These heroes are dead. They died for liberty - they died for us. They are at rest. They sleep in the land they made free, under the flag they rendered stainless, under the solemn pines, the sad hemlocks, the tearful willows, and the embracing vines. They sleep beneath the shadows of the clouds, careless alike of sunshine or of storm, each in the windowless Place of Rest. Earth mayrun red with other wars - they are at peace. In the midst of battle, in the roar of conflict, they found the serenity of death. I have one sentiment for soldiers living and dead: cheers for the living; tears for the dead.
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. - II Chronicles 7:14
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:5-11
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. - I Timothy 2:1-6
For those who are having a hard time keeping George Bush in your prayers, here's some solace - a countdown clock. Click the Image.
Yanks & Bucks
Keep up with the greatest teams in college sport, the Ohio State Buckeyes and the greatest team in pro sport, the New York Yankees Just Click on the logos above.
Click on the Flag
These heroes are dead. They died for liberty - they died for us. They are at rest. They sleep in the land they made free, under the flag they rendered stainless, under the solemn pines, the sad hemlocks, the tearful willows, and the embracing vines. They sleep beneath the shadows of the clouds, careless alike of sunshine or of storm, each in the windowless Place of Rest. Earth mayrun red with other wars - they are at peace. In the midst of battle, in the roar of conflict, they found the serenity of death. I have one sentiment for soldiers living and dead: cheers for the living; tears for the dead. ~Robert G. Ingersoll
Observing Barak Obama and John McCain’s attempts to lure the American religious communities reminds me of a scene in the 1995 film Babewritten by Dick King-Smith where Babe, the pig, seeks to find just the right words to be able to herd the sheep during the annual sheepdog competition. The problem for Babe was that he wasn’t a sheepdog at all, but a pig! Nevertheless, because of the confidence his owner, Farmer Hoggett had shown in him and the capability and competence he had previously demonstrated with the sheep back home, Farmer Hoggett believed that he had a chance to do well in the trials. The challenge for Babe was trying to work a herd of sheep that didn’t know him nor he them. He had to find the secret to connecting with the herd, and quick.
The reason Babe was in the trials in the first place was due to a series of strange circumstances and set of anomalies in his upbringing. Unlike other pigs, Babe had been adopted by a sheepdog. That unique factor created an opportunity for Babe to develop his skills to herding sheep. The name of his adoptive mother sheepdog was Fly, and soon thereafter, Fly begins to train the pig in the ways of a sheepdog. She explains to Babe that sheep are stupid animals and that dogs are smart animals. It’s the dog’s job to dominate the sheep in order to have them perform the farmer’s bidding. One day, however, a sheep named Ma takes sick and is kept in the barn for treatment. Babe meets her and becomes her friend and knows that she is not stupid and knows that he can treat her respectfully.
As time goes by, Farmer Hoggett begins to notice the strange behavior of this pig raised by a sheepdog. One day, Mr. Hoggett takes the pig out to the field in order to see if the pig can be a sheep-pig. Babe, though he is slow, follows orders perfectly. Also, since Babe is so polite and has made a friendship with Ma, the sheep are perfectly willing to obey his requests. They much prefer his manners to Fly’s barking and commands. The farmer continues using Babe to do much of the farm work. One day, though, two dogs attack the sheep. Babe hears their cries and races to the field to save them. Once Farmer Hoggett arrives at the field, he finds Babe with a bloody snout standing over a dead sheep that the dogs had killed. Farmer Hoggett thinks that Babe has attacked the sheep and decides to kill him. Babe is saved, however, when Mrs. Hoggett receives a call warning of two dangerous dogs in the area. Farmer Hoggett realizes then that Babe actually saved his sheep.
Farmer Hoggett then proceeds with his plan to enter Babe in the sheepdog trials. He trains his beloved pig how to guide the sheep quickly and accurately through a course. Fly watched Babe’s progress delightedly, but she worries that the sheep at the trials will not be able to communicate with Babe. Fly has learned some new respect for the sheep since she has witnessed Babe’s interactions with them. She asks them about this potential problem, and the sheep tell her a password that will help Babe to communicate with the sheep at the trials. The magic words that commanded the sheep’s obedience was,
“May be ewe, may be ram, may be mutton, may be lamb, but on the hoof or on the hook, I bain’t so stupid as I look”
Those words tell a lot. The sheep were looking for respect and mutual respect would be the reward. This is secret that gave Babe and Farmer Hoggett an unprecedented victory at the trials, stunning the mocking crowd.
