Sarah Palin, sexism, and shoddy research

I haven’t wanted to waste time and space giving attention to the dubious study that purports to show that Sarah Palin’s looks hurt her as a politician; but when Bill O’Reilly interviewed one of the academics behind the study, with Tammy Bruce also in the conversation, I had to post this.  I do think there’s some legitimate material here about the way in which women are perceived in our society, but it’s clear watching this smirking Ph.D. that she wants people to draw negative conclusions about Gov. Palin which, as O’Reilly and Bruce point out, her study simply doesn’t justify.  (The real question here is whether the Democratic Party deliberately used and encouraged societal impulses and tendencies which they would normally have denounced as “sexist” in an effort to undermine Gov. Palin specifically and the McCain/Palin ticket more generally; for my part, I think they did, and believe a study on that could be quite enlightening.)

HT:  C4P

Zimbabwe PM Morgan Tsvangirai injured, wife killed

in a highly suspicious car crash.  They were on their way to their rural home when they were hit by a lorry, which PM Tsvangirai says drove at them deliberately.  The roads in Zimbabwe are bad enough that car accidents are nothing unusual, but this one smells like an assassination attempt, especially as the recently-formed unity government has so far been largely non-functional—despite the formal agreement to power-sharing, Robert Mugabe and his thugs have been unwilling to let the MDC do little things like actually govern.  PM Tsvangirai has left the country, going to Botswana for medical care and a little emotional space.When my father-in-law heard this, he said, “That’s blood on the hands of South Africa.”  If this does turn out to be a deliberate attack on the prime minister and his party, then I’ll have to agree.

Barack Obama is no John Kruk

If you’re not a baseball fan, you’ve probably never heard the story, and even if you are, you might not remember it.  Today, John Kruk is a scruffy, rotund talking head, but back in the day, he was a scruffy, rotund hitter for the Padres and Phillies.  He was a good one, too; for all that he walked up to the plate looking like an unmade bed a lot of the time, he could pretty much roll out of bed and collect a hit, so it worked for him.  He was a lifetime .300 hitter with an on-base percentage just south of .4oo, and he had enough power to keep pitchers honest; he made the All-Star Game three times in a ten-year career and could fairly have gone once or twice more.Anyway, I no longer remember the precise situation, but on one occasion, Kruk was confronted by a female fan with a disparaging comment—I think to the effect that he looked too fat to be an athlete (as noted, he was far from svelte).  Slow of foot but quick of wit, Kruk immediately responded, “Lady, I’m not an athlete, I’m a ballplayer.”It was the absolute truth, and dead on point.  Bo Jackson was an athlete.  John Kruk was a ballplayer.  Bo looked a lot better in uniform, but Kruk did more to help his teams win.  Why?  Because being an athlete is about having talent; being a ballplayer is about having skill.  Talent is innate; skill is learned, developed, honed.  Talent limits what you can do with skill, but skill is ultimately what wins ballgames.I got to thinking about this when I read Michael Gerson’s Washington Post column “GOP at the Abyss.”  Ultimately, I agree with Jennifer Rubin’s assertion that Gerson gets the matter backwards; but I also think he gets there in the wrong way.  Gerson writes (emphasis mine),

[American conservatism] has been voted to the edge of political irrelevance, assaulted by a European-style budget and overshadowed by a new president of colossal skills and unexpected ambition.

The vote I’ll grant, but that’s happened before.  The budget I’ll grant, but the mere fact of the budget doesn’t spell curtains for conservatism; if the budget fails, the results are likely to be quite the contrary.  That President Obama’s leftist ambition was “unexpected” I most emphatically do not grant; many people saw that one coming, including Sarah Palin, Stanley Kurtz, and (for whatever it’s worth) me.Most significantly, though, I cannot agree with Gerson’s statement that Barack Obama is a president of “colossal skills.”  He’s a president of colossal talent, of rare political gifts, and few actual skills.  The recent commentary on his dependence on the teleprompter, while unimportant in itself, illustrates this.  He has great ability, but very few political and governance skills because he’s done little to hone them; he’s spent more of his career campaigning for jobs than actually doing them, and it shows—when he needs to accomplish something, he reverts to campaign mode because that’s the only way he knows how to get anything done.  That’s the only area in which he’s done any significant work to develop skills to utilize his talents.  When it comes to actually governing, he’s the Bo Jackson of politicians—he can hit the ball a country mile when he makes contact, but he has absolutely no clue what the pitcher’s going to throw him next.Of course, this is by no means a permanent situation; skills can always be developed, and the president now has a powerful incentive to develop them.  He’s bound to get better, and as he does, the task of opposition will grow more difficult for the GOP.  But that doesn’t mean the GOP ought to buy in to Gerson’s gloomy analysis, because the fact is, Barack Obama isn’t the colossus at the plate that Gerson takes him for.  He might be pretty good with the roundball in his hand, but in this game, he’s no ballplayer at all; he’s just an athlete.  He’ll hit the meatball and the hanging curve, but a good pitch at the right time will get him out.  The GOP just needs to have confidence in their stuff, focus on their control, and go after him.

