The Curse of Clear Sight

Posted on November 10, 2005 by me

I see things so clearly. To me, the truth is usually quite obvious. As a result, it’s extremely frustrating to read or listen to the news, or anyone else’s opinions on anything, because no one apparently sees things quite as clearly as I do. The world would be so much better if everyone had my sense of sight. The problem is, of course, that so many people think that they can see clearly – if they only knew.

If you could see me, you’d of course know that I am writing with tongue-in-cheek. (I find that writing tongue-in-cheek is so much easier than speaking tongue-in-cheek – I am not terribly coordinated, and end up biting my tongue more often than not.) However, I obviously think my opinions are more correct than any other; otherwise, I’d have different opinions.

So, here’s a few clear-sighted opinions to brighten up your day and make your world a better place:

  • Why is everyone so upset about this Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame thing? Remember, we’re dealing with the CIA here! No one likes, or trusts, the CIA. They are the bad guys in nearly every movie in which they are featured. We all know that they don’t follow anyone’s rules, except in public. Their job is to manipulate information, and they are on no one’s side but their own. We all think that, right? So, why, all of a sudden, are we feeling sorry for these people? They don’t need a Special Investigator, except to manipulate more information. And besides, Valerie Plame’s secret identity had already been revealed – and she wasn’t covert any longer, having been “outed” on at least 2 occasions by the CIA itself, and possibly even by old Joe Wilson.
  • Why do people think Scooter Libby has been indicted for outing Valerie Plame? Don’t people read or listen anymore?
  • Last week I watched Chris Matthews on Hardball talking with Deborah Orin from the NY Post. Matthews was, or at least pretended to be, shocked to hear that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. We’ve all known that for ages – where has Chris Matthews been? I used to think he was intelligent, but apparently he only reads his own stuff. Maybe if he’d watch Fox News once in a while, he’d know what was going on.
  • I love Boston Legal, in spite of it’s typically liberal slant. Of course, it’s set in Boston, so the liberal slant is probably fitting. In fact, I find it hard to believe that a law firm in Boston would actually have 2 conservative partners. The Halloween show (aired 11-1) was, in my opinion, great. I thought it’s treatment of Christians and Wiccans suing a school over a Halloween celebration was well done. I also (surprisingly) liked their treatment of a suit against the military for misrepresentation over its recuitment practices, although as you might expect, it was filled with false information and speeches borrowed from John Kerry’s failed campaign. William Shatner (“Denny Crane“), in spite of having “mad cow disease” and some other issues, does a good job of portraying someone with a sincerely conservative heart. Overall, the show came off as questioning Iraq, but generally supportive of the military.
  • As part of his court arguments (in the afore-mentioned Boston Legal episode), Alan Shore asks why the media is not showing any of the war in Iraq, commenting that the casulaties there are for the most part being ignored. That is a great point, and it got me thinking. Why, indeed, is there so little coverage from the liberal media about what’s actually happening in Iraq? I can draw two conclusions:
    1. They don’t think people are interested. But, since the media tends to create its own demand, and they tend to be driven more these days by philosophy than by money (can you believe that?), this is probably not the reason.
    2. To actually show what is happening in Iraq does not fit with their agenda. I think this is probably the case – they would rather rehash old John Kerry lines and media-created myths than actually show what’s happening. People might actually see that the soldiers are proud of what they are doing, and feel like they are accomplishing something. People might see that the Iraqis are generally excited about freedom, and actually want our troops there while they pull the government together. People might have seen a greater voter turnout – in spite of threatened violence – than we have over here! No, that wouldn’t fit with the liberal media’s agenda – which is essentially to get conservatives out of power – at all.

See, what did I tell you? Clear, concise thinking. 😉

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Leave a comment

The Great John Eldredge Debate

Posted on November 6, 2005 by me

Well, my comments about John Eldredge’s “Waking the Dead” sparked some debate (beyond the comments that were posted). I think I was a bit misunderstood, at least on some points. I re-read my post, and have read a bit more of Eldredge in the meantime. So far, my opinions haven’t changed. But, to perhaps qualify and clarify my thoughts, let me bullet-point a few things:

  • I am a strong believer in the power of myth, and always have been. Myth, fantasy, allegory, or whatever you want to call it, has a way of conveying ideas that “reality” sometimes cannot. Jesus told parables for that reason. God speaks in apocalyptic language. Myth unlocks and speaks to what Eldredge refers to as the “heart.” Throughout the years I have – sometimes to a fault – used myth to make a spiritual point. So, I am definitely not discounting the value of myth.
  • However, we cannot assume that what speaks to us in these myths – or what we interpret or read into them – is necessarily truth. I would tend to agree with Eldredge’s point that our hearts – as transformed by the Holy Spirit – are good. However, not all of our desires are necessarily good. There are foundational desires, like the desire to be loved and the desire to be significant, that are good. However, these desires can easily be twisted and misdirected, and myths often play to these misdirected desires. (Eldredge discusses this as motives, however to me the word implies a rational intent; either way, I think we need to examine them.)