Like Babe, Obama and McCain have been looking for the password that will appeal to the sensibilities and beliefs of the faith community in America. The problem for them however, is that many, if not most on the right side of the theological ledger aren’t buying it. Or, at least they are very skeptical. And rightly they should be. After the revelations of the George Bush administration’s use of faith-based initiatives as a bait-and-switch tactic in appealing to the Religious Right, many in that sector have jaundiced eyes toward any politician using faith as an appeal point.
In my view, God’s Kingdom, at least the one Jesus spoke of in his Sermon on the Mount, is not based on a faith in man nor the ways of the world. Politics, although interesting and often alluring, is not the way to see true peace in the world. Any Christian who gets in the saddle of politics will find his or herself in a corral of enmity, division and contention. These are the works of the flesh, in other words, the world. If the truth of the Gospel is taking a second seat to political expediency, that faith is in vain, built upon the sand. If Jesus had thought politics would bring about peace, justice, and joy, he would have enjoined the political process. The reality is that these things are rooted in the condition of the heart, something politics is totally incapable of providing. Nevertheless, if you are a believer and hold to the idea that either Barak Obama or John McCain can lead the nation toward these legitimately sought after ideals, you should remember that these men and their political policies will only lead you to more empty promises. They certainly have a form of godliness, but deny the power of it. – 2 Timothy 3:5
But here’s the real caveat for anyone seeking political solutions to spiritual problems offered by politicians. It is found in the two verses following 2 Timothy 3:5. ” They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.” In a nutshell, desperate people who don’t put their faith in God but in man will be deceived, never coming to the truth that sets free.
During a recent “Speaking of Faith” radio program, Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne discuss whether there is a “Christian” way to vote. Here’s the segment. To see the complete episode of “Speaking on Faith”, click on the link below the video.
Back in the glory days of the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), and long before anyone outside the reach of The Day, New London’s daily newspaper, heard the name Fort Trumbull, NLDC president Claire Gaudiani systematically attempted to manipulate the press coverage of what was unfolding in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP). It was for the most part convincingly positive and fed the psyche of a struggling community that was dealing with failing schools, broken infrastructure, and a vacuum of political leadership. Typically during that time, Claire Gaudiani and her attendant staff were able to find open venues in the community to tell how the new MDP would dramatically change the city’s direction and complexion and stem it’s downward slide. She said we would have a “hip little city” where young professionals, scientists, and students would fill our streets, restaurants and shops. That hasn’t happened. None of it.
Back then, when we who were asking questions, hard questions, about the viability and legality of the plan, Gaudiani and her staff, dismissed us as a “small vocal group” and rejected our pleas out-of-hand. It was quite ironic to watch the charade of what Gaudiani referred to as an open, respectful, and democratic process. It was all talk and smoke-and-mirrors.
So after almost ten months of lobbying local citizens, state commissioners, the attorney general, and a host of others, we finally were able to convince the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C., based, public-advocacy law firm to help us out. They came with an impressive legal resume and also had an effective public relations arm that could get the word out quickly and dramatically. I’ll never forget my response when we got the call from Scott Bullock, IJ’s senior attorney, that they were taking the case. I said with elation, “this story has left 06320. They (NLDC) won’t be able to keep it quiet now.” By December 2000, IJ made it official with Scott Bullock and Chip Mellor making the announcement from Susette Kelo‘s front porch. It’s the same porch that remains today at the empty shell of what used to be her home. (See the picture above and read my post on the dedication of the new Kelo house.)
Now, some three years after the US Supreme Court decision (Kelo v. City of New London), John Brooks, NLDC project manger for Fort Trumbull continues to protest that the Institute for Justice manipulated public opinion about the case. Writing in the magazine, “Right of Way” Brooks asserts that the “public was persuaded, and in many cases duped, by media distortion of the particulars of this case.” In my opinion, Brooks’ distortion of the facts have left him duped. Like they say, “if you repeat a lie enough times, you’ll begin to believe that it is true. While I intend to present the Brooks article in its entirety, and a response by Scott Bullock on the article, I just want you to focus on the picture above to, show how the NLDC and its supporter continue to distort what is so blatantly obvious. They are either so stupid or blind that they continue to tell tales that can be easily be dismissed as fiction.
