Archives for December, 2003
Happy New Year
Best wishes in 2004!
A great exit strategy
St. Paul’s aging congregation decides to close early and share its resources with charities and a school. Kind of cool.
As Face of Poor Changes, So Do Food Baskets
For years, public and nonprofit food assistance programs have been reporting a sharp rise in the number of working families using their services. But now, as working families are becoming as common visitors as the indigent elderly at the city’s soup kitchens and food pantries, many program officials say an ambitious shift is under way in how food for the needy is delivered.
The conventional answer of a box full of donated canned fruit, rice and beans, and the odd piece of eggplant is being supplemented, and in some cases replaced with new options: complete premade meals for takeout, for example, or frozen family-size portions of chili and spaghetti sauce.
Driving the shift in strategy, experts and providers say, is a familiar social and economic phenomenon: the growing numbers of working poor turning up at the soup kitchens and pantries, in most cases single mothers with children, are so busy juggling jobs, commuting and child care that they have little time to cook the food they are given. “The face of poverty is a working woman with two children,” said Robert Egger, the founder of D.C. Central Kitchen and an advocate for rethinking what goes into a charity food basket. The options most of the nation’s poor have, he says, are to stand in line for a meal at a soup kitchen or to go to a local church to pick up a box of groceries assembled from donations.
Arctic explorers raise awarness of climate change
An American-led dogsled team headed out on their six-month adventure through the Arctic on Wednesday.
Arctic Transect 2004 will take three dogsled teams carrying six people over more than 5,000 kilometres through the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
“The reason why we’re doing this trip is to raise awareness and educate about global climate change,” says Canadian Hugh Dale-Harris, one of the members going on the expedition. “What we want to do is really put a face on climate change.”
Dale-Harris was a teacher in Nunavut and now lives in Ontario. He says the trip is a special one because he loves dogs and the North, and looks forward to learning from the Inuk community.
The five men and one woman are educators and explorers. They’ll head as far north as Pond Inlet on Baffin Island, and end up in Pangnirtung in June 2004.
The group will talk to elders who’ve seen changes in the environment over the last 40 years.
Dale-Harris says they’ll use laptop computers to update their website during their expedition. The website will track their route and provide information on climate change.
We made foreign policy mistakes: Powell
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has admitted foreign policy mistakes and sought to assure the outside world that despite the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration’s approach “is not defined by pre-emption.”
In an article in Foreign Affairs magazine released by the State Department on Tuesday
Mr Powell sidestepped the question of Iraq, but implicitly took issue with his presumed chief rival inside the Administration, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who has dismissed the decades-old concept of military deterrence as a theory that “has been overtaken by events”.
Mr Powell presented a different point of view: “As to pre-emption’s scope it applies only to the undeterrable threats that come from non-state actors such as terrorist groups,” he writes. “It was never meant to displace deterrence, only to supplement it.”
The invasion of Iraq undertaken last March with the goal of ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction - none of which have been found - is seen as the first implementation of a 2002 US pre-emption doctrine.
But in his article, Mr Powell argues that “our strategy is not defined by pre-emption”.
“Above all, the President’s strategy is one of partnerships that strongly affirms the vital role of NATO and other US alliances including the UN,” he writes.
He also admits that “it would be churlish to claim that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has been error-free from the start”.
Link to the Foreign Affairs article :: It appears that Secretary Powell has some fight left in him. I agree with his words about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Most important, we recognized that there needed to be fundamental reform inside the Palestinian Authority if the forces for peace among Palestinians were to prevail. After it became clear that the United States would not obstruct Israel’s efforts to defend itself from Palestinian terrorism, pressures for genuine reform grew within the Palestinian community. This convergence produced the hopeful premiership of Mahmoud Abbas.
