Facebook is a treasure trove of graphics, many of them pretty crappy. However, this little gem stands out! It’s masterful–I can think of at least one person I currently know who approximates each of these, except perhaps the angry whiskers.
Which one’s your favorite?
If the church insists that all we need to do is keep doing what we have been doing for the last fifty years, but harder or with better style, we will miss the great opportunity this present moment is giving us to move mission from the periphery of the life of the church to its very core.
Continue Reading...
This unhappy episode suggests, once again, that not only is our society dysfunctional in communicating across disagreements but also that many of our cultural institutions seem unable or unwilling to make decisions or support faculty who are the subject of public disagreement or uninformed outrage.
Continue Reading...
Across social media platforms friends and acquaintances are urging one another to get out and exercise their democratic right to vote. Those who don’t vote, so the popular wisdom goes, have neither the right to complain nor the right to express a political opinion. What’s more, they cheapen the sacrifices of many women and men who have died in defense of our nation.
I see their point, and respect their opinion. However, this year I chose to do something I have never done in a presidential election since voting in my first one back in 1996. I chose to cast a ballot, but not a vote. In other words, I chose to not make a choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney (or a non-major candidate).
Some of you may find this a curious choice. I wrote earlier about why I was considering not voting in the election this year. Read “The Obama Conundrum”).
I am not a political realist. I don’t care much for making a choice between candidates simply because there are only two feasible options. I don’t feel the need violate some of my deepest religious convictions.
I stand by what I wrote earlier.
If I vote for Barack Obama I am casting a ballot for one of the most pro-choice presidents. [Note: My theological belief that all humanity is created in the image of God leads me to value life. For this reason I am deeply skeptical of capital punishment, to the point of thinking there ought to be a moratorium on it. I am also deeply skeptical of war and have a hard time understanding the almost frivolous attitude of some politicians toward it.] A good society is not one that kills its unborn children. And while it may be good to help those in need, it’s also true that the government brings with it a profound ability to dehumanize those it seeks to help, simply by the scale of its operation. The government is also unable to make moral distinctions based on anything other than utilitarian concerns.
On the other hand, neither is a good society one that abandons those most vulnerable to ‘fate.’ The Republican party has become the party of economic liberalism. Taking their cue from Adam Smith’s philosophical reflections (which are predicated on a sub-Christian understanding of morals, by the way) the Republican party has come to espouse the individual as the supreme economic actor. There is no authority (or at least few) that may interfere with the economic actions of the individual. All that is require is mutual consent (analogous to cultural liberalism’s ethics above). A fair wage is what a person may command in the current market; a fair price is what the product will command. There is no moral calculus beyond this, and any effort to introduce one distorts the sovereign market.
That’s why I cast a ballot, but not a vote for the office of President of the United States.
Despite the fact that I said I wasn’t going to watch the Presidential debate several weeks ago, I decided to tune into the Vice Presidential debate last night. I have never heard Paul Ryan speak publicly and there’s only one debate for the veep candidates so I tuned in.
Based On what I’m hearing from friends who watched both, last night’s debate was significantly more lively than the first debate. I was pleased with how the debate was moderated–it seemed well managed and fair. I enjoyed the format, with its opportunity for interaction between the two candidates. All in all, it was a good debate.
In the end, I think Paul Ryan finished as the winner. It wasn’t the thumping that President Obama seems to have taken, but it was a loss. And I think it proved Ryan ready for the prime time despite protestations to the contrary from the left.
In my view, there are five reasons that Ryan won, albeit a slight victory:
1. He was more the more presidential. The side-by-side shots of the two candidates showed a Ryan who was composed, under control, and ready with an appropriate response to each of Biden’s talking points. Contrast this with Joe Biden who unnerved me with his gargoylesque grin and his gesticulations and muttering. Remember, I’m a Brit, I prefer understated. If I didn’t, I’d be Italian.
2. He was respectful to his opponent. Obviously as the younger and less experienced candidate Ryan had to walk a tough line between challenging Biden and showing respect for a sitting Vice President and senior statesman. I think he was able to do that. He challenged where necessary, but always in controlled tones and with some degree of evidence to back it up. As I mentioned above, I found that Biden’s performance was distracting. He interrupted too much and his general incredulity was sophmorific.
3. He stayed on message, despite repeated interruptions. Here Ryan did quite well. He put his case before viewers and he didn’t get sidetracked.
4. He parried Biden’s attacks. I think this was especially evident around the 47% talking point. I think that Ryan’s quip: “I think you know what it’s like for things to not come out right…” was genius. Biden rejoinder, “but I always say what I think, and so does Mitt Romney” was an excellent reply, but was lost in the moment’s laughter.
5. Biden failed to respond well to several of Ryan’s key charges. Biden was really weak in national security, especially at the beginning where I think that he was on the ropes about the security in Benghazi and the failed to quash Ryan’s contention that unrest is spreading through the mid-East and the Obama administration is, in his view, not adequately managing the situation.
Polls suggest that viewers of the debate favor Ryan as the winner although the mainstream media seems to be more equivocal. In the end, I’m not sure what difference this will make but Ryan performed significantly better than I expected.
What did you think?
I'm a minister, thinker, writer, and practitioner. Since 2004 I have worked to plant and build worshipping communities of young adults on college campuses through InterVarsity. I'm a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church. I think and write about the Gospel's encounter with postmodern culture, about reformed spirituality, and missional theology.
