Drink Upstream

The Congress Shall Have the Power

Yesterday, once again, an amendment to protect the American flag failed in the U.S. Senate. According to a brief comment in the New Yorker, this is the sixth such proposal to fall short after passing in the House.  This, however, was its smallest margin of failure, 66 to 34.  Amazingly, among the many recent votes in the Senate, this one actually had all 100 Senators voting and no abstentions.  It was evidently that important.

And the amendment itself was not complicated or even restrictive.  All it said was "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."  Not that desecration was prohibited, just that the door was open in case Congress should like to take the next step.

Just what does Congress intend with such an amendment? Seventeen years have passed since the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected free speech in the form of flag burning.  It now seems that our Legislature has become concerned over their freedom to pass legislation.  So, in order to protect the rights of all Americans, including theirs, Senators and Representatives must assert their right to construct laws that win them popularity points (and votes) from among the self-proclaimed patriots and rights advocates in their home districts and states.

I understand that there was a good deal of impassioned speech on the Senate floor. I also understand that no Senators were confused about the symbolic nature of the flag.  But I have become lost in the maze of why.  Why do we need to debate this every election year, specifically as we near July 4th? Why does a 230-year old nation want to join the ranks of other nations who are overly concerned with protecting their heritage?  Why this debate in the year following the President's call for an increase in the funding for math and science education, while there was nothing similar concerning U.S. history (or, for that matter, English) classes?

You may see this all as a Republican (3 nays) vs. Democrat (14 yeas) issue, or even as a conservative vs. liberal issue.  And perhaps it is.  But if we are to re-consider this every two years, the only label I would attach to it is a "straw-man" issue.

I would also like to attach some choice quotes picked up by the New York Times:

"Old Glory lost today" -- Sen. Bill Frist

"I think this is getting to where [amendment opponents] are not going to be able to escape the wrath of the voters" --Sen. Orrin Hatch

"The Senate came close to torching our Constitution, but luckily it came through unscathed... We applaud those brave senators who stood up for the First Amendment and rejected this damaging and needless amendment." --Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington legislative office.

It's Remarkable....

...that I'm actually NOT in DC, but I'm compelled to listen to tunes about the damn city.

The District Sleeps Alone Tonight

Smeared black ink.
Your palms are sweaty,
and I'm barely listening
to last demands.
I'm staring at the asphalt wondering
"What's buried underneath where I am?"
(Where I am)

I'll wear my badge:
a vinyl sticker with big block letters
adhered to my chest.
It tells your new friends
"I am a visitor here... I am not permanent."
And the only thing keeping me dry is...

You seem so out of context,
in this gaudy apartment complex.
A stranger with your door key,
explaining that I'm just visiting.
And I am finally seeing
why I was the one worth leaving.
(I was the one worth leaving)

D.C. sleeps alone tonight.

(Where I am)
You seem so out of context
in this gaudy apartment complex.
(Where I am)
A stranger with your door key
explaining that I'm just visiting.
(Where I am)
And I am finally seeing
why I was the one worth leaving.
(I was the one worth leaving)

(Where I am)
The District sleeps alone tonight
after the bars turn out their lights.
(Where I am)
And send the autos swerving
into the loneliest evening.
(Where I am)
And I am finally seeing
why I was the one worth leaving.
why I was the one worth leaving.
why I was the one worth leaving.
why I was the one worth leaving.

a sideways look at the world cup

and, just check out this little image of fans gathering in seoul to watch that last game.  that is going to be a sea of red dissapointed people.

this morning, it was sad to see lucic get sent off so early.  made the game much less interesting.  and to see larsson miss the pennie... emmmm.  maybe take his picture of my wall now... dunno.  but, the deutsch machine looked superb for sure.  wish i coulda seen the argentine pull that one off.  but hey, you take what you can get.

a sideways look at the world cup

so, korea's big (possibly last) game is this afternoon.  (no!  wait, i should be hopeful.  even though i know it's not likely, i should be praising the korean team for their ability to always overcome adversity -except for when they were finally knocked out of the last world cup- i should join with the millions of voices of koreans who know their team will advance!)  so, i get two hours off this afternoon from work at the museum, 2pm-4pm, and you can bet your ass i'm racing home to get there as soon as i can.  then, i'm probably going to show up to work late, cause the game won't be fully over until just before 4.  unfortunately, we could only get a small crowd to watch the game together 'cause people are busy.

plus, if you have some time, you guys should also check out some of the pictures on the fifa world cup website... especially pictures of fans, like this one of the koreans gathering before the game.

and, the u.s. are out.  you can say what you want about refs being "sketchy"... but if the u.s. had really come out to play like ghana had, then the refs wouldn't have made the difference.  they would have been creating more chances and they would have more than one goal this world cup (attributed to themselves and not another team).  and besides, i welcome any chance for the u.s. to be humbled on the international scene.  (...thoughts trail back to the baseball world classic this past spring...)

