would, indeed, be a big deal for those in such a society who aren't Christian. But wait - didn't Jacoby just argue that authority to govern arises solely from those governed? And in an imaginary country where the majority of those governed are Christians who support the death penalty, aren't they entitled to establish government in whatever manner they see fit? By arguing in the negative, isn't Jacoby appealing to some higher law than majority vote and therefore shooting her previous argument in the foot?

Those are the only two points I read and then it was time to hear about Christine's travel book (we've gotta check out Kilimanjaro!) Bottom line: I doubt that folks who think critically will enjoy reading Susan Jacoby.

Continuing On Now...

Ok, I'm really just posting something here to put the PaulTor debate behind us. But I do have two web giggles to pass along:
1. Go to YouTube and search for Chris Christmas Rodriguez. Then pop a can of Tab, sit back and enjoy the polyester.
2. When you're done voting for Chris to replace Santa this year, check out my friend Holly's blog here. The comment about toddlers "finding holes in themselves" made me wheez-laugh.

Heresy: The Sequel

I'm starting a new post, but I can't promise it will be good. We posted FORTY comments on the last one. It was starting to bog down. If you haven't wasted hours of your life with us arguing ridiculous points with Paul and Vic, here's a quick catch-up.

• Bob, a friend of mine, found this wacky site called The Path of Truth that is managed by two guys who claims to be the only two true Christians on Earth. The site claims that Kyle Lake, the Waco pastor who was electrocuted in his baptisery two years ago, died at the hand of God because he was a heretic.
• A very good friend of mine recently lost a close friend of his who was also a promising young minister of the Gospel. The "Path of Truth" site really ticked me off because it kind-of hit close to home with what my friend was going through. So I wrote a scathing review and emailed the purveyor of the site to respond.
• He did.
• A lot.
• His name is Paul Cohen. He has a buddy named Victor. They are sinless, omniscient and smart. Also really funny.
• We argued earnestly for a while. Paul and Vic are still earnest. I'm bored.

That pretty much catches you up. I'm sure there will be more banter. Enjoy.

Path of Truth?

A very close friend of mine just lost a very close friend of his - a young man in the prime of his life and ministry who was reaching people with the good news of God's grace. It's really hard to deal with and it reminds me of the story of Kyle Lake - the young Waco pastor who was electrocuted in his baptistry two years ago.

In discussing these events, another friend of mine sent me a link to a website called "The Path of Truth" which included an article about Kyle Lake that I've quoted below. I really don't know why I'm taking the time to refute this guy. Heaven knows I'd have my hands full if I decided to debate every quack that has a website. But I guess just because of what my friend is going through, this one really got me hot under the theological collar.

The guy's name is Paul Cohen and his basic assertion is that if you're walking in the fear of the Lord, then nothing bad will ever happen to you. It's clearly a well-constructed argument with plenty of scripture, church history and gray matter to back it up. Below is a quote from a pretty long article on his site and then a short rant from me. :)

What Jesus said, and what He is saying for those with ears to hear, is that God is over all events, and if you are walking in the fear, or reverence, of Him, you can trust Him entirely. Indeed, it is your duty to entrust yourself to Him. If however, you are walking in the fear of man, which is denying Christ before men, then Christ will also deny you before the Father in Heaven. Then you will be subject to the sudden and violent endings to life in this realm that are your inheritance from "the Fall"

Gosh, how this makes me crazy! Let us count the ways...

First, he mishandles scripture. The verse he quotes in this article (Mtt. 10:29) doesn't say that the Lord causes the fall of every sparrow that falls to the ground. It says no sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of the Lord. Thinking people understand the distinction.

Second, I guess what Cohen is saying is that Kyle Lake - a pastor, whose career and passion was declaring the truth and teaching the word of God - was denying Christ before men. I guess that's what he was doing in the baptistry that day - denying Christ. I guess that's how people's lives were touched by his ministry of denying Christ. I guess that's why he stood in a pulpit and spoke publicly and led a church - because it was a good way to deny Christ.