Look at the picture above. As I said, it is a picture of what is left of the front porch of Susette Kelo’s pink house on East Street in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London. In the Brooks article he makes a point of saying why her house had to go. It was simply that it did not meet code requirements. He noted, “The first instance of a child getting hit by a car as a result of the lack of a curb, sidewalk, or safe sightline would easily have led to a flood of litigation against the City and State – especially since a new street design had been completed, reviewed, approved and taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Now if you take a look at the picture above, along with the picture of Ms. Kelo’s former house at the right, you may just notice that there are still no curbs, sidewalks, or extended sightlines to this day. Furthermore, the open basement is a hole in the ground that is unsecured. Any one could easily fall in a hurt themselves, bring a “flood of litigation.” If John Brooks was truly interested in protecting the City and the State’s interest against possible litigation, he should do something about the obvious dangers that are starring him in the face. I think John Brooks’ can’t see the forest for the trees and his apparent concern about possible “flood of litigation” is, well, damn hollow. Pardon the pun.
For now that’s all I have to say. I could go on, but frankly I’m tired of talking about it. So I’ll just present John Brooks’ piece and then Scott Bullock’s response. Here they are:
As I have perused the newspapers and listened to the talking heads on the radio and the television, it is becoming clear that with increased fuel costs, the mortgage meltdown, government bailouts of major corporations, and the ongoing Persian Gulf conflicts, Americans don’t have much confidence in any government – local, state, or federal. With a widening gap between the rich and the poor, those considered under the poverty line are increasing in large numbers. As former president, Jimmy Carter noted in his infamous “Malaise Speech” given 29 years ago tomorrow,
The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.
With a continued slide into a pervasive distrust and cynicism toward our political and social institutions, anyone with a powerful vision and message of hope will find willing followers and disciples. I think that is why Barak Obama’s message of change and hope is playing quite well. Nevertheless, history is not silent under such circumstances and related political and social environments. There is an environment that nurtures less than civil behavior, and I’m not so sure we can totally assume the government can continue its policy of Bread and Circus forever. “Bread and Circus” is the policy of governments, institutions and businesses, and individual politicians to provide just enough food and fun to placate the masses. Personal freedom is typically the greatest cost to the individual. If the tipping point is reached where the government can’t manage fear, and I don’t know where exactly that is, civility will take a backseat not only to provocative speech, but barbaric behavior as well. Thousands of years of history serves notice.
Today is Bastille Day. Bastille Day has such a strong signification for the French because the holiday symbolizes the birth of the Republic. The French celebrate a new republic controlled by the people, not a monarchy or church. As in the United States, where the signing of the Declaration of Independence signaled the start of the American Revolution, in France the storming of the Bastille began the Great Revolution. In both countries, the national holiday thus symbolizes the beginning of a new form of government.
Those are the words that mark the ideals of the French revolution. To better tell the story I’m providing an entry from StudyWorld that I think sums it up nicely. Also, check out the related articles at the end of the piece.
What were the causes and the effects of the French Revolution? The major cause of the French Revolution was the disputes between the different types of social classes in French society. The French Revolution of 1789-1799 was one of the most important events in the history of the world. The Revolution led to many changes in France, which at the time of the Revolution, was the most powerful state in Europe. The Revolution led to the development of new political forces such as democracy and nationalism. It questioned the authority of kings, priests, and nobles. The Revolution also gave new meanings and new ideas to the political ideas of the people.
The French Revolution was spread over the ten year period between 1789 and 1799. The primary cause of the revolution was the disputes over the peoples’ differing ideas of reform. Before the beginning of the Revolution, only moderate reforms were wanted by the people. An example of why they wanted this was because of king Louis XIV‘s actions. At the end of the seventeenth century, King Louis XIV’s wars began decreasing the royal finances dramatically. This worsened during the eighteenth century. The use of the money by Louis XIV angered the people and they wanted a new system of government. The writings of the philosophes such as Voltaire and Diderot, were critical of the government. They said that not one official in power was corrupt, but that the whole system of government needed some change. Eventually, when the royal finances were expended in the 1780′s, there began a time of greater criticism. This sparked the peasants notion of wanting change.
Under the Old Regime in France, the king was the absolute monarch. Louis XIV had centralized power in the royal bureaucracy, the government departments which administered his policies. Together, Louis XIV and the bureaucracy worked to preserve royal authority and to maintain the social structure of the Old Regime.
