Is There Virtue in Silence?

“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish.” Esther 4:14

“For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven . . . a time to tear, and a time to sew, a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7.

In moments of crisis and stress, the call often goes out for Christians publicly to take a stand about the issue, even if that stand is as simple as a social media posting indicating support or opposition. Obviously, the greatest portion of anger is directed towards those who chose to speak out in an inappropriate way, those who, by their word choice or basic position place themselves outside what is considered moral behavior and opinon. Yet these are not alone in incurring the wrath of those of us who see this or that as the defining moment when a prophetic call is needed. There are times when we condemn the absence of a statement as complicity with the evil of the day with nearly as much passion as we do those who speak wrongly.

Are there times when silence in the presence of evil is evil itself? Certainly. There are moments when silence is acquiescence. When faced with a grave injustice it is quite possible that we choose to say or to do nothing because we approve of the sin we see. We can think of the German Christians, saying nothing as their Jewish neighbors disappeared, one by one. If we are greedy ourselves, we may refuse to condemn those who exploit others for financial gain. If we are gossips, we may turn a blind eye towards the slander done by others. If we indulge in pornography, we are unlikely to condemn it practice in others. If we carry hatred in our hearts towards another branch of Father Adam’s family tree, we may well find reasons to avoid comment when racial injustice stares us in the face.

Are there times when such a silence, though not malicious, is still the sign of a hard heart, apathetic to the plight of others? By all means. Fiddling while our own Rome burns, we can’t be bothered by the misfortune affecting other people. We in the West with our ample refrigerators and even more ample waistlines shake our heads about the starving peoples of the world, and then head back to our gluttony. We see the suffering of the persecuted church, and then think only to thank God that we’re American. We may dislike the idea of abortion, but we can’t be bothered to rock the boat by saying so publicly. We who are white see the lack of opportunities and hostility endured by ethnic minorities, stoop only offer a prayer that Jesus would come soon, but then go back to our trust funds and friendly policemen.

For many who have raised their voices in protest about a social or moral problem, this is where the story ends. We look with disdain at those who do not take the stand we do or, perhaps, who do so in a different way. When we hear their silence, we can see no alternative but that either acquiescence or apathy rules the hearts of our taciturn neighbors. Is this so? Rarely do we ask ourselves if there might be more going on in our brother’s or sister’s souls than what we will allow for them.

There is another reason for silence, although it is rather less dramatic than the other options. It is a reason which even those who speak boldly concerning situation “A” might find appealing when it comes to situation “B.” It is the silence born of prudence. It is the silence we share when we decide that, whatever the merits of the crisis at hand, speaking out at this moment would not be wise. It may be as private as dealing with an unbelieving coworker involved in some obvious sin and asking ourselves whether the more constructive approach is confronting or ignoring. It may be as public as supporting a political party for the sake of one part of their platform even though we know full well that this means implicitly supporting another part of their agenda which makes our conscience squirm.

Perhaps it is a situation which we think all Christians should avoid addressing publicly. Perhaps it is one where we think that only we ourselves should stand back. We may be glad that the discussion is going on, and that others are speaking up. Yet we still may decide, at times, that we are not pleased with the way it is progressing and that our own particular contribution will not be constructive, for one reason or another. Any of us may imagine a moment, and more likely we have experienced a moment when we, too, have decided, for whatever reasons, that godly wisdom entails silence in the face of sin.

This will be of small comfort to those who have concluded that this moment or this crisis is the time to speak. What is more, we may be right. The moment we see today or tomorrow might well be one of those times when it is irresponsible of any Christian to refuse to let their voices be heard. It might be that to stay silent now makes us culpable of accommodating sin. Yet, when we say that there is no moral option other than the one we have chosen, we must be on our guard that we have not limited wisdom to what we can imagine in our finite and fallen minds.

The combination of life’s complexity and human frailty entails that there will be disagreements in this life. We will not all agree on all issues. Even if we do agree on the goal, we will not all agree on the best course of action towards that goal. For some this will mean deeds, while, for others it will mean words. For others still it will mean silence. Before we start accusing our brothers and sisters in Christ of sins of omission, we must ask whether it is us who have left something undone which we ought to have done. Have we gone to them with a humble spirit and asked them if their silence has some purpose we have not considered? Let us make manifest grace to one another by assuming that our fellow members of the Bride of Christ are not acting according to our worst imaginings of their silence until forced to do so by their words. Let us do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Thoughts on the Iraqi Blame Game

As the world stumbles from one crisis to another with alarming frequency, we are reminded once again that ours is not stable planet. Conflicts once forgotten have roared back into our consciousness. Even those no longer leading the evening news, if there is such a thing in today’s 24/7 media world, have lost their places not because they have become more placid but because another equally or more intense conflict has gripped the imaginations of journalists and politicians. Ukraine screams back into view with yet another Malaysian Airlines disaster, Israeli incursions into the Gaza strip remind us of the unending war in the Levant, and Syrian war dead have long since lost their significance as the numbers climb ever higher.

