I finished a DVD lecture series (24 half hour lectures) on the book of Genesis last night. It was interesting but at times quite sleep-inducing. If I was at all sleepy it literally forced my eyes shut and my brain to sleep. So I only watched when I was wide awake.
Professor Rendsburg "holds the Blanche and Irving Laurie chair in Jewish History in the Department of Jewish Studies at Rutgers University. An expert in the history of ancient Israel and the literature of the Bible, he has spent decades immersed in the study and exploration of Qumran and other ancient sites in Israel,
Egypt and Jordan." He is also fluent in the ancient languages of the Old Testament (mostly Hebrew) and doesn't need to rely on someone else's translation.
The thing that struck me the most watching these lectures is Rendsburg's approach; at no time does he suggest that the author (he believes in a single author for the whole book of Genesis) was in any way 'inspired by God.' He talks about a gifted literary craftsman recording the oral/aural lore of the region. Over and over he shows us how the author uses various literary devices (alliteration, rhyme, etc.) to tell his story. Consequently the series never takes a position regarding the 'truth' of the stories. He does attempt to place them in a historical time-frame, e.g. when did Abraham live, and cites the evidence for his conclusions.
The two creation stories (yes, two) are treated as just that, two stories. Clearly allegorical in nature and not historical. Ditto the flood story, which he suggests was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh only with a local guy as hero. He also shows us the several themes that run throughout, such as the 'second son' theme. Isaac was Abraham's second son, Jacob was Isaac's second son, etc., and suggests some possible lessons that can be drawn from these recurrent themes.
I tried reading Genesis last fall but threw it in about half-way through. I now feel like I have some understanding of what the point of the damn book is, how it fits in with the rest of The Bible and the other literature of its time and place. What still puzzles me is how so many people insist on taking everything in it as literally true when it so clearly is a literary work and not an historical one.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
I'm At It Again
This was sent to the Wisconsin State Journal just minutes ago! Not all that deep, just something I had to get off my chest.
Jonah Goldberg begins a recent column (Wednesday's WSJ), "President Obama's re-election largely hinges on his ability to play young voters for suckers--again-- ... "
Do young voters think they got 'played'? I was a 49 year old 'sophomore' at the UW in November 2008. Yes they were excited about a candidate who spoke their language, who saw the importance of 'green energy.' Passé? Hardly. After four years of no progress 'green energy' is more of an issue than ever. These 'kids' are going to be around for sixty more years; they aren't interested in kicking the can down the road for the next generation to solve. They ARE the next generation. Goldberg and Romney's only hope is that they will blame Obama for the lack of progress rather than seeing it as his opponents doing just what they promised: oppose him at every turn, for political reasons. Sure they might turn their backs on the whole system, but don't bet on it. I was pleasantly amazed at how engaged and perceptive they are already. And this year there'll be four more years worth of them.
Suckers they are not!
Jonah Goldberg begins a recent column (Wednesday's WSJ), "President Obama's re-election largely hinges on his ability to play young voters for suckers--again-- ... "
Do young voters think they got 'played'? I was a 49 year old 'sophomore' at the UW in November 2008. Yes they were excited about a candidate who spoke their language, who saw the importance of 'green energy.' Passé? Hardly. After four years of no progress 'green energy' is more of an issue than ever. These 'kids' are going to be around for sixty more years; they aren't interested in kicking the can down the road for the next generation to solve. They ARE the next generation. Goldberg and Romney's only hope is that they will blame Obama for the lack of progress rather than seeing it as his opponents doing just what they promised: oppose him at every turn, for political reasons. Sure they might turn their backs on the whole system, but don't bet on it. I was pleasantly amazed at how engaged and perceptive they are already. And this year there'll be four more years worth of them.
Suckers they are not!
Monday, April 2, 2012
Oops?
It has occurred to me recently that people who feel that government infringes on their liberty should think about how the 'Indians' must have felt.
Do they think, some of them anyway, 'you know what, the Indians had it about right'? Because they didn't have much government. Of course, they didn't need much. Few people, lots of space, even the biggest nations were homogeneous enough to make Hitler drool. Who needs government in those circumstances?
But then, along came the Europeans, with their organized society and their government and their Army, infringing on the Indians' rights, in a pretty big way. What do the Libertarians think about that?
I'm pretty sure there's no going back, though, is there?
Do they think, some of them anyway, 'you know what, the Indians had it about right'? Because they didn't have much government. Of course, they didn't need much. Few people, lots of space, even the biggest nations were homogeneous enough to make Hitler drool. Who needs government in those circumstances?
