In which we live blog the debate

Greetings, all of you Cranachers of every political persuasion.  In this experiment in real-time online interaction and discussion, I will post comments on the first presidential candidate debate as it unfolds and invite you to do the same.  Or you can just read what we are all saying.

To follow the discussion you’ll need to hit “refresh” frequently so as to see the latest comments.

What will happen if we have several hundred people trying to comment at once?  I have no idea.  That’s why we call it an experiment.  I doubt that we’ll crash the whole internet, so don’t worry about it.

It’s fine to interact with other people’s comments, but do that briefly and not as long arguments or digressions.  Try to keep the thread in synch with what is happening on television.

If this works, we might try other real-time Cranach get-togethers.

(After the debate, sleep on it, and we’ll discuss our overall impressions–including our views of “who won”–tomorrow.)

In the meantime, as the candidates take their places, let’s begin. . . .

 

Let's live-blog the debate

Tune into the presidential debate at 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, fire up your computer, and come to this site and this post.   As the debate proceeds, type your observations, reactions, profound insights, and snide remarks as comments.  I’ll do the same.  We can discuss the candidates’ performance and the tenor of the debate as it is happening.

Won’t that be fun?

Meet you here at 9:00 ET/8:00 CT/7:00 MT/6:00 PT.

UPDATE:  I’ll start a separate post for our live blog.

One Nation Conservatism

Mitt Romney seems to dismiss the 47% of Americans who will never vote for him anyway.  James P. Pinkerton, though, recounts another kind of conservatism–the tradition of Disraeli, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and others–that is oriented to the 100%.

This is the ideology of the popular conservative mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who described his philosophy this way:

I’m a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work.

It is also the ideology of Calvin Coolidge, who said this:

The commonwealth is one. We are all members of one body. The welfare of the weakest and the welfare of the most powerful are inseparably bound together. Industry cannot flourish if labor languish. Transportation cannot prosper if manufactures decline. The general welfare cannot be provided for in any one act, but it is well to remember that the benefit of one is the benefit of all, and the neglect of one is the neglect of all. The suspension of one man’s dividends is the suspension of another man’s pay envelope.

via What Happened to the 100 Percent? | The American Conservative.

This brand of conservatism tries to create a sense of national unity, rather than setting groups off against each other, embraces patriotism, tries to reform social evils, and thus inspires voters.

Do you see any prospect for bringing this back?

Staying home vs. coming home

Rod Dreher is reading The Odyssey with his son.  He is finding that it ties right into his life.  Homer’s epic is about Odysseus coming home.  Which is not the same as staying at home.

Odysseus had to go to Troy, but after his business was concluded there, he had to go back home to Ithaca. The goddess Calypso detained him. He spent all his time in her company, enjoying all the comforts of life with a beautiful goddess, including, Homer tells us, lovemaking every night. And yet, when he wasn’t with her, he wept for home. He wanted to be home so badly that he refused immortality. Better to die at home than to live forever in wealth, comfort, and pleasure. If he stayed with Calypso, he would be untrue to himself, to his nature.

You can well imagine why this story appeals to me in a particular way. My Greek friend Dimitra told me that my moving back to my birthplace is what Greeks call a nostos, or homecoming. (That’s the root of our word “nostalgia.”) The Odyssey is a nostos epic, of course, but not everyone has the same nostos. The first four books of The Odyssey concern Telemachus, the son of Odysseus, and how he has to leave Ithaca to find his father, and in so doing find his way to manhood. His way “home” requires him to leave home for a time — to separate himself from his mother and his palace and all that he knows, and go out into the world searching. He cannot be a man unless he does this. I mean, it’s clear that if Telemachus takes the comfortable route, the route of least resistance, and stays at home, he will have failed.

I think about myself and my sister, Ruthie. I left. She stayed. Both of us were true to our natures. My having come home was not an admission of regret, but an acceptance that my own journey had in it a turn that I did not anticipate. I could have stayed with Calypso back East, so to speak, but that did not seem like the path the gods (well, God) revealed to me as my own. To be true to myself at 16, I had to leave. To be true to myself at 45, I had to return.

All of this is simply to say that it’s a wonder to me how reading this ancient poem about Greek kings, princes, and gods, connects so intimately to the life I’m living, the questions I have, the journey I’m on. I thought reading The Odyssey was just going to be about helping my 12 year old son with his homework. It turns out to be the inspiration for deep conversations between us about what it means to be a man in full.

via Place, Person, & ‘The Odyssey’ | The American Conservative.

Have any of you moved back to the place where you grew up?  How has that worked out?  Thomas Wolfe said, “you can’t go home again.”  But can you?

 

HT:  Matthew Cantirino

Pro-life without being pro-birth

That’s the position taken by the Methodist church.  From Mark Tooley:

Recently a newly appointed official with the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society explained on her agency’s website that “we are a church that is pro-life, not pro-birth.”

Interesting explanation. What does it mean to be “pro-life, not pro-birth?” She describes United Methodism’s stance:

“We do not believe that abortion should be used as birth control or as a means of gender selection. We ‘call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may cause them to consider abortion,’ and we take consideration of the mother’s health. Also, we affirm ministries to both women who do and do not terminate a pregnancy. Unlike pro-birth proponents, we don’t believe in forgoing the life and safety of the mother.”

She further explained that “like Jesus, our denomination doesn’t seek to treat any person — male or female — as simply a means to an end.” So “to emphasize birth at any cost means treating a woman as if she were worth nothing more than her reproductive utility.” She also boasted that United Methodists “don’t believe that the church’s commitment begins and ends with the act of birth,” supporting “prenatal, postnatal and a lifetime of social and spiritual supports for all of God’s children is central to the work of the body of Christ.” She lamented that “current discussion on reproductive health has attempted to cut this conversation short, focusing only upon the act of birth and not the journey of life.”

It’s not clear who these morally numb people are who care only about the “act of birth” but lose interest in the child minutes later. Here’s one question for this “pro-life, not pro-birth” official with our church’s official lobby office: If pre-born children have no intrinsic value, dignity or protection, then how or why should society invest so much in the children after birth? If the value of human life is so fluid, then inevitably much of society will look at all children, and all vulnerable persons, through a utilitarian lens.

via United Methodists Are “Pro-Life” but “Not Pro-Birth?” « Juicy Ecumenism.

Questions for the debates

Tomorrow is the first presidential debate.  If you were one of the moderators, what questions would you ask Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X