At this time in French history, the social classes played an important role in the lives of the people. The social structure of France was divided among three groups: the First Estate, the Second Estate, and the Third Estate. Each social group had a varied type of people within their structure, which presented the different views of the people.
The First Estate was the Church. During the ancien regime, the church was equal in terms of its social, economic, and spiritual power. The First Estate owned nearly 10 per cent of all land in France. It paid no taxes but, to support church activities such as school running and caring for the poor, they collected a tithe, or a tax on income. About one-third of the entire clergy in France served as parish priests. Also included in this estate were the nobles. Some of the nobles lived in luxury in major cities in France, such as Versailles or Paris. Parish priests usually lived a hardworking life. This Estate was the minority of the people in France, having approximately 1 to 2 per cent of the population.
The Second Estate in French life was the nobility. They enjoyed extensive rights and privileges. They made up less than 2 percent of the population. They, like the First Estate, paid hardly any taxes. Economically, the nobility was characterized by great land wealth. Nobles were generally the richest members of the society. Typical sources of income were rents and dues for the use of their farms or estates. The First and Second Estates were grouped together because they had similar political beliefs. The
Third Estate consisted of the commoners. It includedthe bourgeoisie, peasants and city workers. The bourgeoisie, or the middle class, were by far, the wealthiest. In the bourgeoisie, there were the merchants and manufacturers, lawyers, doctors and others similar to those types of professions. Peasants made up the largest group within the Third Estate. They were forced to pay hefty taxes, tithes to the church, and rents to their landlords for the land that they lived on. The last group within the Third Estate were the city workers. They were servants, apprentices, and household maids.
The major cause of the Revolution were the differences these three groups had. However, there was another important factor during these times. France suffered from harsh economic problems. Poor farm harvests by farmers hurt the economy, and trade rules from the Middle Ages still survived, making trade difficult. However, the most serious problem was the problem facing the government during this time. The French government borrowed much money to pay for the wars of Louis XIV. Louis still borrowed money to fight wars and to keep French power alive in Europe. These costs greatly increased the national debt, which was, at the time, already too high.
When King Louis XVI came into power, he realized that these problems existed. At first he did not know what to do, until he found a man by the name of Robert Turgot. He eased the financial crisis of France, but he had difficulties when he tried to introduce a major reform, that of taxing the nobles. He had such difficulties because the king could not tax the nobles unless the Parliament approved of the new tax laws. The people in the courts that voted on these laws were the nobles, called nobles of the robe, and therefore rejected Turgot’s reform. After Turgot was rejected, the king fired him from his office. This led Louis XVI to summon the Estates General in 1789.
The Estates General was the place where representatives from each social class could be represented. Here, many issues would be discussed, and at this time in French history, it would be centered around the economic crisis.
When the Estates General met in 1789, the deputies, or representatives, from the Third Estate demanded that the three estates meet together, with each deputy having an equal vote. That way, the First and Second Estates could outvote the Third Estate. When the king heard of this, he demanded that the three estates meet separately. This caused anger within the Third Estate. The deputies from the Third Estate declared themselves the National Assembly. Louis XVI quickly rejected these deputies from the meeting hall. After a while, Louis XVI decided that it would be best if the three estates met together. He ordered the other two estates to join the Third Estate in the National Assembly.
Although now the three estates met together, there were divisions among them. Some wanted to protect their rights, while others wanted to establish a limited, constitutional monarchy. This sparked some change in the French people.
Immediately after the National Assembly secretly began working on a constitution, the peasants and workers expected relief from taxes and other dues that they paid. Little happened, and they still faced their same problems of unemployment and inflation. Then there were reports that Louis XVI was bringing troops to Paris. This increased the peoples’ fears.
When Louis brought troops to Versailles, many citizens feared that he wanted to get rid of the National Assembly. As a result, they stormed the Bastille. Other disturbances also broke out. People were caught up in what was called the “Great Fear“. Rumors passed from village to village that robbers were destroying homes all over France. When no robbers showed up, the peasants turned to their landlords. They destroyed grain towers, and destroyed tax records, showing that they will never pay any taxes, fines or dues ever again.
