Between Two Worlds

The movie is now out; it stars Charlize Theron, who was no doubt cast for her striking resemblance to the miner she plays. The film's web site is remarkably preachy, posturing the movie as a landmark in the battle against sexual harassment. The New York Post's review of North Country confirms that the movie is awash in liberal stereotypes. But one jarring note jumped out at me:

Inspired by Anita Hill's testimony at the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Josey talks Bill, a local hockey-hero-turned-lawyer (Woody Harrelson, in his best work in years) into mounting a lawsuit. And like Hill, Josey is confronted by the mine owner's "nuts and sluts" defense that focuses on her own sexual past.

The real Jenson case was filed in 1985, six years before the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing. So this particular embellishment is pure fiction. Why did the moviemakers throw it in? Why do you think? The Supreme Court is in the news, and Justice Thomas is a hero to conservatives. So the liberals who made North Country went out of their way to slime him, shifting the movie's time line by six years just so they could slander a Republican. No wonder conservatives hate Hollywood.

In two weeks, Anne Rice, the chronicler of vampires, witches and—under the pseudonym A. N. Roquelaure—of soft-core S&M encounters, will publish "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," a novel about the 7-year-old Jesus, narrated by Christ himself. "I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result. (my emphasis)

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material.

And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

Why have so many conservatives suddenly revolted against President Bush, nearly five years into his presidency? I think their split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish. But there's no doubt it's happening and it's serious. And there's more to it than disappointment with his nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. So why exactly has this revolt broken out now? I've come up with six reasons, and there may be more.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned a major policy speech on Iraq delivered by President Bush. (It can be read in its entirety online.)

Columnist John Podhoretz described it as “one of the most important presidential addresses of our time.”

Michael Barone—whose knowledge of American politics is without parallel—called it an “excellent speech,” and identified three things that Bush had not expressed before: (1) the identification of the source of terrorism we are fighting against; (2) a narrative framework for what is going on in Iraq; (3) what could happen if we fail in Iraq.

Here are some notes from it:

First, President Bush identified the enemy by name:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.

Next the President three key components of the strategy of the Islamo-fascists:

1. These extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions.

2. The militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

3. The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.

The President then outlined five elements to our strategy in the war on terror:

1. We’re determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur.

2. We’re determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation.

3. We’re determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes.

4. We’re determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror.

5. The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East.

The President offered a key commitment: “Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.”

He also issued a key challenge: “The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.

And throughout the speech, he made a point to respond to naysayers, who (1) look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism, (2) question the durability of democracy in Iraq; (3) claim that American would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now.

Suffering and the Sovereignty of God
John Piper
Listen | Read Manuscript

Interview with John Piper
John Piper and Justin Taylor
Listen

With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. . . . .

There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic. . . .

I am guessing my neighbourhood is all-too-typical in that most people arrive home from work and immediately drive their cars into the garage. More often than not they do not emerge again until the next morning when they leave for work once more. It would be a terrible breach of Canadian social etiquette for me to knock on a person's door and ask them for a small gift or even just to say "hello" to them. Yet on Halloween this barriers all come down. I have the opportunity to greet every person in the neighbourhood. I have the opportunity to introduce myself to the family who moved in just down the street a few weeks ago and to greet some other people I have not seen for weeks or months. At the same time, those people's children will come knocking on my door. We have two possible responses. We can turn the lights out and sit inside, seeking to shelter ourselves from the pagan influence of the little Harry Potters, Batmans and ballerinas, or we can greet them, gush over them, and make them feel welcome. We can prove ourselves to be the family who genuinelly cares about our neighbours, or we can be the family who shows that we want to interact with them only on our terms.

What I don't understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value. I'd like to think that it's time to put that particular piece of baggage on the table and talk about it, but I'm not optimistic. People want what they want: a perfect baby, a perfect life. To which I say: Good luck. Or maybe, dream on.

And here's one more piece of un-discussable baggage: This question is a small but nonetheless significant part of what's driving the abortion discussion in this country. I have to think that there are many pro-choicers who, while paying obeisance to the rights of people with disabilities, want at the same time to preserve their right to ensure that no one with disabilities will be born into their own families. The abortion debate is not just about a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby; it's also about a woman's right to choose which baby she wants to have.