According to Cohen (and I really don't even have to extend his logic to this conclusion; he actually asserts this himself), if we are walking in fear and reverence for God, then nothing bad will happen to us - least of all death! I can think of quite a few Christian leaders who would disagree with that position. The short list would include Joseph, Daniel, Job, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Polycarp, Bonhoeffer, Cassie Bernall, and a brother from Gaza named Rami who was kidnapped and killed Saturday night because of his faith. According to Cohen, these people were killed because the Son had denied them to the Father. Maybe I should find Cohen's address, vandalize his house, and then stand in the front yard and declare, "Sorry, Paul. Guess you weren't walking in the fear of the Lord."

But even if his assertion weren't patently wrong, it would still miss the point. That is that God doesn't save us from bad things - including death. He never promised to. In fact, he promised just the opposite. ("In this world, you will have trouble.") If Paul Cohen is trusting Jesus to save him from death or accidents or difficult circumstances, I'm afraid he's in for disappointment. As for me, I'm not trusting God to keep hardship from coming my way. In fact, I'm trusting him to send hardship in my life so that I can know him more. Like Paul said, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings."

There's plenty more fuzzy-headed stuff on "The Path of Truth" to rant about, but I'll quit for now. Partly because I want this post to be about upholding the truth and correcting it in a brother and - to be honest - I'm getting way too much pleasure out of bashing this guy.

Anyway, I've emailed the guy and invited him to discuss his position on this blog (his website doesn't allow for feedback/comments). We'll see...

Romney. Stealing. Period.

As of today, I am claiming credit for whatever success Mitt Romney's presidential campaign brings. I just saw a TV spot with this slogan:

Mitt Romney
Strong. New. Leadership.

Years ago, I created a tagline for Irving public schools:

Irving ISD
Growing. Strong. Learners.

The beauty of the above slogan is its flexibility. It can mean that Irving ISD is growing strong learners. It can also mean that Irving ISD is growing and strong and full of learners. But NAYOOOOOOO! All those English teachers in the district chided me for the periods. It didn't make sense! Was it a sentence or not? They didn't get it and they didn't like it. Well, now it's getting presidents elected! So how do you like me now, Ms. Bossyteacher!? Stick THAT in your Number 2 pencil and smoke it!!!

Marketing Guru out.

p.s. If anyone reading this is an attorney and would like to provide pro-bono services for what is obviously a slam-dunk intellectual property suit, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Guru. Out. Again.

Game Notes

I decided to take notes on the A&M, Texas Tech game today. Don't ask me why; I just did. Here's my gameday stream of consciousness.

2:27 pm: Ron Franklin has already said “in the high plain” twice.

2:30 pm: He just said it again, but this time said “high plains”

2:32 pm: Now it's “south plains”

2:34 pm: those wide splits again – why can’t anyone defeat that with stunts?

2:26 pm: I don’t like the solid white unis. Did we have to do that because they’re wearing all black?

:47 left in 1^st qtr: A&M’s first 3^rd down of the game

3:06 pm: TT does a good job of “red out”

End of 1^st qtr: TT doesn’t look like they belong on the field w A&M. only success they’ve had has been on underneath routes when they need a lot of yards.

Start of 2^nd qtr: “south plains”

That shot from the top of the home side press box makes Jones Stadium look so high school.

10:15 in 2^nd: This is how TT always beats us – looking like they shouldn’t

9:52 in 2^nd: “south plains”

4:37 in 2^nd: mike goodson running harder than usual

3:43: our kind of drive – 11 plays. 60 yards so far

Last play of half: I hate give-up plays

Third Quarter:

8:04: I wish Bob Knight and Ron Franklin would quit making out and let me watch some football

2:52: “south plains”

Apparently no one told Gary Darnell that Tech runs the spread offense.

Fourth quarter:

TT converts 3^rd and 12. I start fast-forwarding.

10:57: ballsy call on 3^rd and 2

7: mcgee cannot throw down field. If we’re ever down by more than 14 in the 4^th quarter, we should always go with Jerrod Johnson.

5:30: qb keepers down 28 w 5 mins to go

A quick browse of various Big 12 columns/blogs reveals leading candidates to succeed Fran are Jeff Tedford (Cal), Tommy Tuberville (Auburn) and Bo Pilini (LSU).