Unfortunately, Abbas’ efforts were aborted by Chairman Yasir Arafat, and Abbas’ successor, Ahmed Qurei, has been obstructed as well. Chairman Arafat has not been a genuine interlocutor for peace; he has been an obstacle to it. Although our hopes for progress have been temporarily disappointed, it is now clear to all where the real problem lies. One way or another, we are bound eventually to get past this problem. Moreover, there is now a solid and growing constituency in Israel that supports prominent Palestinian leaders who genuinely seek an honorable and stable peace. Bleak as things often seem in this conflict, this does represent progress.
His comments about NATO
It is true that we have had differences with some of our oldest and most valued NATO allies. But these are differences among friends. The transatlantic partnership is based so firmly on common interests and values that neither feuding personalities nor occasional divergent perceptions can derail it. We have new friends and old friends alike in Europe. They are all, in the end, best friends, which is why the president continues to talk about partnerships, not polarities, when he speaks about Europe. Some authorities say that we must move to a multipolar world. We do not agree — not because we do not value competition and diversity, but because there need be no poles among a family of nations that shares basic values. We believe that it is wiser to work at overcoming differences than to polarize them further.
He also talks about the U.S. policy on pre-emptive attacks
It is somewhat odd, therefore, to discover that our foreign policy strategy is so often misunderstood by both domestic and foreign observers. U.S. strategy is widely accused of being unilateralist by design. It isn’t. It is often accused of being imbalanced in favor of military methods. It isn’t. It is frequently described as being obsessed with terrorism and hence biased toward preemptive war on a global scale. It most certainly is not.
These distortions are partly explained by context. The NSS made the concept of preemption explicit in the heady aftermath of September 11, and it did so for obvious reasons. One reason was to reassure the American people that the government possessed common sense. As President Bush has said — and as any sensible person understands — if you recognize a clear and present threat that is undeterrable by the means you have at hand, then you must deal with it. You do not wait for it to strike; you do not allow future attacks to happen before you take action.
A second reason for including the notion of preemption in the NSS was to convey to our adversaries that they were in big trouble. Instilling a certain amount of anxiety in terrorist groups increases the likelihood they will cease activity or make mistakes and be caught. Moreover, some states have been complicit in terrorism not for ideological reasons but for opportunistic ones. It was worth putting the leaders of such countries on notice that the potential costs of their opportunism had just gone way up.
Sensible as these reasons are, some observers have exaggerated both the scope of preemption in foreign policy and the centrality of preemption in U.S. strategy as a whole. As to preemption’s scope, it applies only to the undeterrable threats that come from nonstate actors such as terrorist groups. It was never meant to displace deterrence, only to supplement it. As to its being central, it isn’t. The discussion of preemption in the NSS takes up just two sentences in one of the document’s eight sections.
Twelve people falsely accused of ritualistically abusing foster children
From the Toronto Star
Twelve people who were falsely accused of ritualistically abusing three foster children more than a decade ago were themselves the victims of a malicious prosecution , a judge has ruled.
Richard Klassen and 11 others were charged in 1991 with abusing the children in bizarre and demonic ways - forcing them to eat eyeballs, drink blood, participate in orgies and watch newborn babies get skinned and buried.
Saskatoon police called it the “scandal of the century” at the time, but most of the cases never made it to trial. Charges were stayed and the children recanted their accusations.
Klassen and the others sued the investigators and, today, Queen’s Bench Justice George Baynton ruled in the plaintiffs’ favour.
“The case was labelled by the media as the ’scandal of the century’,” Baynton said in his ruling.
“The real scanda, however, is the travesty of justice that was visited upon 12 of those individuals, the plaintiffs in the civil action, by branding them as pedophiles, even though each of them was innocent of the horrendous allegations and criminal offences charged against them.”
The ruling applies to three of the four defendants in the civil lawsuit: The lead investigator - Saskatoon police Supt. Brian Dueck, who was a corporal when the case broke; a therapist, Carol Bunko-Ruys; and Crown prosecutor Matthew Miazga.
The case against another defendant, Crown prosecutor Sonja Hansen, was dropped.
Baynton cited several reasons why the prosecution was malicious, including a lack of reasonable cause.
“In my view, proceeding with charges in such an extraordinary case in the absence of reasonable and probable cause constitutes a strong presumption of malice,” Baynton wrote.