Update: After posting this, I noticed that Albert Mohler did the same. He suggests some further resources as well: George Neumayr, "The Abortion Debate That Wasn't Under the Radar," (originally published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer), AAPD Web site. George F. Will, "Eugenics by Abortion -- Is Perfection an Entitlement?," (originally publshed in The Washington Post), AAPD Web site. For additional resources, visit the Web site of the American Association of People with Disabilities.

"I'm not somebody who wants to run for office. I haven't ever run for anything," Rice told NBC. "I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy, American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time."

Pressed by host Tim Russert, Rice said, "I don't know how may ways to say no."

"So," asked Russert, "no ...?"

A few seconds of silence followed. "Tim," Rice said, "I don't know how many ways to tell people that I have no interest in being a candidate for anything. ... No."

(HT: Xavier at RBA)

What a surprise, Thomas Sowell has written another brilliant book. He’s written about 30 of them — books, that is, and brilliant ones, or at least excellent ones. You won’t find a dud in the bunch. His books are on race, education, history, economics — and there is a quirky autobiography befitting the man. Sowell has also written hundreds of scholarly essays, magazine pieces, and reviews. He has done a newspaper column almost continually since the late 1970s. He is a model of the public intellectual, to use a term he probably doesn’t like.

Typical in a Sowell book are a raft of facts, a cold bath of logic, and myth-destruction. He has a quality that is priceless to a writer, or scholar: fearlessness. Sowell cares not a fig about popularity, and he does no jockeying whatever to affect his status. Reputation is unthought of. He says what he finds to be true, the consequences be damned. Many people claim to operate this way; precious few do.

According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade. "I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls." (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was "very possible" he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)

Taking her act one step further, this morning she appeared on a suburban street . . . paddling a canoe. There was one small problem. Just as the segment came on the air, two men waded in front of Kosinki . . . and the water barely covered their shoe tops! That's right, Kosinski's canoe was in no more than four to six inches of water!

An embarrassed Kosinski claimed the water was deeper down the street but that her producers didn't want to let her go there for fear she'd drift away. But Katie and Matt, perhaps peeved by her attempted scene-stealing, couldn't resist ribbing her.

Matt: "Are these holy men, perhaps walking on top of the water?"

"Gee, is your oar hitting ground, Michelle?" inquired Katie, as she and Matt dissolved into laughter.

From the Editors: We regret to inform our readers that, following this on-the-record conversation, Brennan Manning called our office to apologize. He reiterated that he had been "disoriented, confused, and depressed" lately and that certain details he provided were not true. He did not help identify a child from his apartment complex. He did not help an elderly woman get a ride. And while he was the last one to leave his apartment complex, "the truth is that there was nobody around here for me to help," he said in a voice message to Christianity Today. "The essential truth: I lied."

The White House, after the Miers withdrawal/removal/disappearance, would be well advised to call in leaders of the fractious base--with heavy initial emphasis on the Washington conservative establishment--and have some long talks about the future. It's time for the administration to reach out to wise men and women, time for Roosevelt Room gatherings of the conservative clans. Much old affection remains, and respect lingers, but a lot of damage has been done. The president has three years yet to serve. That, I think, is the subtext of recent battles: Conservatives want to modify and, frankly, correct certain administration policies now, while there's time. The White House can think of this--and should think of it--as an unanticipated gift. A good fight can clear the air; a great battle can result in resolution and recommitment. No one wants George W. Bush turned into Jimmy Carter, or nobody should. The world is a dangerous place, and someone has to lead America.

An essential White House mistake--really a key and historic one--was in turning on its critics with such idiotic ferocity. "My way or the highway" is getting old. "Please listen to us and try to see it our way or we'll have to kill you," is getting old. Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource.

As for Ed Gillespie and his famous charge of sexism and elitism, I don't think serious conservatives believe Ed is up nights pondering whiffs and emanations of class tension and gender bias in modern America. It was the ignorant verbal lurch of a K Street behemoth who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don't deserve to be patronized by people they've long strained to defend.

And next time perhaps the White House, in announcing and presenting the arguments for a new nominee to the high court, will remember a certain tradition with regard to how we do it in America. We don't say, "We've nominated Joe because he's a Catholic!" A better and more traditional approach is, "Nominee Joe is a longtime practitioner of the law with considerable experience, impressive credentials, and a lively and penetrating intellect. Any questions? Yes, he is a member of the Catholic church. Any other questions?"

That's sort of how we do it. We put the horse and then the cart. The arguments for the person and then the facts attendant to the person. You don't say, "Vote for this gal because she's an Evangelical!" That shows a carelessness, an inability to think it through, to strategize, to respectfully approach serious facts--failings that, if they weren't typical of the White House the past few months, might be called downright sexist.

