Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

BEN WITHERINGTON - THE NOBLE VOCATION OF ARTIST OR ARTISAN

Ben has posted a portion of a forthcoming book on "work in the light of kingdom come."  Ben says,  "I want to present a brief case for being an artist as a proper way to glorify God and edify others."    Read on...

Update:  I decided to add an excerpt in which Ben refers to God as an inspirer of music:

God is not just a ‘visual’ artist, God is both an inspirer of, but also a composer, of music, as Robert Banks points out. So for instance God tells the Israelite leaders in Deut. 31.19 “write down this song and teach it to the Israelites, and have them sing it.” In fact there is a direct connection made between God giving verbal

WORTH LOOKING AT . . .

Sharia creeps into Europe  - Olivier Guitta     (HT: Kathryn Jean Lopez)

Accounting for California's Suicide: A weird sort of utopian mindset.  - Victor Davis Hanson

Take a Break from Technology -  Chuck Colson

KRAUTHAMMER - OBAMA ENGAGES IN CLEVER POLITICS BUT INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO THE CORE

Read Krauthammer's article, "Deception at the Core of Obama Plans."    A few sentences (bolding mine):

 "... few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan. . . 

The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.        [ much more . . ]

GOOD READING FOR BAD TIMES

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson of Grove City College offers three suggestions:  Ayn Rand's first novel,  We the Living;  Rose Wilder Lane's The Discovery of Freedom; and Taylor Caldwell’s, A Pillar of Iron.  Reasons for the selections here. 

VIDEO TOUR OF THE ESV STUDY BIBLE

Here is a good introduction (about 10 minutes) to the advantages of a study Bible that can be fully utilized online.   Many advantages indeed.

THE LEFT'S TRINITY OF PROPHETS

Mark D. Tooley writes about Jim Wallis, Bill Moyers, and William Sloan Coffin.   Good article.

BARACK OBAMA AND MICHELLE AS SEEN BY THE BRITS

Was "Lady MacBeth" behind Barack Obama's snub of Gordon Brown?

"SELF-MADE MEN" OBAMA AND GATES HAD EARLY ADVANTAGES

Dan Lips cites Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Outliers, who contends most great success stories spring from unique advantages and opportunities that enable remarkable achievement.  What about Gates and  Obama?  Lips writes (bolding mine):

Consider Bill Gates. Most people know how, as a young computer whiz, he dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft and revolutionize the software industry and the American economy in the process. But often overlooked in this simple tale are the events in Gates' life that put him on the path to greatness.

Gladwell explains that, as a teenager, Gates attended a private school that offered a computer club. At a time when few colleges were offering students hands-on computer experience, Gates was practicing real-time computer programming in the eighth grade. This early experience led Gates to capitalize on other unique opportunities, including

OBAMA GOVERNS WITH A CADRE OF "CZARS"

Ed Morrissey:

... We seem to have an entire executive branch comprised of czars of one sort or another.  The Los Angeles Times reports that this impulse towards autocracy worries more than just a few observers...

If Congress acted like a true check on the executive instead of a rubber stamp for Obama — a  criticism often leveled by Democrats from 2001-6, and not without cause — they would put a halt to the expansion of powers Obama proposes.  Czars by their nature work directly for the President and are not accountable to Congress, yet they direct agencies that exist as a trust-based hybrid of legislative and executive powers.  That is why Congress has to confirm appointees at the top levels of these agencies, and why Congress demands that they report constantly to them on their status and actions.  [Morrissey's emphasis]

Czars change the equation of power between the executive and the legislature, which is the people’s branch of government.  They assume powers not intended for the executive and can get around Congressional mandates at whim.  That might make sense during temporary periods of emergency, but left in place corrupts accountability of government to the people.  It creates a powerful and unchecked executive branch, only answerable to a greatly-increased presidency. 

It’s interesting to note that the Democrats have decided to allow this, after years of screeching incoherently about Bush’s “unitary executive” without understanding at all what the term meant. . .  The formation of a legion of czars represents a challenge to the proper balance of power far outstripping anything seen during the Bush years, or for that matter any time in American history.   [my emphasis]

AT THIS TIME LAST YEAR, WHO WAS MORE POPULAR? OBAMA or BUSH?

Peter Wehner:

Here’s an interesting data point comparison: Barack Obama’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll today is 61 percent, with 28 percent disapproving (the Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls has his overall job approval rating at 59.8 percent). A March 5-7, 2001 Gallup poll found President Bush's job approval at 63 percent as well, with only 22 percent disapproving. So George W. Bush, at a comparable  time in his presidency, was in marginally better shape than Barack Obama is right now, at least based on the Gallup Poll survey.  (my emphasis)

This runs counter to conventional wisdom that Obama is tremendously popular, and that Bush (based on the divisive nature of the 2000 election) was not. In fact, according to the Gallup Poll data, what President Bush did was rise in the esteem of the public during the first five weeks of his presidency, while Obama has lost a bit of altitude.  (more . . .)

WANT TO KNOW WHAT A TRILLION DOLLARS LOOKS LIKE?

