Christian Carnival XXIV

The Christian Carnival is up at Parableman. Be sure to see what other Christian bloggers are saying.

My post on being born again is included. Jeremy Pierce wonders when I'm going to get around to explaining what this has to do with the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. I thought I had explained that, although a second look shows that I just breezed through it at the end of the second, extraordinarily long post--partly a result of my own exhaustion after having written it. I'll try to explain it in more detail later.

They may look like wimps, but...

Today Torg and Dave, my favorite characters in their respective webcomics (Sluggy Freelance and College Roomies from Hell!!!), demonstrate once again why it is very dangerous to underestimate them. I'm sure I could draw some political analogies or talk about mythic archetypes or infer both good and bad theological lessons, but right now, it's just a lot of fun to watch. As usual, I recommend reading the comics from the beginning--the links are in the sidebar--but if you don't want to do that, the current storylines start here for Sluggy and here for CRFH. (The CRFH storyline is a lot longer, having started in August of last year.)

Update: I neglected to mention Jason from It's Walky!, who also proved quite dangerous today. Of course, Jason doesn't seem to be a wimp as much as Torg and Dave--except in comparison to all the superpowered freaks he works with. The storyline started here.

Fahrenheit 911

I really have no intention of seeing this movie. I haven't gotten around to seeing the movies I might actually enjoy, much less one that'll just leave me angry and frustrated (my standard response when I want to argue about something but don't have anyone to argue with). But I did read Christopher Hitchens' review, which everybody is recommending. An excerpt:

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

I agree, this review is worth reading.

More info on the turnover

Old Post: I first mentioned the early turnover of Iraqi sovereignty below.

Robert Alt has a good article on the early turnover at National Review. Robert Alt has more to say on how the US has been slowly turning more and more power over to the Iraqis for the last couple of months:

In the days and weeks leading up to the transition, many in the United States criticized the June 30 transition date as too soon — while some, such as Sen. John Kerry, were critical of the decision to set a firm deadline for the transfer of power at all. Even so, the transition began much earlier than anyone anticipated. On March 28, 2004, the Ministry of Health became the first of Iraq's 26 ministries to shift to Iraqi control, thus beginning the transition process that was completed last week, when the last of the ministries came under Iraqi authority. Today's ceremony was in many ways just that — ceremonial — representing a change in authority that had effectively already occurred.

Despite some claims to the contrary, the autonomy enjoyed by the agencies is substantive rather than merely symbolic. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Electricity, and the Ministry of Communication will retain only a small handful of Coalition consultants, who will have no operational authority, but will simply provide technical assistance as requested by the respective Iraqi ministers. Other ministries, like the Ministry of Education — whose 300,000 employees make it the largest of the 26 — will have no Coalition consultants at all.

All in all, a good day for Iraq.

When did that happen?

Parablemania has apparently changed its name to Parableman. I'm not quite sure when that happened--I wouldn't have noticed without the e-mail sent out about the Christian Carnival. Parableman is a long time nickname for Jeremy Pierce, and an inspiration for his blog's name, at least according to a post that I can no longer find, so it's not too surprising he'd return to the original name, but I still can't find any post announcing the change. Parablemania or Parableman, it's still a good blog. Check it out.

Turnover early

Now this is good news. Demonstrating once again Bush's love for surprises, the CPA has turned over authority to the Iraqis early. Most bloggers shouldn't be too surprised by this. People like Captain Ed had noticed that the CPA had already turned quite a bit of authority to the Iraqis, but it's nice to see the official turnover done ahead of schedule. It won't stop the violence, of course. Those prisoners currently in the hands of the terrorists are still unlikely to survive. It does do a lot to take the wind out of their sails, and ruins any plans they might have had to target the turnover itself.

Anyway, it now looks as though the new Iraq and I share the same birthday.

New Post: More above.

Today marks three decades since...

The day I was born. Not to make a big deal of it or anything, but I'm thirty today. I think I have to consider myself a grown-up now.