Ode to a Granola Girl

We just got back from a trip to Colorado last week. Tough to re-enter the real world. I never get tired of the mountains. And I love what they do to Christine. She gets all giddy up there. And worshipful. I wonder if, had a few decisions gone another way earlier in her life, she wouldn't be waiting tables somewhere in Estes or Durango and hanging off rocks in her spare time and loving life. I hope I haven't robbed her of that tying her down with a husband and kids.

Contemplative Quick-Hit

"We must boldly repudiate the cheap values of the fallen world and become completely detached in spirit from everything that unbelieving men set their hearts upon, allowing ourselves only the simplest enjoyments of nature which God has bestowed alike upon the just and unjust."

-A.W. Tozer

Holy Land Sesame Street

Slate V posted this report a couple of weeks ago. It's still high in their rotation and still very disturbing.

Merton on Missions

When I read good writing, I'm inspired to write. I'm reading (again) Thomas Merton's Seven Storey Mountain which certainly qualifies as good writing. Even though I am completely swamped with work and other responsibilities, I'm taking a minute to just retype some of Merton's gold because I'm afraid of what will happen if I don't. I understand the progressive nature of neglect just the same as the progressive nature of sin. Another day of choosing to meet deadlines will be another day of neglecting my talent and another day toward the forgotten life of an American suburban family man whose highest ideal is to make a good living, send the kids to school and watch cable TV on a big screen.

So here's a page from Seven Storey in which Merton (at the time not a believer) is telling about a Hindu monk that he knew called Bramachari (which is actually not a name at all but an Indian word that means monk)...

He was beyond laughing at the noise and violence of American city life and all the obvious lunacies like radio programs and billboard advertising. It was some of the well-meaning idealisms that he came across that struck him as funny. And n eof the things that struck him as funniest f all was the eagerness with which Protestant ministers used to come up and ask him if India was by now nearly converted to Protestantism. He used to tell us how far India was from conversion to Protestantism - or Catholicism for that matter. One of the chief reasons he gave for the failure of any Christian missionaries to really strike deep into the tremendous populations of Asia was the fact that they maintained themselves on a social level that was too far above the natives. The Church of England, indeed, though they would convert the Indians by maintaining a strict separation - white men in one church, natives in a different church: both of them listening to sermons on brotherly love and unity.

But all Christian missionaries, according to him, suffered from this big drawback: they lived too well, too comfortably. They took care of themselves in a way that simply made it impossible for the Hindus to regard them as holy - let alone the fact that they ate meat, which made them repugnant to the natives.

I don't know anything about missionaries: but I am sure that, by our own standards of living, their life is an arduous and difficult one, and certainly not one that could be regarded as comfortable. And by comparison with life in Europe and America it represents a tremendous sacrifice. Yet I suppose it would literally endanger their lives if they tried to subsist on the standard of living with which the vast majority of Asiatics have to be content. It seems hard to expect them to go around barefoot and sleep on mats and live in huts. But one thing is certain: the pagans have their own notions of holiness, and it is one that includes a prominent element of asceticism. According to Bramachari, the prevailing impression among Hindus seems to be that Christians don't know what asceticism means. Of course, he was talking principally f Protestant missionaries, but I suppose it would apply to anyone coming to a tropical climate from one of the so-called "civilized" countries.

For my own part, I see no reason for discouragement. Bramachari was simply saying something that has long since been familiar to readers of the Gospels. Unless the grain of wheat, fallingin the ground, die, itself remaineth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. The Hindus are not looking for us to send them men who will build schools and hospitals, although those things are good and useful in themselves - and perhaps very badly needed in India: they want to know if we have any saints to send them.

This conversatation with Bramachari happened in 1937 and I think our Western methodologies for missions have improved a lot since then. Still, it makes for interesting and not altogether irrelevant reading.

Cycling's Toughest Climb

I'm so frustrated with my sport I'm almost ready to give up on it. Who is left to root for? And how can any fan be confident that his favorite rider one day won't be exposed and make him feel like a fool the next?

Last week, Tour de Fance favorite Alexandre Vinokourov was suspended from his team for testing positive for blood doping. Last night, yellow jersey leader Michael Rasmussen was fired from his team, Rabobank, after it was discovered that he lied about his whereabouts when he missed a team-level testing well before the start of the Tour.