Let's Hear it for Let's Hear its

Somewhere around midnight last night, forgetting entirely that the Mavs were on tv (because no one in Philly cares), I thought again about Jordan's post yesterday concerning the Founding Fathers. He was right. Of course, he was right. Somewhat. The Founders cannot and should not be a trump card in political discussions. Just as we do not, they did not speak in one voice, e.g. Jordan's reference to George Mason (whose name completely failed me while I was driving from the ATL to the PHL and kept passing signs for the GMU). Anyway, that said, I thought that perhaps I would start stepping up my own discussion level with a little more precise references.

All I'm really saying, I guess, is I will hold off on FF references until I get some better resources to work with.  But even afterward, I do not think we should leave behind historical references, despite their less attractive thoughts and contexts. Pythagoras had some crazy beliefs stemming from his mystical understanding of the universe, but his theorem is still very useful.  Rumor has it, Plato could have founded NAMBLA (although it would have been just AMBLA--Attic Man-Boy...), but all of Western Philosophy (and, therefore, most of Western thought) has no foundation without him. Heck, Thomas Jefferson edited out all of the miracles, including the Resurrection, from his copy of the gospels, and I'm still pretty satisfied with the Declaration he crafted. When we talk politics, the Founders, as distinct voices, should always be part of the discussion, explicitly or not.  Their voices, even in compromised form, are a major part of the political theory of the nation.  And their thoughts and published works go far beyond just the Constitution and the Declaration.

And their thoughts are immensely more interesting than that of Natalie Maines.

Lets Hear it for the NBA

Ok, so I am an unashamed homer.  I support the Mavs.  I love the Mavs.  I have loved them since they were losing far more games than they were winning. 

All I have to say is, I hope the refs get rings on opening day with the Heat, too.  This was not about leaving it all out on the floor and letting the teams play.  This was about a designated star getting every possible call, and shooting more free throws than the other team combined (certainly the case in game five, and shot 21 free throws to the Mavs 23 in game 6).

This is a dark day for the NBA.  I only hope Stern and Stu Jackson take a long look at their decisions through the NBA playoffs and thing seriously about whether this league wants to go back to the era of 1 man against a team, or the dream of a team beating a team.

I may write more again later, but right now, I, along with the rest of Dallas will celebrate a tough, gritty, great Mavs team we can only hope have the opportunity to play 5 against the NBA in the finals next year. 

Thank you Mavs - for a great season, a great playoffs, the best playoff series in the History of the NBA (against the Spurs) and truly the best that the NBA has to offer.

Let's Hear it for the Founding Fathers

BTW - We need a "Politics" Category

Our friend and frequent poster Bill mentioned in a previous post, "In fact, it's because the Founding Fathers were afraid of that fervor that we have such strong Constitutional principles and a Bill of Rights. At the end of the day, it's the Republic, and the principles behind it, that I am proud of."  I love when people harp back on the glory of the Founding Fathers as a foundation for their thought, when our Founding Fathers in fact held a whole slew of opinions to which they are unwilling to ascribe.  Let me point out a few things.

1) Slavery.  Yup, they knew about it, they participated in it, they propagated it, they profiteered from it.  Those great guys were all for slavery.  Somehow that never creeps into the conversation about the Founding Father grandiosity.

2) Discrimination against women and all other non-white males.  Yup, you bet.  No women voting.  Subservience.  A society that throttled women for their indiscretions, but had a different standard for white men.

3) Small government that stays out of the lives of the people.  Most of our founding fathers saw more government as bad government.  Heck, it is one of the reasons that George Mason was unwilling to sign the Constitution.  He felt that the document didn't was not ardent enough it its limitations of the federal government.

4) Current taxation and strategies.  Our founding fathers role over in their graves at the thought of the huge tax burden Americans bear (do primarily to the aforementioned grossly over sized government), and probably double role at the thought of the American Government actually getting its cut of your money first (as is the case with all W2 employees).

5) Gun licensing.  Does anyone really question whether or not our Founding Fathers would be against this? 

6) How about homosexuality? Well, I can tell you what society's viewpoint on the subject was, and the Founding Fathers saw no reason to protect them.

7) And those Native American Indians that roamed the land before we bottled them up and marched them off to reservations?  Seems the Founding Fathers didn't really think that one through either.

I am not here to say that the Founding Fathers didn't do great things.  We can thank them for the country we live in, and the freedoms we cherish.  But lets try to keep all of these things in mind when we start trotting out the big names as a defense of or support for one position or another. 

a sideways look at the world cup

i will say this... korea are damn lucky and switzerland looked pretty good this morning.  but, there were certainly holes in the swiss defense and korean luck seems to be able to penetrate many holes... even the french.

by the same token, the u.s. are damn lucky.  i mean, even if they looked better than against the czech's, the only goal they've scored in the world cup is an own goal so far.  and, it seems like ghana have dealt a blow where the u.s. couldn't.  hmmmmmmmmmm

unfortunately, this friday may be korea's last game and it doesn't look like it will be that easy to get koreans together to meet for that game.  but, it was fun jupming around the room and hugging everyone on park jisung's little tap on sunday.

conclusion: in about ten years, thousands of koreans will possibly die of blood pressure problems created by anxiety from this world cup.