He said evidence suggested Dueck was “blinded by his zeal to turn the wild allegations of the Ross children into a high-profile case that would portray him as a diligent and unrelenting protector of abused children.”
A Happy New Year from your friendly neighborhood neo-conservatives
Am I the only one that finds this stuff scary.
President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington’s hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.
The manifesto, presented as a “manual for victory” in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.
The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and “intellectual guru” of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the “will to win” in Washington.
In the battle for the president’s ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.
Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks’ enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.
Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail “encouraging” signs of a “new attitude” in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.
Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.
It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon’s civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next June.
The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.
As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.
Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.
The authoritarian rule of Syria’s leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.
The authors urge Mr Bush to “tell the truth about Saudi Arabia”. Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa’eda, they write.
The Saudi government backs “terror-tainted Islamic organisations” as part of a larger campaign to “spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America”.
The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. “We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington,” it states. Britain’s independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.
With increased speculation of Colin Powell not being around for a second term, I get increasingly worried about the increased influence of the neo-cons. For me, their game seems increasingly short-sighted and seems to have some long term consequences that are negative for the United States when it is no longer the lone superpower on the block (China) and later when it is one of many powers (Brazil). Being at constant odds with middle powers like France and Germany is not good news for Nato as well. While that may not be a problem for the United States, it will eventually cause other long term allies and friends to choose sides. Instead of unifying, it polarizes which is fine if you are always confident you are going to be on the winning side.
Subscibe to jordoncooper.com via e-mail
One of the new features that I added to the site was the ability to subscibe to the blog via e-mail via bloglet and some of you have. In case you missed it over the holidays, just add your e-mail address to the bottom and jordoncooper.com will be delivered every morning to your inbox.
It seems to work pretty well and the people who use it seem to like it.
The Three Postmodernisms by Brian McLaren
Good article on the term postmodernity
Digital Museum Burns to the Ground
Founder of MP3.com on the destruction of the music hosted there (if you hadn’t have sold out, this wouldn’t have happened)
William Shatner to release new album
It should sell at least a couple hundred copies.
The Edmonton Oilers
Normally I delight in bad things happening the Edmonton Oilers but this year I am finding it hard to delight in their horrible play. The reason is that I won’t have the joy of seeing the Dallas Stars knock them out of the playoffs for what seems to be every season for a decade or so. I am going to have to dig down deep and find some joy in their misery soon as I won’t be able to do that this post-season. Doh!
Why Good People Quit Seminary
From Off The Map
The Normative Nature of the Traditional Family
Dave Tomlinson writes this in The Post-Evangelical from pages 48-50
…Few subjects, however, better illustrate the differences between traditional evangelicals and post-evangelicals then the family. The big question is, What do we mean by family values? For most evangelicals, family values are associated with a particular model of family–the modern “nuclear” nuclear family. Even though this family model bears little resemblance to the multigenerational, extended family that existed in biblical times it has a kind of sacred status for evangelicals.
For a middle-class evangelical perspective, “family values” means first and foremost the sanctity of marriage–that is, the lifelong commitment of one man and one women within a legally recognized marriage.
Christians of all persuasions agree that a lifelong, faithful partnerships are desirable. They may be less agreement, however, about whether a partnership must be a state-and/or church-sancitoned marriage. The concept of living together without a marriage ceremony has become an accepted social norm. From the evangelical point of view, such arrangements are almost invariably unacceptable, since couples that simply live together are not counted as married and are consequently “living in sin” (though the phrase is somewhat out of vogue). Many post-evangelical, however, are troubled by this simple equation, specially since, from their perspective, many of those cohabiting are Christians as deeply committed to their relationship as any formally married couple–perhaps even more so. In such situations, the desirability of a formal partnership is not what post-evangelicals are questioning. They do question the inflexibility of those unwilling to accept the validity of marriage when it exists in essence even though the traditional, culturally sanctioned marriage ceremonies were not observed.