Week in Review

Once again a rather slow week, with few posts. Of course, if you exchange quantity of posts for quantity of words, due to two very lengthy posts, it's not too bad.

Honesty and the sitcom mentality -- I discuss how most sitcoms get their humor from the lies their characters tell, and wonder whether this is a new development.

C2 Review -- Coke has a new half-calorie drink, and I give my thoughts on it.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born Again I -- I return to my discussion of the differences between fundamentalism and evangelicalism in a discussion on what it means to be born again.

I'm a brownshirt? -- It may not be original, but I join in the fun in mocking Al Gore.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born Again II -- The second and even longer post on being born again, and how one becomes so.

Weekly Webcomic Review

Nothing clever to say this week. Just read the summaries, okay?

Sluggy Freelance -- So the magic talking sword is a little bit evil--it's still cool. And now we have a mystery magic woman. I think it's obviously Alt-Gwynn, but others are saying Alt-Oasis or Alt-Sasha.

Day by Day -- It's a hodge-podge of mockery this week--the media, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, the Ruckus Society, and more.

It's Walky! -- Jason and Sal attack, but neither are having much success against their targets.

College Roomies from Hell!!! -- Mike and Roger are captured, Dave's being held at gunpoint, and Marsha's suicidal. Overall, not a good week for the Roomies.

General Protection Fault -- Fooker finally manages to leave the UGA--meaning that he has now returned to GPF!

Schlock Mercenary -- There's a new mercenary contract for Tagon's crew--knocking over a pet shop.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born again II

Old Post: Part I, where I offer a bit of context about what it means to be born again, can be found here.

In the tradition in which I was raised, you would be born-again by sincerely praying the Sinner's Prayer, of which there are several versions. This is one:

Lord Jesus, I want to know You personally. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving me of my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.

(From Campus Crusade for Christ's website)

I do not wish to mock the Sinner's Prayer, as I think it is an elegant compilation of what the Bible says that a life with Christ looks like. However, the key word here is "compilation." The Sinner's Prayer does not appear in the Bible. It is a relatively new development, and while I think you can commit your life to Christ by praying this prayer, I don't think it's the only way.

What it comes down to is the least common denominator. If the Sinner's Prayer is how one becomes a Christian, then what happens if you get the words wrong? For that matter, there are numerous formulations of the Sinner's Prayer. Which one is right? The general belief is that the words themselves are unimportant, as long as you pray with sincerity. Even if the exact words don't matter, do you still have to hit all the correct points: Repentance of sin, submission to God, asking to be remade? And what about understanding? You need to understand what you're praying in order to be sincere about it, right? That would disqualify the large number of young children who say this prayer before they fully understand it. And there's something disconcerting about the fact that the vast majority of those who have called themselves Christians throughout history have never heard this prayer, much less said it.

What does the Bible say about what it takes to be born again? Jesus never really explained it to Nicodemus, but he was asked about how to have eternal life on numerous occasions by plenty of people. To the rich ruler, Jesus said "You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother.'" When the ruler answered that he had done all these things, Jesus contined, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Luke 18:17-30, NAS) To the lawyer, he said, "What does the law say?" The lawyer responded, "To love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and might, and to love my neighbor as I love myself." Jesus explained, "Do this and you will be saved." (Luke 10:25-28, paraphrase) When the thief on the cross said, "We deserve the punishment we receive, but this man [Jesus] has done nothing. Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom," Jesus replied, "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, paraphrase) At Pentecost, when the Jews asked, "What must we do?", Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, all of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38, NAS) In one of his letters, Paul told the Romans, "If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved."(Romans 10:9, paraphrase)

This last one is often quoted in response to the "How do I become born-again?" question, so I'll add a little context:

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

(Romans 10:8-13, NAS)

This is part of the Roman road to salvation, a collection of verses which spell out how one becomes saved. The full collection is:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 5:88 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

(KJV)

This is useful, and it does cover all the components in the Sinner's Prayer above. However, I'm always a bit suspicious of seemingly random collections of verses being given as a clear step-by-step process to anything. It wasn't so clear to Paul's readers, as Paul didn't put them together in a nice compact package, as has been done here.