Let's Hear it for the Dixie Chicks

So it was really only a matter of time before I drudge up this topic (and funny how Drudge was the trigger for this posting).  The Telegraph (big country fans don't you know?) had an article about the Dixie Chicks that I thought brought up a couple of interesting points.

Firstly, the Telegraph writes, "within days, their music vanished from the charts and the airwaves, apoplectic rednecks crushed piles of their CDs with tractors, and the FBI was feverishly monitoring death threats against the trio," of the fans who felt betrayed by their beloved Dixie Chicks.  Leave it to the Telegraph to assume that all Dixie Chick fans are rednecks.  That point aside, the Telegraph writer here obviously views anyone willing to step up and show their disagreement with the political opinions of a this country music act as uneducated, backwoods hicks.  I can't stand when Euro Pseudo-Intellectuals assume that their enlightened opinions give them just cause for pejoratively criticizing those with whom they disagree.  I can't really blame the Dixie Chicks for that kind of thought, so I will keep moving...

More telling was this quote from the Chicks (Natalie Maines of course), "The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."  I don't know how I feel about this viewpoint.  I certainly support ones' ability to speak freely, and speak his/her mind, but I guess I question why anyone who feels this way would want to remain an American?  There are plenty of countries who would be glad to welcome the Chicks in with arms wide open (and gladly tax their earnings at a much higher rate than found in the US).  Instead the Chicks appear to be content to stay in this land about which they don't feel patriotic (assuming the other Chicks feel the same as Maines).  Did they feel patriotic when they sang the National Anthem at Super Bowl XXXVII, or any of the probable dozens of other times?  Do they feel patriotic when America wins Olympic medals?  Did they feel patriotic when they learned in history class about American involvement in WWII?  I mean, if you really can't ever feel any patriotism for your country, why are you there?  Just to take money from the citizens who will pay for your music?

I think this pretty well sums it up, "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do.  A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."  What the Chicks just don't understand is that some Americans are passionate about their country, its soldiers and the cause.  They just don't understand how anyone could have this viewpoint, whether it is a citizen, a fan, or a fellow country music artist.  Just because the Red, White and Blue are flying, doesn't mean there is a sinister, greedy reason behind it. 

The Chicks are out of touch with their fan base and many of their peers.  And more interviews like this just continue to emphasize that point.  This is why they are taking their "Not Ready to Make Nice" tour North to our Maple Leaf neighbors. 

Stories

A great post by BCD is up at A Karaoke Supernova.

It's well written and well said.

I'm going to attempt to add another layer to the discussion.

Twice this year I had the opportunity to say a few words to graduating high school seniors (well, ok, once I had a chance to say a few words, and another time I had a chance to say alot of words.)

Both times, I told the kids that whether they realize it or not, they have stories; and that whether they realize it or not, their stories are part of a larger story.

To read the 'stories' of Scripture is not just to seek answers to questions (even though we admittedly won't ever answer them all), it is also to acknowledge that we are a part of those stories.  It is to realize that the God of the Genesis creation epic is also the God of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Malachi.  It is to realize that the God of those prophets is also the God of Moses and Noah, of David and Solomon, of John the Baptist, of Mary and Joseph of Nazareth, of Matthew, Judas, Thomas and Peter, of Zacchaeus and Lazarus, of Pilate and three thieves, and of Paul and the early apostles, of Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox and you and I.

In that way, to read the Scripture is more than experiencing truth like we experience in The Silmarillion.  It is to experience truth of which we are a living part.  It is more than an fable of Aesop (or Tolkien) in which we can find truth.

Reading the fables of Aesop or Tolkien is certainly a way to experience truth.  But it is a truth that is far away and disconnected.  It is a comfortable truth that allows us to live in the shelves of fiction where imagination can take over and the real world can be suspended.

Reading the Scripture is to experience the truth in a way that continually reminds us that our stories are part of a bigger picture - a bigger picture that we are responsible for painting. Reading the Scripture is to experience a truth that calls for - and even demands - our participation.  It is to experience a truth that reminds us that we are called to work in and for the Kingdom of God rather than to sit comfortably in our reading chairs observing Middle Earth.

When truth begins to require participation it becomes less comfortable. 

When truth begins to require participation, it becomes less fun. 

When truth begins to require participation, it becomes necessary for us to apply all of the tools God gave us (including messy Enlightenment ideologies.)

Truth doesn't always feel good.