These events forced Louis to summon the National Assembly on August 4th. They people discussed possible reforms. On this day, the National Assembly ended serfdom.Towards the end of August, the National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It stated that democratic principles would be the basis for French government. The job of turning these ideas into a constitution still remained.
While the constitution was in the process of being made, an angry crowd in Paris rioted, forcing the National Assembly to recognize their demands. Some of these rioters were women. They were angry about food prices. They also thought that the king and queen were going against the National Assembly. They demanded that Louis return to Paris where they could watch him. To prevent any further uprisings, he agreed.
Throughout France, all ancient customs were thrown away by the revolution. The National Assembly called for freedom of worship and abolished all special activities and privileges of the Catholic Church. To raise money that was needed, the government began selling off church lands, which angered many Catholics.
In 1791, the National Assembly brought forward a new constitution. It made France a limited monarchy and established a system of separation of powers. Under the constitution, the old distinctions between the clergy, nobles, and commoners disappeared.
Few people were satisfied with the constitutional monarchy. Louis XVI was frightened at the actions of the National Assembly. He fled the country with his wife, but he was later arrested and brought back to accept the constitution. After this action by the king, moderate revolutionaries still wanted to preserve the constitutional monarchy, while the radicals distrusted the king and wanted a republic.
These were the causes of the French Revolution. Many peoples’ lives were changed during this time. Peoples’ ideas also changed.
After the war between France and Austria and Prussia, prices increased dramatically, and food shortages occurred. When Louis XVI and his wife fled to the Legislative Assembly, they were imprisoned. They called for a national convention to write a new constitution. The National Convention met in September. The National Convention tried and convicted Louis XVI of treason. He was sentenced to death.
News of his death spread all throughout Europe. Monarchs of European nations feared that the Revolution would spread. By 1793, the French armies occupied the Austrian Netherlands and were about to invade Prussia. But, in 1793, Great Britain, the Dutch Netherlands, and Spain went along with Prussia and Austria in a war against France. With these five powerful nations fighting against France, the French were outnumbered and outmatched. This one war was very hard for France. This war caused many deaths at home due to starvation. At this point in the Revolution, some people thought that the Revolution had gone too far and should be put to an end.
In the effort to restore temporary peace in the society, the National Convention made a constitution that created a Committee of Public Safety. It campaigned against people who were considered enemies of France. Maximilien Robespierre led the Committee of Public Safety. He wanted to create a “Republic of Virtue”. The Committee went all over France to help other groups find traitors to France. During the Reign of Terror, trials for the people were held often. Many people were brought to the guillotine and killed. Most of the victims were commoners. This time of terror had scared the people, and their revolts towards the government ended.
The Committee of Public Safety organized new and powerful armies to protect itself from foreign invasion. The Committee also set limits on prices and salaries.
By early in 1794, the French armies were winning battles again, but supporters were asking if these executions of the people were still needed in society. The National Convention then arrested Maximilien Robespierre, andexecuted him, which ended the Reign of Terror.
Between the years of 1789 and 1794, French life had changed dramatically. There were changes in the lifestyle of the people, as well as in clothes and art. The monarchies were gone, and the king no longer ruled. Le National Convention abolished all feudal customs and ended all slavery. Revolutionary leaders also established the metric system. They wanted to set up free public schools, but that never came about, due to the economic problems.
In 1795, after the total ending of the Reign of Terror, the National Convention established another constitution. It established a new system of government called the Directory. This Directory, however, faced many problems. The legislative deputies begged and “bought” political votes, and prices rose sharply, something which the poor classes of society didn’t like. Along with these problems, it still followed a foreign policy. It built the largest army in Europe during this time. This army were headed by a great military leader, Napoleon Bonaparte.
In 1793, Napoleon won many battles against the British, and at this time, he was a general. He next won battles over Italy, and in 1798, he invaded Egypt. He defeated Egypt’s army, but he had to pay for his victory. At sea, the Egyptian Navy, led by Horatio Nelson, destroyed the French fleet at the Nile river. This loss meant that the fleet could not take the soldiers back to France, so, Napoleon left them there and he went back to France. Unbeknownst to the people of France about the tragedy in Egypt, he was still welcomed as a hero. When talking to the people at home, he found that many people were not satisfied with the Directory. With the help of troops, he overthrew the government in 1799. Under this new government, Napoleon was called the First Consul. His military talents helped him to win popular support. With his support, he was named the dictator of France.