So looking at this huge variety of answers, what do I think it takes to be saved? What the Sinner's Prayer does is compile the elements from all these answers, to give a nice, clear prayer that should cover it all. However, no one in the Bible was ever called to pray exactly these things. In fact, a straightforward reading of the scripture might lead one to believe that if you did any of the things mentioned above, you would be saved. At the least, if you were that person in that situation and you were told to do this by Jesus or one of his apostles, then that is what you would have had to do to be saved. Does that tell us what we, or for that matter, I have to do, in order to be saved?

Let's return to Paul's answer, as it was simple and the most general, addressed to a diverse audience most of whom Paul had never met. (It was written before Paul got to Rome.) "If you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Saying the Sinner's Prayer covers that right? In fact, pretty much anybody who's gone to church has at some point said, "Jesus is Lord," (it's in creeds, songs, prayers--you name it). Granted, not everyone who goes to church believes that Jesus rose from the dead, but I'd say that even in these post-modern times, most who regularly attend church do. Ah, but do they mean the "Jesus is Lord" part? The word after all is confess, which is a pretty accurate translation of the Greek word (homologeseis -- to agree with (I apologize in advance for the poor transliteration)). It doesn't count unless you mean "Jesus is Lord" when you say it. But what should you mean by that? In the general sense, that he really is the Son of God and has all the rights and priveleges thereof? Or in the personal sense, that he's the Lord of your life--the whole submission part of the Sinner's Prayer? But how much do we really submit, even when we mean it? It's easier said than done, which may be the reason that Paul calls on us to confess, or even admit, that "Jesus is Lord." It is not so we can mouth the words without meaning them, but by saying the words, and meaning them to the full extent that we are able, they slowly become more true in our lives.

In this sense, maybe Romans 10:9 is not so much about the sinner who, in one moment of belief and repentance, finally comes to Christ, but the imperfect Christian, who despite doubt and reluctance, day after day says "Jesus is Lord," praying that it might be truer and truer in his life. And this is where I think evangelicalism departs from fundamentalism. Not every evangelical will agree with this assessment, but many will. While there is no denying the dramatic, instantaneous salvation experience, which is attested to in both the Bible and in experience, many Christians--arguably including the Apostles themselves and definitely including all who have grown up in the Church--have experienced a growing faith and commitment where it is hard to pin down a starting point and a completion point. Most evangelicals accept the legitimacy of this salvation experience, while fundamentalists will insist on pointing to a particular moment where the Christian was born again, saying the Sinner's Prayer and having a conversion experience, in order to accept him as a true Christian.

In my own life, where I was raised in the tradition of instantaneous salvation, I would be hard pressed to point to one place where I became a Christian. Or rather, I could point to a half-dozen times while growing up where I prayed a form of the Sinner's Prayer with various degrees of understanding and sincerity. While I'd have a hard time pointing to the one and only place where I said it and meant it, I do know the point where I had fully come to mean it. If you'd like to read about it, it's in my autobiographical webpage here.

I'm a brownshirt?

You'd think we'd have stopped paying attention to Gore. Or you'd at least think that the Democrats would find some way to shut him up. Everytime he speaks conservatives have a field day, because everytime he speaks he says something like this:

The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops." [Former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the President's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, "Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President . . . you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation."

If I were a liberal, I'd be crying "crushing of dissent" right now. Fortunately, it's a lot easier to laugh at Gore than to get angry at him. You've got to figure that he doesn't know the Internet he invented all that well if he doesn't realize he just invoked Godwin's Law.

(Hat tip to too many to count, but I liked Best of the Web's write up.)

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: Born again I

Old Post: Way back when I was first writing this series, I told you I'd get back to this topic. The last substantive post was on the inerrancy of Scripture. So it took a couple of months. Let's begin.