Suffering and the Sovereignty of God
John Piper
Listen (coming soon) | Read Manuscript

The Sovereignty of God and Ethnic-based Suffering
Carl Ellis
Listen | Outline

"All the Good that is Ours in Christ": Seeing God's Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do Us
Mark Talbot
Listen | Outline

Christ’s Grace and Your Sufferings
David Powlison
Listen

Sovereignty, Suffering, and the Work of Missions
Steve Saint
Listen

Suffering for the Sake of . . .
Joni Eareckson Tada
Listen

Now let me pause here for a minute. We’re dealing with some really, really difficult stuff here. But I’m asking you to love God with your whole minds. We are commanded to do that. Jesus commanded us in the Great Command. Paul made a very similar appeal and exhortation in Romans 12:1 and 2. You find the same sort of thing happening in Proverbs 2 and 4, where we’re told we are to seek wisdom as we would seek silver and gold. And then, interestingly enough, the Old Testament, in Job 28, tells us about ancient mining techniques; and, boy!, the people who were seeking silver and gold in ancient times were doing a really difficult thing. Job 28 talks about them going to the ends of the earth, to desolate places where there are no animals, tunneling underground, hanging upside down, and chipping away at the rock. We are supposed to love God with our minds like that. And, while I know this happens at John’s church, it happens in very few places in the United States, where we are challenged to love God with our whole minds. I tell my students regularly, “A good reader is a confused reader. A good reader is a confused reader. The more questions you have in reading a page of material, the better a reader you are.” And a good listener is a confused listener. You can’t understand all of what I am saying today as I say it. If you want to see some more of this, look at my piece on “True Freedom” in Beyond the Bounds because in fact it deals with a lot of today’s topic. But the business here to learn to kind of hang on for the ride, knowing that God wants us to understand these things so that we can give him adequate glory.

He concluded his biblical survey--which is well worth reading--with this allegory. If it doesn't make sense, you may have to go back and read the whole article, which contains a critique not only of paedobaptism (of Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic varieties) but also of Baptist theology as currently practiced.

An Allegory

For many centuries there lived in the distant land of Allegoria the “Ringist” society. This society obtained its name because of an ancient custom which dominated its culture for many centuries. Among the “Ringists” there was an ancient law, “The Law of the Ring,” which decreed that no one could wear a ring on his or her finger unless that person was married. It also decreed that one must wear such a ring if married and that it must be placed on the left hand during the marriage rite. There were different variations of the marriage rite but every one of them involved the placing of a ring on the left hand of the man and woman being married. This custom existed for many centuries and was so influential that becoming married was often referred to as “putting on the ring.”


After a time the legality of “The Law of the Ring” was challenged, and as a result the national court of Allegoria declared this Law invalid. The wearing of a ring could no longer be limited to those who were married. Consequently there arose in the “Ringist” society an immediate economic boom among ringmakers, and soon various practices arose. A group arose who called themselves the “Pre-Ringists.” They placed rings on their children at a very early age. When asked why they did so, they responded that they did so in the hope that one day their children would become married and this would encourage the child’s future nuptials. There also arose a “Post-Ringists” group who did not wear rings until at least two years after marriage. They argued that a marriage should first be proven as successful and stable before they dared to wear rings and present themselves as examples of what marriage is to be like. Needless to say, they would never dream of putting a ring on the hands of their children. Of course, there were “Traditional-Ringists” who sought to maintain the old Ringist cultural practice, but this group became divided over whether the ring should be worn on the second or third finger of the left hand. One of these groups experienced an additional split centered around whether the ring could be made of material other than gold. Both of these splits further weakened the traditional viewpoint.

As time progressed the “Traditional-Ringists” died out, and there arose considerable debate between the “Pre-” and “Post-Ringists” as to which of their practices was superior. Psychological studies were made as to the influence of ring-wearing on children. Sociological analyses were conducted as to the value of ring-wearing for children raised in the “Pre-Ringest” and “Post-Ringest” denominations.

An ancient manuscript was one day discovered stemming from the earliest “Ringest” society. This manuscript was many centuries older than any “Ringist” manuscript in existence. As scholars began to study it, they came across an expression that caused great confusion. That expression was “putting on the ring.” At the present time there is animated debate among the “Pre-” and “Post-Ringists” as to what this expression means.