The upside is that these really are proactive, rather than reactive steps. Today, the tour took the yellow jersey off a man's shoulders and his team fired him without any positive test results - only on suspicion of doping. Race director Christian Prudhomme seems determined to root out dopers from his race, even if it means serious damage to the sport and the Tour. I'm glad of that, and glad that cycling is willing to take a serious PR bashing to do away with even a suggestion of doping even without any proof of it. Thanks goodness there is no players union in cycling or this would all be about legal rights to privacy and what-not rather than cleaning up the sport.

This battle can be won and here's what it'll take: It will take a Tour de France winner who everyone KNOWS is clean. Then and only then other riders will start to give up their long-held notion that you can't win the tour without doping. How can we know for sure if a winner is clean - extensive testing (already in place) and his employment by a team like Jonathan Vaughter's that is proactive and outspoken campaigner against doping. I think that'd be enough to at least make riders believe that the guy was clean.

Maybe we should have seen this coming decades ago when sports started becoming such a lucrative business. In the meantime, I guess we'll plod along up this hill along with just about every other sport on earth, hoping not to be robbed of magical moments again by someone else's paycheck, needle and poor judgment.

Witnessing

Talked with a Jehovah's Witness named Robert for almost half an hour yesterday in my driveway. I don't know why Robert's situation grieves me so much but I've been thinking about him and praying for him a lot since we talked. He says he'll come back to talk some more, but I kind-of expect that he was just saying that to get off my porch. It was pretty obvious that neither of us was going to change our minds. His theology seems awfully burdensome. I'm no expert on Jehovah's Witnesses, but if I understood him right, he believes that Jesus' sacrifice was not so much meant for propitiation and atonement as it was to "prove that created man can live a perfect life." In Robert's view, Jesus' life is only inspiring if he was fully man but not at all God. If he shared God's being, well then that would be cheating. Anyone who is God can live a sinless life. And so Jesus' sinless life is only to show us that it is possible to be perfect - to inspire us to do what he did. That must be an incredibly heavy burden to carry. I guess that's why I'm praying for Robert today. And why I'm soooo happy that God has afforded me teachers and opportunities to experience his grace. Heaven knows, if I had to "stand on my own two feet", as Robert said, I would be in serious trouble. Anyway, if you read this, say a prayer for Robert. I hope he comes back.

Among the Remnant

My good friend Steve surprised me recently when he officially bailed on Bush. His declaration of such to the world can be found here. Steve makes good points. It's easy to be frustrated with this administration or, more accurately, the lack of control this administration has exhibited over its intelligence services and world affairs. Most of Steve's reasoning comes from Peggy Noonan's column "Too Bad" which also makes good points.

But I've been giving this some thought and I am hereby declaring that...well, nothing new. I'm not changing my opinion of President Bush. I'm not blindly declaring him the greatest statesman ever, but I'm not ready to predict that history will remember him a massive failure, either.

Noonan's assertion is that Bush has squandered an enormous opportunity to be popular. And she doesn't like him for that.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

I understand her point, but it troubles me that she doesn't give me a cause greater than popularity to defend.

He sundered the party that rallied to him? This doesn't break my heart.
He threw away his inheritance? Hmm. Oh well. Hope he had a reason.

Should Bush have compromised to conserve the coalition of supporters and defend his high approval rating? Noonan declares that both Bushes (41 and 43) squander "political inheritance."

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked.

After some thought, it strikes me that this is exactly what I want in a politician! Someone who places little stock in "chits in the game". Someone who is decisive and willing to take risks. Someone who leads on principal, rather than follow the latest polling data. It seems to me that people in America either love Bush or hate him, which may be the greatest testament to his success as a statesman. If everyone could take him or leave him, we'd have to question his mettle. We'll never question that with 43.

But the points I've made so far may seem of little consequence when considered against the thousands of U.S. dead and wounded from the quagmire that is Iraq. Indeed, Iraq will always rank in the top two - along with 9/11 - as the most weighty and legacy-shaping issues of this administration. So let me address Iraq.

I, like many of my conservative brethren, didn't care much for Bill Clinton. Still don't. Nor his wife. But I always wanted to be careful not to slander him where he didn't deserve (after all, he gave us plenty of fodder for things he did deserve - no reason to dig up more). If Bill Clinton were in the White House for Bush's term and had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and faced the same quagmire that Bush now faces - and I know this is easy to say since he isn't - I would not lay the blame for the deaths of American soldiers at Clinton's feet. Here's why.