The phrase "born again" appears twice in the Bible. The first time is in Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus, in John 3:1-8:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?"

Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."

The second time is in 1 Peter 1:13-23:

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

Although Paul never uses the phrase, you can see its association with his talk about Christians being new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17; also Galatians 6:15,Ephesians 4:24, Colossions 3:10):

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

From these, you can see that Christians are born-again by definition. What does it mean? Well, it means that you have a new beginning, the old sins and alienation are washed away (2 Corinthians 5:17), you are adopted into the family of God, in a sense born into his family, so now you may be called a son of God (John 1:12). Finally, you have eternal life that begins with your new birth (1 Peter 1:23) and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

So, this is what it means to be born again. The question is how do you become born again. When fundamentalists and evangelicals talk about being born again, they're usually referring not to this "new creature" understanding, but to the moment when someone becomes a Christian. This is also called being saved or coming to Christ.

I'll talk about a couple of different views on this in the next post on this topic.

New Post: This discussion is continued above.

Publishing Errors

I've had some difficulties publishing this blog today. I'd like to use this as an excuse for my non-existant blogging these last couple of days, but I'd be lying. Now if this post doesn't go up by Thursday, then it becomes a good excuse.

C2 Review

This is not a normal topic for this blog, but what the heck, I haven't been blogging much anyway. Work is such that I haven't been able to keep up with the news recently. To the best of my knowledge, the world hasn't changed much since the last time I commented on it, and it certainly hasn't missed my commentary. So on to something trivial about which I have something to say.

If you're not aware, C2 is the new low-calorie Coke. Rather than trying to get rid of all calories, it settles for half-calories, using both sugar and an artificial sweetener. The idea is that it tastes better than Diet Coke, but has less calories than regular Coke. As someone who can't stand diet sodas, but likes regular soda (and depends on them for my caffeine intake, since I also detest coffee), I thought I'd give it a try.

My judgement: 3.5/5. The thing is not devoid of the aftertaste that makes diet sodas so undrinkable to me, but it's much weaker, and after drinking through most of an eight-pack this week, I've decided it doesn't bother me. It's not as sweet as regular Coke, but since I sometimes find regular Coke too sweet, this isn't a problem. Given the choice between regular and C2 Coke, I'll take the regular if calories aren't an issue. If calories are an issue, then I'll take C2 rather than sacrifice something else.

As a side note, I'd add that if you aren't wedded to cola, you might want to try Diet Snapple. Despite the fact that I've never liked Iced Tea, I like Snapple's flavored Diet Iced Teas. I think making tea diet does less damage than doing the same to colas. Unfortunately, the Snapple is more expensive, and hard to find a decent variety thereof. I like the peach, and I think the lemon's okay. They also make diet versions of some of their fruit drinks. I'm not a fan of the pink lemonade, but if I could find a store that carried 12-packs of their diet Kiwi-Strawberry, I'd be very happy.

The 9/11 commission, the media, and the truth

Captain Ed has a lot of information on the 9/11 commission's report, starting with this post, which describes how the commission has been surprised to learn about the lieutenant colonel of Saddam's Fedayeen who was at one of the 9/11 planning meeting. Considering that this story was reported in the Wall Street Journal weeks ago, and I had seen it reported on various blogs, I want to know how the Commission failed to hear about it. They're treating it as if it were classified information they didn't have access to rather than a news story in the public domain. Then the Captain gives his take on William Safire's suggestions to fix the 9/11 Commission. Captain Ed thinks this is impossible to do, although I would like to see the Commission actually give a nonpartisan, accurate, and informative report with useful suggestions. I don't think it's likely, but I don't think it's impossible either. And finally, Captain Ed finds that at least one newspaper is retracting its absurd statments about the Commission's staff report last week. It's good when a newspaper realizes its mistakes, but as Captain Ed says, "Either all of these people simply take marching orders from the NY Times or they don't bother to read their source material very carefully, and likely the problem is a combination of both." All in all, good material from Captain Ed today. Read it all.