The world’s largest canary?

I don’t know if you can imagine the Phoenix Suns’ Amare Stoudamire, all 6’9″ and 250 pounds of him, covered in yellow feathers and chirping, but if there’s a canary in this economic mine telling us that things are going to get a whole heck of a lot worse before they get better, he just might be it.  Symbolically, at least.  Read Bill Simmons’ column from last week, “Welcome to the No Benjamins Association,” and you’ll understand.  Even if you aren’t a basketball fan, read it; it’s partly about other problems besetting the NBA these days, but what’s most telling is the angle it provides on where our economy is now, where it’s going, and what the consequences are likely to be for people locked into long-term commitments made before the economy tanked.

Do we need to have it all figured out?

Bruce Reyes-Chow, an occasional blog correspondent, a pastor in the San Francisco area, and the current Moderator of the General Assembly of  the Presbyterian Church (USA), has a wonderful blog post up on “The pastoral secret that everyone already knows, but pastors keep trying to hide”:  namely, as Bruce puts it, that

pastors don’t really know what the heck they are doing.There I said it “out loud”. We all think it, know it and hard as we try to hide it, most of the folks we attempt to lead, pastor and influence know it too. We don’t really know what we are doing.I have always felt like somewhat of an impostor when it comes to this amazing role that I play in the life of a so many: my family, the congregation I serve or the denomination that I am part of. It is such an honor to be called pastor, but if we are not careful, we begin to believe our own hype and then driven by an insidious need for success, we get into trouble.

Lest anyone think otherwise, Bruce isn’t just speaking for himself or talking through his hat here; I don’t know that all pastors think this (there are bound to be some who feel they have a pretty good handle on what they’re doing and mostly believe they have everything figured out), but judging from the conversations I’ve had with colleagues (including some who’ve been pastoring churches longer than I’ve been alive), he speaks for many of us.  In fact, I just had this conversation recently with a few folks whom I respect greatly—when I expressed this sense to them, they told me not only that they feel much the same way, but in fact said they felt like they know less now than they did when they were young in ministry.The question is, is this a bad thing?I’m not at all sure it is (and again, I’m not alone in this).  When we think we know what we’re doing, we think we’re the ones doing it—and that we’re capable of pulling it off.  Truth is, we aren’t; our work matters as part of the process, but it’s the Holy Spirit who builds the church.  If we know what we’re doing and how we’re doing it, that means we’ve found something we can do in our own strength that “works”—which means in turn that we’re the ones doing the building.  That doesn’t necessarily rule out that the Spirit is also at work, because we can never really tell God what he can and can’t do, but in general, organizations that are built that way, while they may be wonderful organizations, aren’t great churches.None of this, of course, is to rule out the importance of giving God our best; he commands and calls us to do so, and he uses what we give him, and it does matter.  It would be just as wrong to use “trusting God” as an excuse for slacking as it is to try to build the church ourselves because we don’t trust God to do it right (i.e., our way).  But it is to say that God doesn’t ask or expect or even want us to understand everything and have it all figured out and all together.  Rather, what he wants from us, I think, is simply to serve him as faithfully as we can see to serve him in our given situation, in our given moment, and to trust him for the rest.  As Bruce says,

I firmly believe that we must all live in this tension between God’s yearning for us to simply embrace our BEING and the gifts that God gives us to get out there and do some serious DOING. Neither posture is better then the other, but must always be held in tension; for if we sway too much to one side, we lose out on the opportunities that the other may provide.So what do we do to balance this BEING and DOING that God demands and Christ’s calling requires?We listen, we pray, we discern, we act, we reflect and then we do it all over again and again and again and again.

And again and again and again, being faithful day by day by day, until Christ gathers us home.  The faithfulness is our work.  The rest is God’s.