Scripture nowhere insists on a specific ceremonial model for entering into marriage. In fact, some Scripture obscures as much as it reveals. Issac’s marriage to Rebekah, for example, is summed up with a terse description of Issac bringing her to his mothers tent where, we are told, “He took Rebekah, and she became his wife.” Talk about cutting the formalities. Even the famous marriage at Cana that Jesus attended is silent about the “ceremony” that presumably took place, if not about the shortage of wine at the reception.
Most evangelicals believe the biblical notion of marriage incorporates at least three basic elements a) the couple “leave and cleave”==that is, they move in together and live under the same roof, b) covenant is created publicaly between then, consisting in vows of faithfulness, and c) the relationship is consumated in sexual intercourse. According to this sort of definition cohabiting couples are only two-thirds married. “Ah yes,” I hear people say, “but they are missing the most important ingredient.” Perhaps. But might not an announcement to friends and family that they are committing to each other serve as a public covenant, even if the church and/or state isn’t involved?
He goes on to say this
My point is not to question the importance of marriage, but to plead for a significant distinction between a casual sexual or cohabiting relationship , and one in which two people are truly committed to each other. As Anne Borrowdale points out, “A cohabiting couple committed to an exclusive, permanent, faithful relationship [is] often said to be fulfilling the conditions of marriage, even though they have not gone through a ceremony. And conversely, the presence of a wedding ceremony in not way guarantees such a relationship. As Karl Barth once said, “Two people may be formally married and fail to live a life which can seriously be regarded as married life. And it may happen that two people are not married and yet, in their precarious way, live under the law of marriage. A wedding, he continues, “is only the regulative confirmation and legitimization of a marriage before and by society. It does not constitute marriage” Adrian Thatcher makes a similar point: “The ceremony is the means of public recognition of a marriage relationship that already exists.”
Just one of the more controversial sections of The Post-Evangelical. I think he has some good points. What difference does a piece of paper from the Government of Saskatchewan play in the sacred covenant of marriage? I am not sure it has a huge role. When Mark looks back at the kind of father he watched me be and how he saw I treated Wendy, I don’t think he will take into consideration my legal status but rather what kind of man I was and how I loved his mother (provided he wan’t switched at birth). That is what I think Barth is getting at with his quote. I am not sure that is the point and I think the church missed it a bit but being the administrators of the paperwork for the civil authorities. There is something sacred about a covenant before God and I think we miss that. The government paper is a big deal but not the most important deal. For me the bigger issue isn’t whether or not the Government of Saskatchewan says I am married (which I help administrate) but the covenant before God and those witnesses I said it in front of. The question is, “what does that covenant look like?” Does it have to happen in a cathedral? or have to have a valid government marriage license and official present? Is it the oaths? The witnesses? The reception? Now Clement Ng brings up the debate also about the regulatory nature of marriage and has some good points. Have fun with this one. I don’t agree with Tomlinson in this one although I think he brings some good points to the floor. Argue amongst yourselves. That’s what the comments are for.
Porn Cars Not Welcome at Church
At least not at Mosaic. That being said (linked?), let’s not confuse the comments of people inside the church with the stuff written by Erwin McManus. The people upset were not the church leadership but people who attend the church. I pastor a small rural church and what they believe is at times contradictory to what I believe and it is the same in every church.
Our Cabin Weblog- Recently listened to music
- David Gray – Be Mine October 19, 2008
- David Gray – December October 19, 2008
- David Gray – Knowhere October 19, 2008
- David Gray – Real Love October 19, 2008
- David Gray – Last Boat To America October 19, 2008
- Recently additions to my library
- Messy Faith: Daring to Live by Grace by A. J. Gregory October 28, 2008
- Rediscovering Church: The Story and Vision of Willow Creek Community Church by Lynne Hybels October 26, 2008
- The Teeth of the Tiger, A Novel by Tom Clancy October 26, 2008
- The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You by John C. Maxwell October 26, 2008
- The Sum of All Fears by Tom Clancy October 26, 2008
-
Search
Recent Photos