Honesty and the sitcom mentality

This subject came up at my Bible study on Tuesday: Do sitcoms today glamorize dishonesty? Does this affect the honesty of people who grow up watching them?

The question may be a bit too simplistic. Overall, I think I'd blame moral relativism as the source, and sitcoms as just a vehicle by which popular media helps to disseminate a really bad idea. But it is hard to deny that sitcoms seem to glorify that kind of behavior. The sitcoms I grew up with were shows like Family Ties, The Cosby Show, and Full House. These shows generally featured the cute kid, the rambunctious teenager, and the responsible adult, and numerous variations thereof. Humor more often came from the kids' cuteness and naivete than anything else. When there was lying involved, it was always the kids, they would always be found out, and always learn that lying was wrong. Important life lessons were a staple of the genre.

In edgy modern sitcoms, the humor comes more from misunderstanding and deceit than anything else. Hiding a romantic (meaning sexual) relationship, and the lies that entails, or faking a British accent to get a job, are certainly funny to watch, but if the lying does finally catch up to the culprit in these shows, and that's a huge if, it's generally swept under the rug and trivialized--no criminal charges, barely any hurt feelings, at most some embarrassment. Not exactly life lessons here.

This is of course a massive generalization. There have always been adult sitcoms and family sitcoms on television. Am I just comparing the family sitcoms I used to watch with the adult sitcoms I watch now? Or are adult sitcoms just more common now? Has the adult humor and mindset gradually edged into even the family sitcoms? Any thoughts?

Week in Review

Here are the things I was talking about over this past week. Fortunately, I had more to say this week than last. As usual, this post is timestamped to put it in the correct place in the archive.

Free Will and Eternal Security -- And the debate over whether free will and eternal security are internally inconsistent continues. Check Letters from Babylon for more.

Why I blog -- I answer La Shawn Barber's question and explain why I blog.

Of tigers and hamsters -- While everyone else is making fun of John Kerry's new nickname, "caged hamster," I take the New York Times to task for such a poor choice of words.

9/11 Commission reports no cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda on attacks -- I'm not sure which is worse, the Commission's vague deference to the conventional wisdom, or the media's misrepresentation of their admittedly vague position.

Mark Steyn misses the great communicator -- Yes, sometimes even we Bush supporters wish he were more like Reagan.

Weekly Webcomic Update

Once again this is late. Once again I've changed the timestamp to put it in the right place.

Sluggy Freelance -- Despite two days of filler, this was a very good week for Sluggy. So what if alt-Bert is dead, the DoP demons have captured alt-Riff, and alt-Zoe is now terrified of Torg, Torg's got a talking magic sword!

Day by Day -- It's the media this week. Even Fox News isn't immune.

It's Walky! -- It's a week for revelations. Beef is working for the bad guys willingly. But so is Mrs. Walkerton!

College Roomies from Hell!!! -- Roger meets the dragon while Diana figures out the truth about Roger.

General Protection Fault -- A tearful reunion of Fooker and Sharon. It's about time!

Schlock Mercenary -- Kevyn comes up with a way to ger Breya's ship running at slightly below optimal capacity.

Doc Rampage blogs

I've been remiss not to point out some excellent articles by Doc Rampage. Be sure to read the following:

fisking David Greenberg -- Doc takes Mr. Greenberg to task for his partisan attempt to sound reasonable. A brief example:

[Greenberg]

Myth No. 3: Reagan was an incorrigible optimist. Or, as we've been hearing, his sunny disposition made him impossible to dislike. This is more a half-truth than a whole lie. Certainly, Reagan charmed political antagonists like Tip O'Neill. His morning-in-America campaign tapped into a public sense of hope. And he could deploy humor brilliantly. But Reagan also possessed an ugly mean streak. It was evident back when, as California governor, he warned student protesters, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with." Anyone who has watched the replays of Reagan saying, "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green," or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," can see the manifest ferocity that was as crucial to Reagan's persona as his self-effacing grin.