I think both 9/11 and the strength of the insurgency in Iraq were both Black Swans. No one saw them coming. Indeed, no one ever would have. But in hindsight it becomes easy to think that someone should have. We think, "Someone should have known this would happen. Maybe not me, but someone in that arena. Who should have known and stopped this? TSA? Airlines? CIA? The military? The president? But such blame-gaming is both useless and senseless. If Iraq naysayers are so convinced that this war was a bad idea from the beginning, then where the hell were they at the beginning? The standard answer to that is that the country was in a patriotic frenzy following 9/11 and they didn't want to appear unpatriotic. They didn't want to rock the boat. To which I say, it's too bad they didn't share the president's lack of concern for popularity and save us from this mess!

I'll grant that it would have been better if America had the human intelligence network in place in the Middle East to warn us that Iraq was not ready - not socially, intellectually or morally capable - of welcoming democracy. If we had invested millions in intelligence in the region for decades before, then we might have had a clearer crystal ball to know that our actions there would not help bring peace and democracy but sectarianism and civil war. We also might have had the right answers about the existence of WMDs. But alas, we didn't have that knowledge. The knowledge we did have was flawed. And, again, blaming Bush for acting on the knowledge he had, now that we know what he didn't, seems like so much geopolitical armchair quarterbacking to me. "He shouldn't have gone for it on fourth down! Why? Because he didn't make it!"

Noonan's final paragraph - the summary of the damage this nincompoop president has done - is about squabbling within the Republican Party. About how Bush's actions have disappointed some in his own party. Again, it doesn't break my heart. I have trouble hating Bush for that. And I find it a little telling that Noonan can't help but call the president disciplined and daring while doing her best to insult him.

Our president is not a terrific public speaker. He hasn't proven to be a very good coalition builder (which was a big point in his first campaign - how he built cooperation and coalitions across the aisle as governor). He has made mistakes and he has rushed into decisions. But I won't go as far as to call him an idiot or a war monger as seems to be the case with a growing number of Americans. In fact, I have no doubt that America would face the same problems with Iraq - or possibly other problems, different but just as dire - had Al Gore or John McCain or John Kerry or anyone else had been in office for these two terms. Notice that none of those men are saying differently. No one but no one is daring to say that they would have acted differently, that they would have saved us from Iraq if they had been in office, because they know better.

Every president has his problems.
Bush has been overeager to strike back at terrorism.
Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped.
Bush Sr. reneged on "no new taxes."
Reagan...well, I can't think of anything Reagan did wrong because he was freaking awesome!

But you get my point. So I'm not bailing on Bush. I, like the president, am staying the course. You may call it stubborn. I call it "strategery."

The Perfect Father's Day?

Yesterday, Bethany napped on the couch with me while I watched the U.S. Open. Christine cooked mom's chicken enchilada recipe. Church was really good. I bought a new book (The Dangerous Book for Boys). And I got lots of alone time. At this stage in my life, it doesn't get much better than that.

Never Trust A Pirate

Yeah, yeah. I know it's been a while. So here's a little something to ease the pain...

Who's the Loser?

It's frustrating to lose to losers. I'd like to be the stalwart Mavs fan but I really think we might have dug ourselves too big a hole this time. But what's most upsetting about that is knowing that Golden State will lose immediately in the next round and that they are such a bunch of punks. Every time they have fallen behind in a game this series they've started picking fights - with opposing players, coaches, officials. They don't lose well. And come to think of it, they don't win well either. Mostly I'm talking about Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes. (Monta Ellis might be a really stand-up guy but the antics of those three overshadow the whole team.) Last night, when it became apparent that they were going to lose, Jackson got himself ejected, purposely. That's a microcosm of how these guys behave. If the Mavs lose the series, you'll read quotes like, "We just didn't get it done." If the Warriors lose the series, you'll read quotes from Davis like, "I can't do it all," and quote from his teammates about officiating, and quotes from Don Nelson like, "Well, no skin off my back. I've got a house on Maui and a cooler of beer waiting for me."