Brutally Honest

Stay

Departing from the usual fare here at BH, I thought I'd try writing a tad about Sugarland's hit called Stay.  Yea... I know... quite the departure.

I've been mesmerized time and again by the ballad.  I know nothing about the band, and as I write this, I couldn't tell you what the name of the lead singer is.  But the song is haunting, alluring, and in my view, remarkably done.  I guess maybe you have to be a bit of a country fan to like the song and I am but still, I find myself pausing whenever I hear it.

The song, as I see it anyway, is about a someone who initially succumbs to the desires of her own needs and seeks the company and favor of a married man yet who in the end finds herself, overcomes those desires and finds... redemption.... maybe.

I'm not so sure that anyone but Jennifer Nettles (she's the lead singer whose name I just looked up) can pull the song off as masterfully as she has and I've seen numerous renditions including the video shown on CMT where emotion reigns and where that emotion really draws you in... or at least it did me... the first time I saw it.

I've learned over the years when something grabs me like this that there's usually something deeper going on and so this post began as my attempt to put flesh on those bones but frankly, Im struggling with it.

Is it appealing because of the emotion?  Does it draw me in because Ms. Nettles isn't hard to look at?  Or is it more than that? 

I see the song to be about the magnetic power of sin, about how it appeals to one's sense of desire and fulfillment, about how eventually it's nothing but a lie, and about how coming to know that truth is redeeming.

And maybe that's why the song is, to me, so damned captivating.

It's war against the Berkeley City Council

With props to Flopping Aces.

Hats off to my Senator

Senator Warner seems to be saying put up or shut up to Senator Obama:

One of the dramatic moments in Thursday’s Democratic debate came when Senator Barack Obama — in making the case that Iraq was the wrong place to launch a war — cited an Army captain in Afghanistan who told him of a rifle platoon that lacked manpower, ammunition and Humvees. As Mr. Obama recounted, the soldiers looked for captured Taliban weapons as it was easier to be armed that way than “to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

Conservatives pounced on the story, questioning its authenticity. Senator John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has endorsed Senator John McCain, wrote to Mr. Obama on Friday seeking more details. Senator Warner wants to find out of the story is true -– and, if so, who might be responsible for any lapses. He said that he will also raise the issue with Army Secretary Peter Geren and Army Chief of Staff William Casey when they testify next week before his committee.

In the letter, which begins “Dear Barack,” Senator Warner said that the incident most likely occurred while he was chairman of the committee, whose members also include Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“There are specific military regulations governing the use by U.S. forces of weapons other than of U.S. manufacture, and, likewise, regulations covering the deployment into combat zones of military units at manning levels below optimum level,” said Mr. Warner.

To establish accountability within the military chain of command, Mr. Warner is asking Mr. Obama to provide more facts about the incident cited in the debate -– the dates, the unit involved and the name of the captain and other military personnel who provided the information to Mr. Obama.

More facts would be good.  Real good.

 

Emerging fundamentalism

Via Mike@WorD comes the new legalism:

Our society has two paths before it. The first is to commit our lives to God-given ways: to live justly, to love our neighbors, and to take care of God's creation as good stewards. This is the path of obedience, the way of God's law, the torah. It does not mean that we renounce all personal and societal goals. But as soon as our goals do not square with these deepest life principles, then we must either let our goals fall by the wayside or else drastically readjust them.

The second path is to commit our lives to our own ends. Such a course will redefine God-given standards and rules for life. It will determine what freedom and justice are and even how we read Scripture. The means that we use to accomplish our purposes will then torment us unceasingly. We will nevertheless embrace them, whether we admit it or not. We will convince ourselves that we have no other choice or that no one in life ever escapes getting one's hands dirty. We will justify our behavior because our overarching goal hangs in the balance.

No other paths exist, either personally or politically. Either we give God-given norms priority and relativize our goals, or we give our goals priority and relativize God-given norms.