I don't know if Greenberg is deliberately slandering Reagan here or he really is incapable of distinguishing between "an ugly mean streak" and courage. His second two quotes suggest the latter. The fact that he thinks his readers will interpret those two quotes as "an ugly mean streak" suggests that Greenberg is just morally stupid and can't see the difference.

As to the first quote, Greenberg obviously hasn't seen enough westerns. When the good guy points a gun at the bad guy, he has to make the bad guy understand that he means to use it. That's the only way to avoid using it. By making the students believe there really would be a blood bath, Reagan was trying to avoid a bloodbath. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone, including the students at the time. And if Reagan really was willing to have a blood bath? Well, the alternative was anarchy. The willingness to do what needs to be done is not a mean streak, it's courage. Get a dictionary, Mr. Greenberg.

The UN's sex-for-food scandal -- Doc thinks the sex-for-food scandal is overblown:

At the risk of being viewed as callous, I'd like to point out that prostitution is a nearly universal accompaniment of troops. The phrase "camp followers" sometimes specifically refers to prostitutes (and almost always includes them). These UN soldiers are acting no differently than any other soldiers in history, including American soldiers.

If there is a real horror here, (and I emphasize "if") it is that these girls are being so poorly fed at the refugee camp that they are forced into prostitution for a banana or other small bit of food. But I'm skeptical of even that. From the article, it seems that these girls are all former victims of sexual slavery. That is, it seems that they were all kept prisoner and raped repeatedly, by many men, over a long period of time before they got to the camps. And they came to the camps with babies conceived by those rapes.

on whether Bush is a conservative -- Doc takes on Andrew Sullivan in his attempt to paint Bush as... well, I guess I'm not really certain what Andrew's trying to do. He lists a bunch of Bush's conservative positions and then says they prove that Bush isn't really a conservative. Anyway, this appears to have been Doc's impression as well: "Now, anyone who reads my blog knows I'm not a Bush fan. I didn't vote for him, and if the Democrats had put up any kind of reasonable candidate, I would likely have voted against him this year. But really, this list of complaints is so off-the-wall that someone has to respond to them..."

All in all, it's good reading. You may not agree with all of it (I don't), but I highly recommend taking the time to read it.

Mark Steyn misses the Great Communicator

Although he likes Bush, Mark Steyn wishes he were as well-spoken as Reagan:

I feel a bit like a guy who’s been dating a pleasant lady in the office for a couple of years and suddenly bumps into the gal he always adored in high school. As readers will know, I’m very supportive of George W. Bush, especially on the foreign policy front. But it was unfortunate that a week of 24/7 Ronald Reagan greatest hits on the cable networks should have had to stop once or twice a day to cross to a blinking, groggy Dubya at some G8 press conference with a duplicitous pseudo-ally going round in circles on Iraq for the umpteenth time. Bush is a great and remarkable president and, between Normandy and G8 and the UN, he actually had a very good week. But gosh, it’s hard not to miss the Gipper...
....
Bush has set himself a similar challenge — to remake the Middle East. I think he can do it. He’s played a shrewd hand with both fractious Iraqi politicians and devious UN diplomats and he’s seen off Chirac, but at home there’s undeniably a rhetorical shortfall, as there was in his Reagan eulogy. He could use some Reaganesque clarity and toughness, plus a little more lyricism in the patriotic uplift. But one of the problems with the Bush Administration is that they think they’re so good at walking the walk they don’t have to bother talking the talk. Wrong. Last week conservatives were reminded of everything they’ve missed these last ten years. Never glad confident ‘Morning In America’ again? Your call, Dubya.

It's hard to disagree with Steyn. On the whole, I agree with what Bush is doing and what he's trying to do. I think that too often he refuses to make the strong arguments he needs to make, preferring to let his actions speak for themselves. If the media were the bastion of truth and objectivity it makes itself out to be, that might work. But it's not. Even without the transparent liberal bias, all too often its quest for sensationalism and bad news would keep it from reporting on what's really going on. I'm just glad blogs are taking up some of the slack.