This time in French History was important to the people of France because of the different types of government they had. Socialism, liberalism and nationalism all were results of the French Revolution. It gave people the idea that if they tried, they could reorganize a society whenever it was needed. The greatest legacy of the French Revolution, however, was that people could change anything that they wanted with political ideas, words and laws.
Last summer, we Yankees fans bade farewell to one of the most beloved of all Yankees, former Hall of Fame player and Yankees sportscaster Phil “Scooter” Rizzuto. Now, less that a year after Scooter’s passing, we bid farewell to another Yankee legend, Bobby Murcer. Like Rizzuto, Murcer played in pinstripes but eventually “moved up” to the broadcast booth to call Yankees’ game for the television audience. He will be most sorely and sincerely missed.
As a kid growing up in the Baltimore area, I had been a hardcore Orioles fan. Brooks Robinson, Dave McNally, Boog Powell, and Luis Aparicio were a just a few of my childhood heroes and lucky for me, I actually got to see them play at Memorial Stadium with my dad. Being there was magical. It was like being in another dimension. But even though I followed the Orioles faithfully early on, I was a bit smitten by the mystique and legend of the Bronx Bombers. I thought they were giants (not the New York or San Francisco versions). Whenever the Yankees played the O’s, I figured every Yankees hitter would probably hit a homer in every game.
It was strange how the mystique of the Yankees was embedded into my conscience. Even when I was playing Little League baseball, I always expected that the team that wore the Yankee pinstripes to be the team to beat. Legends and myths have that kind of power over one’s mind.
As I got older, and after living in North Carolina and Ohio from third grade through high school, I lost my interest in the Orioles and following major league baseball. Football was my passion and I didn’t concern myself with how “the Birds” were doing. But all that change when I began playing pitch-and-catch with my son, Aaron. He got me thinking about baseball all over again and it was his joy and enthusiasm for the sport that got my juices going one more time. Just so happened, he was a fan of none other than the New York Yankees. I blame him for making me a Yankees fan. (He blames me for making him a Dolphins fan!)
It wasn’t long after moving to Connecticut that we began to take trips to “the house that Ruth built, ” Yankee Stadium in The Bronx. To this day, those treks are some of my most-cherished moments, not because it was about the Yankees or New York, but because it was about my son. He was in his element and his joy was evident. Even at a very young age, he could rattle off ERA’s, batting averages, who was who, the standings, and a ton of trivia. He even knew how to pronounce Mike Pagliarulo’s name properly. (It’s “PAH-lee-AH-ROO-low”) Fortunately, when we weren’t able to go to New York to see the Yankees in person, our local cable company carried most of the Yankee games on WPIX, Channel 11. At the time, they were the Yankees’ main broadcast station. That’s where we got to know Bobby Murcer. Game after game, he and Phil Rizzuto would talk baseball, golf, birthdays, anniversaries, and a hot of nonbaseball-related subjects. Scooter’s favorite subject however was about his beloved cannolis. Actually, during their time together, Bobby Murcer would keep everyone in tune with what was going on the field while Scooter would talk about whatever was on his mind. It was fun to listen to. Great comedy and always interesting. Win or lose, Scooter and Murcer would leave you entertained.
It’s been a while since we’ve heard Bobby Murcer’s play-by-play, but I’m sure that in that mystical field of dreams, if Murcer and Rizzuto are not on the field playing, you know they’re calling the game between cannolis.
“For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize. My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal.” These were the words the Reverend Jesse Jackson used to apologize for what CNN characterized as “vulgar” comments made by Jackson against the presumptive Democratic nominee Barak Obama for a speech Obama made in a black church on Father’s Day. (Read the speech here). Jackson said he was “very distressed” that his foul remarks became public because he supports the White House bid of Obama, a fellow Chicagoan. It happened, he said, when a fellow guest on a Fox News show last Sunday asked him about Obama’s speeches at black churches. Fox News captured Jackson criticizing presidential candidate Barack Obama for talking down to blacks on the issue of fatherhood. Not knowing the microphone was still live, Jackson said,
“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people … I want to cut his nuts off.“
Apparently, not catering to Jackson’s style of bringing racial equality to the country creates a risk of loosing one’s family jewels. I know that Jackson is passionate about racial justice and all that, but he really needs to take a sabbatical or something. He went way over the top in these comments. Not only were they less than “reverend-like”, but I get the sense that Jesse Jackson’s discomfort with Barak Obama has more to do with pride and position than anything else. Some suggest it’s that green-eyed monster – jealousy raising it’s ugly head. One commentator noted,
It’s called jealousy. Barack Obama is everything Jesse wanted to be to America, but somehow came up short. Now, he has to watch a younger, far more talented, man of color take the reins
Face it, Jackson is yesterday’s news and with Obama within reach of achieving what Jackson couldn’t acquire in 1984 and 1988 when he ran for president, Jackson can’t admit his confrontational race-baiting style of politics has failed to produce the equality he says he seeks.