But then, along came the Europeans, with their organized society and their government and their Army, infringing on the Indians' rights, in a pretty big way. What do the Libertarians think about that?
I'm pretty sure there's no going back, though, is there?
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Mad Bomber?
Well I finished the LeMay book a week ago, or so. Pretty good read, I had very little knowledge of the man prior to this.
As you might guess, war is a central theme of the book. I don't believe there is an official 'LeMay Doctrine,' but if there were, it would be something like, Do not go lightly into a war. Think long and hard. Once in, WIN! And that means doing whatever it takes.
"Whatever it takes" might sound a bit harsh but in LeMay's view the men in charge of prosecuting the war owe it to the people of both sides (but especially his side, of course) to bring about a swift end to hostilities and get back to normal. If this meant bombing cities then so be it. In WWII, especially the last six months of the war against Japan, it meant exactly that.
What it would NOT mean would be 'anything goes.' What's the difference between 'whatever it takes' and 'anything goes'? Efficacy. You might do some pretty horrible things, but you only do them for the positive end of shortening the war. If it takes dropping an Atomic Bomb, or two, you do it. (This is LeMay talking yet.) You do NOT do things that don't promote that end, such as abusing prisoners or allowing your soldiers to 'take liberties' with the other sides' civilians or property. LeMay wasn't actually on the policy side, he was a strategist, but he would NOT have agreed with the Bush/Cheney 'enhanced interrogation' program. Unless he would have been convinced that the program would produce valuable information. Which it never did, nor would he have been so deluded, in my opinion.
The Vietnam War frustrated LeMay in a big way. He could not see any sense in fighting a 'limited war.' Either fight it or don't, he thought, and if you're going to fight it, go all in. There were reasons why the U.S. wouldn't/couldn't do that, in Vietnam and that drove LeMay crazy. Similarly I believe he would be appalled at our Afghanistan policy, or lack thereof. 'Figure out want you want to accomplish, then go about it in the most efficient manner possible.' Anybody think we're doing that?
Next up (already on page 70): Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. See you in a month. ; )
As you might guess, war is a central theme of the book. I don't believe there is an official 'LeMay Doctrine,' but if there were, it would be something like, Do not go lightly into a war. Think long and hard. Once in, WIN! And that means doing whatever it takes.
"Whatever it takes" might sound a bit harsh but in LeMay's view the men in charge of prosecuting the war owe it to the people of both sides (but especially his side, of course) to bring about a swift end to hostilities and get back to normal. If this meant bombing cities then so be it. In WWII, especially the last six months of the war against Japan, it meant exactly that.
What it would NOT mean would be 'anything goes.' What's the difference between 'whatever it takes' and 'anything goes'? Efficacy. You might do some pretty horrible things, but you only do them for the positive end of shortening the war. If it takes dropping an Atomic Bomb, or two, you do it. (This is LeMay talking yet.) You do NOT do things that don't promote that end, such as abusing prisoners or allowing your soldiers to 'take liberties' with the other sides' civilians or property. LeMay wasn't actually on the policy side, he was a strategist, but he would NOT have agreed with the Bush/Cheney 'enhanced interrogation' program. Unless he would have been convinced that the program would produce valuable information. Which it never did, nor would he have been so deluded, in my opinion.
The Vietnam War frustrated LeMay in a big way. He could not see any sense in fighting a 'limited war.' Either fight it or don't, he thought, and if you're going to fight it, go all in. There were reasons why the U.S. wouldn't/couldn't do that, in Vietnam and that drove LeMay crazy. Similarly I believe he would be appalled at our Afghanistan policy, or lack thereof. 'Figure out want you want to accomplish, then go about it in the most efficient manner possible.' Anybody think we're doing that?
Next up (already on page 70): Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. See you in a month. ; )
Monday, March 19, 2012
LeMay
I'm closing in on the end of the LeMay book. Nine more pages to the end of WWII. I believe I have gained new insight into Sarge's appreciation for and almost celebration of Operation Linebacker II, etc. While I still don't agree that Linebacker II was necessary or justified the case for bombing Japan was/is a good bit more cut and dried. I'm learning much about the obstacles to massive bombing campaigns, obstacles that led directly to the loss of planes and, more importantly, their crews.