Here's one visual.  (HT: Jonah Goldberg)

Update:  A reader, a physicist, adds more details.

THE SAVAGE KEITH OLBERMANN IS SAVAGED BY ANN COULTER

Wow.  These two don't play nice.  Coulter's column here.

HOW THE UNITED STATES HAS CHANGED WITH RESPECT TO CHRISTIANITY IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE

Dr. James C. Dobson notes, "How different was the world when President Harry Truman addressed the American people from the lawn of the White House on the occasion of the lighting of the National Community Christmas Tree":

""Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairer place. This faith sustains us today as it has sustained mankind for centuries past. This is why the Christmas story, with the bright stars shining and the angels singing, moves us to wonder and stirs our hearts to praise. Now, my fellow countrymen, I wish for all of you a Christmas filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and many years of future happiness with the peace of God reigning upon this earth."

BEN WITHERINGTON - WE NEED TO REPENT OF GLUTTONY

Ben Witherington posts some thoughts and admonitions:

It’s Lent and time to think about the things we should be repenting of. . .  One of the most depressing things I have done in recent years is attend the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro N.C. It was not depressing because it was the Southern Baptist Convention as those folks were gracious enough hosts and good Christian people. No, it was depressing because I got to see up close and personal the devastation of what obesity has done to southern ministers, their spouses and also leading southern lay persons. Though I certainly did not take a head count or do a scientific survey it was clear from scanning the audience on repeated occasion that at least 70% of the audience was overweight, and at least 50% was considerably overweight, with perhaps 30% of that group being to the point of morbid obesity. It was simply depressing. Very depressing. . .

Obesity is a horrible Christian witness to a culture already known for its conspicuous consumption. . .   It is clear that here in the South we have entirely forgotten that gluttony is a sin, not to mention 

OBAMA HAS A KNACK FOR MAKING TERRIBLE APPOINTMENTS. THE LATEST: CHAS FREEMAN

From National Review Online's editorial:

Charles Freeman is a career diplomat, a Saudi apologist, and a savage critic of Israel. He also argues that Beijing did not strike down the Tiananmen Square protesters with sufficient swiftness. Barack Obama proposes to make him head of the National Intelligence Council. It’s an abominable appointment.  

CARVILLE, BEGALA, EMANUEL PLOTTED "OPERATION LIMBAUGH" BEGINNING LAST FALL...

The Democrat political/media chess game against Limbaugh continues.  Will Limbaugh prove to be the albatross the Democrats want to hang on the Republican party?  That's their  strategy as this article shows.  Will Limbaugh overcome the Democrat connivance against him (and the Republicans) and come out on top?  Stay tuned...    (HT: Drudge)

Update:  Victor Davis Hanson expatiates on Rush's appeal and his "certain sort of genius."  Definitely worth reading.

Update #2 -  Rush responds:  Challenges Obama to a debate.  Transcript here.  4 minute, 43 second audio here.

LEGENDARY INVESTOR JIM ROGERS: "LET AIG GO BANKRUPT, NOT AMERICA"

From a CNBC interview:

"Suppose AIG goes bankrupt, it is better that AIG goes bankrupt and we have a horrible two or three years than that the whole US goes bankrupt," Rogers said. "AIG has trillions of dollars of obligations, let them fail, let the courts sort it out and start over. Otherwise we'll never start over." . .

Bailing out the banks is going to increase the debt spiral and finally cause the destruction of the world's biggest economy, Rogers said. . .

"The idea that you have too much debt, too much borrowing and too much consumption and you're going to solve that problem with more debt, more consumption and more borrowing? These people are nuts." . .

"Power is shifting now from the money shifters, the guys who trade paper and money, to people who produce real goods. What you should do is become a farmer, or start a farming network," Rogers said.

- Jim Cramer video: "It's amateur hour at our darkest moment." 

W. BRADFORD WILCOX - "MORE GOVERNMENT, LESS GOD; WHAT THE OBAMA REVOLUTION MEANS FOR RELIGION IN AMERICA"

Here's a synopsis of what Wilcox's article is about:  

While many social conservatives have focused attention on Obama’s liberal social commitments, few have considered what effects an expanded welfare state will have on religious belief—or how these religious effects will in turn impact civic virtue, personal responsibility, altruism, or solidarity. If the European experience with the welfare state and religion is any indication, the Obama revolution could well lead the United States down the secular path already trod by Europe.

Also, consider this excerpt:

A recent study of 33 countries around the world by Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde, political scientists at the University of Washington, indicates that there is an inverse relationship between state welfare spending and religiosity. Specifically, they found that countries with larger welfare states had markedly lower levels of religious attendance, had higher rates of citizens indicating no religious affiliation whatsoever, and their people took less comfort in religion in general. In their words, “Countries with higher levels of per capita welfare have a proclivity for less religious participation and tend to have higher percentages of non-religious individuals.”

THE PROBLEM WITH THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP . . . THE CASE OF GOV. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS (D-KANS)

Update:  George Weigle - The Sebelius nomination is a challenge to Catholics.  Weigle offers his usual incisive, comprehensive commentary.  It's clear that the radical, pro-abortion Sebelius' nomination to head HHS is a test not only for Republicans, but for Catholics as well.