But are we to believe that all this “hate speech” by Jackson was jealousy, or his way of venting over Obama’s disassociation with Jackson’s race-baiting policies, or could it be even something more calculated and dubious? What I mean is it possible that this was really all set up between Jackson and the Obama campaign as a way to endear fence-sitting moderates and some conservatives to see Obama as a balanced statesman verses the “radical” Jesse Jackson? That image would surely be a definite benefit for Obama, seeking to appear more mainstream. As Newsweek commentator, Howard Fineman noted, “What better way to prove your mainstream bona fides with white conservative voters than to be criticized by Jackson?” (Read his article here). Even Biko Baker, an African-American journalist and activist suggested such a nefarious scheme. (Read his blog here).
Whatever the true reason for Jackson’s vulgar outburst, one thing I can’t help but see in all this is another facet of Jackson being untethered from the faith he claims. That is, the Christian faith. Although I think his commitment to social and racial justice is commendable and of the highest tradition of Christian activism, I would suggest that his faith is clearly adrift in a sea of unChristlike conviction, behavior and conversation. His fruit is showing.
In context, Jackson’s reasoning for saying what he said was that, while he agrees with Obama’s arguments that blacks must do more to improve their lot, “the moral message must be a much broader message. What we need really is racial justice and urban policy and jobs and health care.” Let me get this right. So, because Obama, who has in fact, often promoted the broad moral message that Jackson insisted on making, didn’t quite say it the way Jackson would say it, that, somehow merits Obama deserving to be castrated? Anyone in their right mind, (not Jeremiah Wright) has got to notice that Jesse probably needs, at least, some anger management training. There is just no way he can legitimize or sanction his frustration at Obama’s apparent lack of a “broader moral message” by suggesting such a barbaric penalty. It was, pardon the pun, hitting below the belt. But not only was it that, but it was totally baseless. As Obama spokesman Bill Burton stated,
“As someone who grew up without a father in the home, Senator Obama has spoken and written for many years about the issue of parental responsibility, including the importance of fathers participating in their children’s lives. He also discusses our responsibility as a society to provide jobs, justice, and opportunity for all. He will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and he of course accepts Reverend Jackson’s apology.“
What I find so disturbing about this whole deal is that it brings into focus how politics undermines the true gospel of Christ. The gospel is redemptive because it provides a savior who forgives, yet demands that we “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and love our neighbors as ourselves.” Love of God demands that we are obedient to Him, showing our love for God by showing it to others, friends and enemies alike. If Barak Obama and Jesse Jackson really want to be witnesses of God’s grace, there’s no better time than the present to start practicing it.
“My religion obligates me to be political, to seek to do God’s will and allow the spiritual word to become concrete justice and dwell among us. Religion should use you politically to do public service. Politics should not misuse religion. When the Word becomes flesh and dwells among us, that’s called good religion.“ – Rev. Jesse Jackson
The reason Babe was in the trials in the first place was due to a series of strange circumstances and set of anomalies in his upbringing. Unlike other pigs, Babe had been adopted by a sheepdog. That unique factor created an opportunity for Babe to develop his skills to herding sheep. The name of his adoptive mother sheepdog was Fly, and soon thereafter, Fly begins to train the pig in the ways of a sheepdog. She explains to Babe that sheep are stupid animals and that dogs are smart animals. It’s the dog’s job to dominate the sheep in order to have them perform the farmer’s bidding. One day, however, a sheep named Ma takes sick and is kept in the barn for treatment. Babe meets her and becomes her friend and knows that she is not stupid and knows that he can treat her respectfully. 
Those words tell a lot. The sheep were looking for respect and mutual respect would be the reward. This is secret that gave Babe and Farmer Hoggett an unprecedented victory at the trials, stunning the mocking crowd.