LeMay was instrumental in the success of the Allied bombing of Germany until mid-1944 when he was transferred to the Pacific theater. The B-17 was the bomber used in Europe; the B-29 had been designed specifically for the Japanese assault. It could fly higher, faster, carry more bombs and was dubbed the Super Fortress. But there were design flaws and some logistical mountains to overcome. If you can believe this, in late 1944 they were encountering the 'jet stream' for the first time and it was messing them up (no plane had flown so high before). Fuel consumption greatly exceeded expectations and having to carry more fuel and fewer bombs made the early missions barely worth anything. But LeMay reconceived they way they would attack and soon they were pummeling Japan with incendiary bombs. I'll write more on this subject once I've finished the book.
All in all this is a definite worthwhile read.
LeMay was instrumental in the success of the Allied bombing of Germany until mid-1944 when he was transferred to the Pacific theater. The B-17 was the bomber used in Europe; the B-29 had been designed specifically for the Japanese assault. It could fly higher, faster, carry more bombs and was dubbed the Super Fortress. But there were design flaws and some logistical mountains to overcome. If you can believe this, in late 1944 they were encountering the 'jet stream' for the first time and it was messing them up (no plane had flown so high before). Fuel consumption greatly exceeded expectations and having to carry more fuel and fewer bombs made the early missions barely worth anything. But LeMay reconceived they way they would attack and soon they were pummeling Japan with incendiary bombs. I'll write more on this subject once I've finished the book.
All in all this is a definite worthwhile read.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Faster
I'm already about half way through a biography of Curtis LeMay. It's only about half as many pages as the Adams book and the pages are less than half as full. I think I needed a quick read like this.
So far LeMay is a very uncomplicated character. It's July 1943. We'll see what happens next. ; )
On tap are a couple that I ordered from Amazon last night, about the making of the modern middle east.
So far LeMay is a very uncomplicated character. It's July 1943. We'll see what happens next. ; )
On tap are a couple that I ordered from Amazon last night, about the making of the modern middle east.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
John Adams
So I finally finished a John Adams biography last night. I don't think I've ever read such a good book more slowly. I really don't know what took me so long. I guess I just wasn't in any rush to finish. It's not like I had a deadline, or anything.
Going in I knew very little abut Adams. He was the first vice-president and the second president. He was a 'founding father.' His wife's name was Abigail and John Quincy Adams, the sixth president, was their son. And he lived in Massachusetts. Mostly, anyway (as it turns out).
David McCullough, the book's author, relies heavily on letters written by Adams and others. Throughout his life Adams corresponded with many people, most notably Abigail (his wife) and Thomas Jefferson. Also Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Quincy, Benjamin Franklin and others. McCullough also referenced letters written to Jefferson from Abigail and vice versa, as well as letters between other characters. Everybody was writing letters, which sometimes took up to six months to reach their addressee. I guess nobody had facebook yet.
Adams grew up in Braintree, Massachusetts. Abigail was from neighboring Quincy (named for her Mother's family). He graduated from Harvard and subsequently acquired a law degree. He practiced law for a few years, including as attorney for the defense for the British soldiers who were tried for their part in the 'Boston Massacre.' But politics was to be his career. He was chosen to be a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, in late 1775, in Philadelphia, a group charged with determining what to do about the growing 'British problem.' The colonies, you may remember, were fairly autonomous right from the start. England, though, had decided to address its huge Seven Years War debt by imposing new taxes on them. The Second Continental Congress set out to decide on a course of action. Adams and Jefferson helped convince that body that independence was the way to go and the Declaration was produced.
Adams had hopes that his work was done as he returned to Braintree. He hated being away from Abigail and their growing family. However he was soon asked to sail to France as part of a commission to gain recognition of the United States of America, and French aid in the war. Adams went back and forth twice and also served in The Netherlands and, once the war was over, England. Adams was crucial in securing credit from the French and the Dutch, without which the war effort would have been severely hampered.
Once he finally was able to return home, in 1788, he was soon mentioned as a likely candidate for high office, under the new Constitution. Maybe even the presidency, though most agreed that George Washington would be the best choice. Adams wound up with the second most votes and was named vice-president, a position that had no actual duties (except to break ties in the Senate).