I used to think in those terms nearly a decade ago and was accused, time and again, of being a fundamentalist.  So I find it surprising on the one hand, not so much on the other, that Mike has jumped on this bandwagon but jump he has and with both feet:

I think after 2000 years of such suppression this knowledge has effectively been stricken from the collective memory of the People of God. No doubt it's part of our spiritual DNA, a memory of a Voice we once heard, but it has lapsed. The hope I keep speaking of comes from the fact that you and I seem to be living in a time when our minds and hearts are being stirred, and memories stimulated.

So apparently what Mike is saying is that we need to re-embrace fundamentalism.  Apparently.  I tried to leave the following at his place:

Sounds like fundamentalism again Mike... just two paths, this way or the highway, this way or your own way.

It's emerging legalism.

But my attempt to leave the comment was met with the following:

We're sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad's antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam. It has been held for review by the blog's author.

Oh well... I'm sure that was accidental... right?

GM's Lutz on Global Warming: “It’s a crock of sh*t”

Ya gotta love this:

Sorry cubicle dwellers but the truth hurts. D Magazine reports that GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz told a group of journalists that global warming is "a total crock of sh*t." When pressed on his enthusiasm for the Volt, Maximum Bob explained "I'm motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 (argument)."

Smart stuff.  Anything American ingenuity can do to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a good thing and calling global warming exactly what it really is is even better.

And Lutz apparently isn't backing down:

It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to “catch on” out there.

An offhand comment I made recently about the concept of global warming seems to have a lot of people heated, and it’s spreading through the Internet like ragweed. But I think that the people making a big deal out of it are missing the real point. My beliefs are mine and I have a right to them, just as you have a right to yours. But among my strongest beliefs is that my job is to do what makes the most business sense for GM.

Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really. The point is not why and how did we get where we are, it’s what are we going to do to get where we’re going.

And I think that many of the people who’ve been spewing their virtual vitriol in my direction in the past week are guilty of taking the easy way out.

Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.

General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely. GM is working on just that – and we’re going to keep working on it — via E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, and the electrification of the automobile.

 

Most kewl. Hat's off to Lutz.  Hat's off to all who are using brain cells to find alternate energy sources.  And to heck with the zealots who don't like the fact that someone with guts named Lutz is calling their religion a crock.

With props to Copious Dissent for the find.

What Media Bias

Verum Serum brings us the MSM Bias Moment of the Day:

Back on August 27th, Time magazine reported on the death of an officer who had hit an obstruction while escorting President Bush as part of a motorcade. I wrote about their outrageous headline here. The story itself is expired over at Time, but you can still see the headline here. Plus, I screencaped it for posterity. Here it is:

Today, Time reports on the death of an officer in Hillary Clinton’s motorcade. Here’s the headline from that story.

Nice eh... so damned typical.

God rest all cops killed in the line of duty and be with their families.  God curse those who'd use their deaths to make political statements.

H/T again to Cartago Delenda Est, a seriously good blog.

Summing it up

H/T to Cartago Delenda Est who has a few more poignant cartoons posted worth peeking at.

Your New Drunken American Idol

Heh

Found at Instapundit:

John Derbyshire is right: “Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.”

No doubt.

What she said (UPDATED)

She being Sue from InnerDorothy, a self described liberal from north of the border:

I think the New York Times really sunk about as low as you can go today. Really, did they think that no one would notice that this story was conveniently released just as McCain was tying up the Republican nomination? From my (mostly) objective perspective north of the border, the New York Times looks like a joke in all of this.

By all accounts, the McCain people have reams of evidence showing that there was no inappropriate favouring of particular lobbyists. It looks to me like the Times picked on the wrong guy. He's a veteran who did some hard time in a p.o.w. camp for his country and a national newspaper thanks him by making up a bunch of nonsense and calling it journalism.

Puhleeze.

The Old Gray Lady ain't what she used to be.  Hasn't been for some time now.

Predictable yet sad.

UPDATE: From Michelle:

I pointed out this quote from Bill Keller last December. In light of the NYT’s McCain rehash, I thought you’d appreciate reading it again. Remember, put your beverages down first:

…we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a preconceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.

Guffaw.