(Original Post) - The Family Research Council points out with regard to President Obama's pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS):  

With the exception so far of Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.) -- arguably the most pro-abortion governor in the nation -- has been met by the Republican leadership with a collective yawn. Here is a woman who aligns herself against 80% of the country in suggesting that the government knows better than parents in children's health decisions, and yet the GOP can't muster the will to fight her nomination. As governor, she hosted a private reception for a notorious partial-birth abortionist, vetoed bills that would have made abortion clinics cleaner for women, and blocked court reforms that would have helped to prevent third-term abortions. Like President Obama, she even opposed protection for infants who are born alive during an abortion.

If Republicans won't take a stand now, when will they? Once Sebelius is confirmed, she will control the largest government agency in America with more power and resources to advance a radical social agenda that will drive a deeper wedge between parents and their children. Grassroots conservatives understand what's at stake here. Why doesn't the Republican leadership?    [emphases mine]

Me: Why should  anyone give money or support such a feckless party?  I wish it were otherwise.  Where is the leadership?  

LARRY KING LIVE -- BOBBY JINDAL COMMENTS ON RUSH LIMBAUGH

Ed Morrissey says Jindal acts like a party leader (video included).

TONY BLANKLEY - "OBAMA LIED; THE ECONOMY DIED"

I don't think Tony Blankley overstates the situation at all in his column.  Excerpt (bolding mine):

In the age of Barack Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language - against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook, and will soon be a cataract of verbal deception.

The other difference is that George W. Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was merely mistaken. Whereas President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government. As he said Tuesday night: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't." . . .

If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.

More . .

SKILLED IMMIGRANTS LEAVING THE UNITED STATES

This news is ominous to me (bolding mine):

At the end of 2006, more than 1 million skilled professionals (engineers, scientists, doctors, researchers) and their families were in line for a yearly allotment of only 120,000 permanent resident visas. The wait time for some people ran longer than a decade. In the meantime, these workers were trapped in "immigration limbo." If they changed jobs or even took a promotion, they risked being pushed to the back of the permanent residency queue. We predicted that skilled foreign workers would increasingly get fed up and return to countries like India and China where the economies were booming.

Why should we care? Because immigrants are critical to the country's long-term economic health. Despite the fact that they constitute only 12% of the U.S. population, immigrants have started 52% of Silicon Valley's technology companies and contributed to more than 25% of our global patents. They make up 24% of the U.S. science and engineering workforce holding bachelor's degrees and 47% of science and engineering workers who have PhDs. Immigrants have co-founded firms such as Google, Intel, eBay, and Yahoo!  

(more ...)

MICHAEL BURLEIGH - A WRITER WITH WHOM I NEED TO BECOME MORE FAMILIAR

John J. Miller announces:

On Between the Covers today, we have a podcast interview with Michael Burleigh, author of Blood & Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism. We discuss why he regards terrorists as "morally insane," whether terrorism is ever justified, how the European view of terrorism differs from the American view, and his involvement with the excellent new British magazine Standpoint (which he describes as a cross between Commentary, Prospect, and National Review). His daily blog on the Standpoint website is here.

Jonah Goldberg writes over at the Corner:

Since John Miller brings him up, I thought I should add a few things. Michael Burleigh's majestic book, The Third Reich: A New History was an enormous influence on me. It is a fantastic piece of work that draws considerable intellectual inspiration from Eric Voegelin's work on "political religions." Two other books by Burleigh, Sacred Causes and Earthly Powers, trace the religious instinct within nominally secular politics. The religious impulse cannot be destroyed, only misdirected to areas where some people can't see through its secular disguise. Nobody's work has ever been more successful — as far as I am aware — at demonstrating this fundamental insight to the affairs of man.  I haven't read  Burleigh's latest book yet, but I plan to.

Andrew Strattaford adds:

FWIW, I wrote about Blood & Rage for the New Criterion here.

ALVIN PLATINGA & DANIEL DENNETT SQUARE OFF AT AN AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION MEETING

Update: Plantinga's lecture (mp3) here: Religion and Science: Where the Conflict Really Lies. 

(Original Post)- Here's a report of the encounter (Ht: Jonah Goldberg):

For those of you who do not know, on February 21st, the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association - the main professional body of American philosophers - hosted a kind of debate. I say "kind of debate" because one philosopher gave a paper, the other commented and the first philosopher replied and the floor opened for questions. But in fact the session was a debate.

The debate was between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett. Plantinga is one of the founders of the Society of Christian Philosophers and one of the fathers of the current desecularization of philosophy. He is widely regarded - even by his critics - as one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years and one of the finest philosophers of religion since the Medieval period. Daniel Dennett is one of the New Atheists and is a well-known proponent of atheistic Darwinism and critic of religion. He is widely regarded - even by his critics - as one of the most important early philosophers of mind that opened the field to cognitive science and evolutionary biology. He has contributed enormously to the serious study of the mind and its relationship to the brain. Both philosophers are over sixty and perhaps at the height of their philosophical powers. They have also faced off before but, as far as I know, not in person.