The second half of the book is largely about the differences between the Federalists, led by Washington and Adams, and the 'Republicans,' led by Jefferson. There were two schools of thought regarding the Constitution, which led to the Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay; and what some historians call the Anti-Federalist Papers, largely written pseudonymously by 'Cato' or 'Brutus.' (Most of the Federalist papers were written under pseudonyms too, though we now attribute them to their actual writers). The principal point of contention between the two sides went to how strong the 'central government' should be. The Federalists favored stronger, the Republicans weaker. The purpose of the Constitution had been to replace the Articles of Confederation, which hadn't established much of a role for a Federal government (and established no executive branch). Adams and his fellow Federalists assumed that once they had won the ratification debate that the matter was settled (in favor of a strong central government). Jefferson, et al., did not see it that way and set themselves up as an 'opposition party,' despite there having been near unanimous agreement that party politics would be detrimental to the over all good of the new nation.
Adams and Jefferson became political 'enemies,' a situation made extremely interesting when Adams was elected to succeed Washington as president and Jefferson was elected as vice-president. Eventually Jefferson succeeded Adams, who was finally able to retire from public life, and learned, as President, to see things with a new appreciation for a strong role for the executive. After both men had been out of office for a while they again began to correspond and renewed their friendship. They died within hours of each other, on the fourth of July, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the document that was authored by Jefferson and that Adams had played such a crucial role in getting approved.
Going in I knew very little abut Adams. He was the first vice-president and the second president. He was a 'founding father.' His wife's name was Abigail and John Quincy Adams, the sixth president, was their son. And he lived in Massachusetts. Mostly, anyway (as it turns out).
David McCullough, the book's author, relies heavily on letters written by Adams and others. Throughout his life Adams corresponded with many people, most notably Abigail (his wife) and Thomas Jefferson. Also Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Quincy, Benjamin Franklin and others. McCullough also referenced letters written to Jefferson from Abigail and vice versa, as well as letters between other characters. Everybody was writing letters, which sometimes took up to six months to reach their addressee. I guess nobody had facebook yet.
Adams grew up in Braintree, Massachusetts. Abigail was from neighboring Quincy (named for her Mother's family). He graduated from Harvard and subsequently acquired a law degree. He practiced law for a few years, including as attorney for the defense for the British soldiers who were tried for their part in the 'Boston Massacre.' But politics was to be his career. He was chosen to be a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, in late 1775, in Philadelphia, a group charged with determining what to do about the growing 'British problem.' The colonies, you may remember, were fairly autonomous right from the start. England, though, had decided to address its huge Seven Years War debt by imposing new taxes on them. The Second Continental Congress set out to decide on a course of action. Adams and Jefferson helped convince that body that independence was the way to go and the Declaration was produced.
Adams had hopes that his work was done as he returned to Braintree. He hated being away from Abigail and their growing family. However he was soon asked to sail to France as part of a commission to gain recognition of the United States of America, and French aid in the war. Adams went back and forth twice and also served in The Netherlands and, once the war was over, England. Adams was crucial in securing credit from the French and the Dutch, without which the war effort would have been severely hampered.
Once he finally was able to return home, in 1788, he was soon mentioned as a likely candidate for high office, under the new Constitution. Maybe even the presidency, though most agreed that George Washington would be the best choice. Adams wound up with the second most votes and was named vice-president, a position that had no actual duties (except to break ties in the Senate).
The second half of the book is largely about the differences between the Federalists, led by Washington and Adams, and the 'Republicans,' led by Jefferson. There were two schools of thought regarding the Constitution, which led to the Federalist Papers, written by Hamilton, Madison and John Jay; and what some historians call the Anti-Federalist Papers, largely written pseudonymously by 'Cato' or 'Brutus.' (Most of the Federalist papers were written under pseudonyms too, though we now attribute them to their actual writers). The principal point of contention between the two sides went to how strong the 'central government' should be. The Federalists favored stronger, the Republicans weaker. The purpose of the Constitution had been to replace the Articles of Confederation, which hadn't established much of a role for a Federal government (and established no executive branch). Adams and his fellow Federalists assumed that once they had won the ratification debate that the matter was settled (in favor of a strong central government). Jefferson, et al., did not see it that way and set themselves up as an 'opposition party,' despite there having been near unanimous agreement that party politics would be detrimental to the over all good of the new nation.
Adams and Jefferson became political 'enemies,' a situation made extremely interesting when Adams was elected to succeed Washington as president and Jefferson was elected as vice-president. Eventually Jefferson succeeded Adams, who was finally able to retire from public life, and learned, as President, to see things with a new appreciation for a strong role for the executive. After both men had been out of office for a while they again began to correspond and renewed their friendship. They died within hours of each other, on the fourth of July, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the document that was authored by Jefferson and that Adams had played such a crucial role in getting approved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)