Because of Jews

The story is told that on one occasion, Karl Barth was asked why he believed in God, and he responded, “Because of Jews.”  When his questioner, surprised, asked, “Why because of Jews?” Barth is said to have responded, “Find me a Hittite in New York City.”Now, I don’t know for a fact that Barth said that—though it sounds quite plausible to me—but whether original to Barth or not, it’s a good point.  The Jews are to anthropology and human history what the crocodile is to paleontology and zoology:  a remarkable survival from a vanished time.  And no, I’m not comparing Jews to crocodiles—quite the opposite, in fact, which only intensifies the point; where the crocodile has survived because it’s an indomitable predator that’s too mean and too efficient at killing things to die off, the Jewish people have not survived through power politics, but rather despite them.  They have survived and kept their national and religious identity through conquest and exile, enduring centuries in which everyone’s hand was against them.  This is a survival which is unmatched in human history.To understand this, consider Barth’s case of the Hittites—or for that matter, the Philistines, the Carthaginians, the Etruscans, the Assyrians, the Parthians, the Scythians, the Medes, or the Babylonians.  None of these peoples exist anymore.  They were conquered, assimilated, lost their national and cultural identity, and disappeared into memory.  This was, throughout the pagan era, the normal pattern.  Religion was the tentpole of the culture—the people took their identity in large part from the gods they worshiped, and the gods were worthy of worship as long as they sustained the independence of their people and brought them victory in battle.  When defeat came in battle and the nation was conquered, that marked the defeat of their gods by another, more powerful, set of gods; that brought an end to their religion (sometimes more gradually than others), which left the culture largely unsupported and caused it, over time, to collapse.Along with that, the language would go, because there was no longer anything to keep it alive, and no longer any utility in speaking it.  In the modern era, with the rise of nationalism, we’ve seen a force develop in resistance to that process, and efforts to revitalize languages from Navajo to Welsh and rebuild the base of native speakers; but in the pagan era, whatever efforts there might have been to keep languages like Hittite alive, they didn’t succeed.  There simply wasn’t the cultural capital for such an effort to succeed, or even to make sense, and so languages died with their cultures.The great exception from that time period is the Jews.  Granted, Hebrew largely died as a spoken language and had to be reconstituted, even reinvented; but it was possible to do so, and the people still existed to do it.  They survived conquest by the Assyrians and Babylonians, and endured as a distinct people in exile to be returned to their homeland under the Persians; they endured the rule of the Persians and the Greeks, won their independence for a while, were reconquered by the Romans, who ultimately dispersed them across the empire—and they endured that, too.  They existed as a people and a religion without a homeland, through many different cultures and under many different regimes, for the better part of two millennia; and after all that time, the idea of a Jewish state still made sense, because there was still an identifiable Jewish people to live in it.  We’re accustomed to this as we’re accustomed to so many things simply because they’re facts—and yet, what an extraordinary fact it is!  If we don’t stop and think about it, we miss that.To my way of thinking, then, Barth (or whoever actually said it first) was right to hold up the simple existence of the Jews as a reason to believe in the God of Israel.  This is one of the reasons why, contrary to what folks like FVThinker seem to believe, the God of Israel cannot be disproven on the same grounds as the old pagan gods:  his people still exist as his people, and theirs don’t.

Addition to the blogroll

Apparently the economics department at George Mason is big into blogging:  professors in that department maintain four separate blogs on economics and other matters.  I had had some familiarity with one of them, Café Hayek, but the others were new to me.  Since in the current situation, it’s good to have a guide or four to help us sort out the good ideas and statements from the bad, and since these bloggers do have interesting things to say beyond the scope of the dismal science, I’ve linked them and given them their own category down the sidebar a ways.

Obama threw down the gauntlet; Rush picks it up

Obviously, an old-fashioned duel is out of the question, so Limbaugh has challenged the president to its modern-day political equivalent:  a debate.

If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record. They’re claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program—without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards—to debate me on the issues. Let’s talk about free markets versus government control. Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let’s talk about your stock market.

I’m quite sure Barack Obama is neither gutsy enough nor foolhardy enough to take that challenge, and in some ways, I wouldn’t be happy to see him reduce the dignity of the office enough to do so . . . but that would be a fun three hours.Update:  Of course, if he doesn’t, Jeffrey Lord is right:  his own team’s language is going to make him look pretty bad.  After all, David Plouffe called the GOP “paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader” because they haven’t taken on Limbaugh; given Limbaugh’s challenge to the president,

the Obama crowd has now set up a breathtakingly stupid proposition: either Obama debates Rush one-on-one or he is, in the words of his own staff, paralyzed with fear.

Not good.  None of Obama’s guys are chess players, I can tell—so far, there doesn’t seem to be one member of this administration who thinks beyond the next move.