    A good example of this is the Sondheim musical, Into the Woods. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest tracking down a DVD. The play takes a number of classic fairy tales and combines them in a very humorous way – for the first half. The second half of the play shows what happens as the moral implications of the character’s actions play themselves out and the characters learn the hard way that their desires were misdirected.

  • I suspect that many of our desires to “be someone” – to be Neo, or Sleeping Beauty, or whoever – may be as much an expression of our inability to accept that “ordinary” is okay as it may be a genuine truth that we are called for something better. One of my favorite CDs is Switchfoot’s “Beautiful Letdown.” I don’t think I have found lyrics any more inspiring than when they sing, “This is your life, are you who you want to be?” or “We were meant to live for so much more …” (Music, by the way, has the same power as myth – it speaks beyond our mind to something deeper, and can impact us in similar ways, good and bad.)

    We are all probably – I don’t know if I could say this about Mother Theresa – called to live for “so much more.” The question is, however, what does that mean? Does this mean we hang to a desire to be someone else, or just come to accept who we are?

  • A problem, then, is in discerning our heart as well as discerning the truth in myth. I still have a problem with Eldredge’s emphasis on urgency. All great adventure movies and mythic tales take place at that time when the world is in crisis and everything hangs in the balance. This, however, does not represent the whole story.

    This is not to say that one cannot apply principles from the Lord of the Rings in dealing with the minor crises of daily life. I have heard that on average, people experience three crises a year. Most of these are not the “big one,” but are crises nonetheless. But, I know many, many people for whom each day is a crisis, and many of them are either self-created, or just reinterpreted as one. Now, here’s an appropriate myth: The Boy Who Cried Wolf. If we constantly have to live on this high-adrenaline pseudo-spirituality, what will we do when a real crisis comes along?

  • It is important that we learn that we are accepted just being ourselves. It is important that we know our own significance. We don’t have to be “the One,” we are “the one” that God created. Our significance does not come from doing anything, or achieving anything. Our significance comes simply from being created and loved by God. That should be enough. People need to be set free from the lies that they are not significant, that they are somehow marginalized and without purpose or value. For this, I applaud Eldredge, as undoubtedly his book is facilitating that in many people.

Eldredge does make some of these points that I have mentioned, in different ways. However, I am finding his thoughts kind of muddled and inconsistent at times, and I am still trying to figure out what he is really saying. He seems to be more of a “feeler” than a “thinker,” so he processes differently than I do. And, he’s not a great theologian.

I am still concerned that Eldredge’s points could be interpreted to create an unrealistic dissatisfaction with our lives and who we are created to be. If we cannot realize that we are significant, just by being who we are, then our desires will be twisted as a result. We have to start by knowing that we are significant; then, I believe, we won’t need to go on a great quest. We may certainly be called to one, but it will be because of who we are, not because of who we need to be.

I’ll continue reading the book (I’m not even 1/2-way through, yet) and write at least once more, so stay tuned…

Posted in Eldredge, Spiritual stuff | 3 Comments

Tell me something new…

Posted on November 3, 2005 by me

I had no intent on writing anything political today, but I just have to say something…

MSNBC quotes Harry Reid as saying on Tuesday, “They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.” I’m not sure who “they” are, specifically, but it doesn’t really matter.

Okay Harry, let’s get to the bottom. Let’s start with the Clinton administration. Let’s look at consistent intelligence that led Bill and everyone else to conclude that Saddam had WMDs. Let’s look into “Able Danger” and the stifled report that the 9-11 guys were plotting something. Let’s look at Joe Wilson’s report that the Iraqis had indeed been to Niger, at least looking at buying uranium. And let’s look at how many times Joe Wilson has lied about what he did or did not say.

Then let’s look at the UN resolutions, and the fact that to not act would have completely discredited everything we said. This was no pre-emptive strike – this was doing what any SWAT team in the country does when criminals won’t surrender.

Then maybe we should look at all of the positive things the Democrats have done over the past 5-6 years – that would take about 10 seconds. They have no agenda, nothing helpful to contribute, just old red herrings. Old, dead red herrings.

It’s tiring. Tell me something new…

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Leave a comment

The Politics of Desperation

Posted on November 1, 2005 by me

What in the world is Harry Reid up to? Today, for no real reason, he forced the Senate into a secret session. He then claimed “victory” for the Democrats by getting the Republicans, in the words of Senator Pat Roberts, “to do what we already agreed to do.” So what? The whole prewar intelligence investigation is just a red herring anyway – I certainly remember the reasons we went into Iraq (from listening to NPR, no less).

But, here’s the deal: the whole political game is about control, and the Democrats currently have none of it. They’ve lost the Executive and Legislative branches, and now they stand to lose the Judicial (the biggest loss of all). While Miers was in play, they at least had hope – with this new nomination, they have nothing.

Nothing, that is, except for huffing and puffing and games like this. It appears that they even stand to lose the media – they’re even backing away from Reid’s little play today, similar to how they backed away from Clinton.

Reid may have stepped over the line, and may have also served to unite and motivate the Republicans into action. I have a feeling that the gloves will be coming off, and we may see the Republicans actually acting like they are, in fact, the majority party.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Leave a comment