The ongoing crisis in Iraq is particularly keen in this regard. In the last decade-plus we have seen one President declare “Mission Accomplished,” and another pronounce that the United States could leave Iraq a stronger and more stable place. A brief glance at any news website will disabuse you of any such thought. Rather than the stable democracy acting as beacon of American goodwill or as the happy results of a less unilateral Yankee foreign policy, we see monks expelled from centuries old monasteries and Christian homes marked in a chilling echo of similar signs on Muslim homes in the Balkans of the 1990s. Where we once were promised a democratic peace would engulf the region with the Arab Spring, we  now see new dictatorships in Egypt and a Caliphate established encompassing Syria and Iraq. Many are left asking, "How did we get here?"

In our hyper-polarized political world it is a rare moment when a joint opinion is held by President Obama's fans as well as his most ardent foes. One of the more popular answers to this questions is to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of President George W. Bush. Doing this is made all the more easy by the fact that the former Commander in Chief has answered any such criticism with a clear "No comment." This vacuum is enthusiastically filled by President Obama's defenders, restating their regular refrain that any problems in the world are only the residue left by his hated predecessor and joining them are the pseudo-isolationists of the Libertarian movement who say the world would have been better had US troops stayed at home. Though they disagree on nearly everything else, these two groups, the "America is evil" Left and the "America first" Libertarians, stand united in their belief that the world would be a far better place had Bush not led the nation to war.

To this way of thinking, Operation Iraqi Freedom upturned the apple cart of the Middle East, inciting rage against the West in the "Arab Street" and radicalizing millions in one fell swoop. Whatever peace had been maintained in the volatile region became unbalanced as Iran, once hemmed in by a hostile and powerful Iraq, was now freed to instigate chaos at will. No matter how evil Saddam Hussein might have been, removing him cannot have been worth all this, right?

Anyone who knows me at all will be aware that this is not an interpretation I share. My first reaction was to think that this is rather like blaming Roosevelt and Churchill for the decades-long tyranny of Central Europe by Communist rulers. This is true, to a point. Had the Allies not bothered to confront the Germans in 1939 and afterwards, the Communists would have been checked in their ambitions towards Europe and their moves in China and Southeast Asia may have been curtailed as well. Tens of millions would have avoided death in political concentration camps and hundreds of millions could have retained their dignity as free people in the wake of the post-World War II settlement.

However, this analogy does not hold as the American and British leaders in the 1940s were aware of and accepted the consequences of their deal with the devil, Stalin. They didn't want it, but they saw no alternative, given the global situation at the time. Oh, we can quibble and suggest that US forces could have pushed on to Berlin instead of stopping in central Germany or maybe the Allies could have followed Churchill's advice and invaded southern Europe and thereby prevented Soviet troops from occupying everything from Poland to Bulgaria, but the point still stands. The Western Allies knew that their choices would lead to the domination of half of Europe by radical forces intent on remaking humanity in their own image, an image carrying a cost in human lives which makes the efforts of Al Qaeda and the ISIS look like child's play. In contrast, even though the leaders of the Iraq War are accused the world over of being somewhere between dangerously incompetent and maniacally evil, no one is yet claiming that Bush and Blair knew and accepted that today's headlines would result from their actions the way Roosevelt and Churchill countenanced Communist oppression.

Instead I think the better parallel would be somewhere been bad cooking and worse medical practice. If you decided to make dinner one evening and set about to collect your ingredients and follow your recipe, your plan might work well or it might not. If left to yourself and your meal turned out to taste like rotten skunk, it would be fair of others to blame the cook. If, however, I came along and told you that you were doing it all wrong and proceeded to change your recipe and alter your ingredients, it'd be rather odd if I then complained about outcome.

Or, to use a more visceral illustration, suppose two doctors disagreed about the proper procedure for a given patient. One thinks that an invasive procedure like surgery is the best course of action, while the other feels a milder, more indirect approach is better. Let's say the first doctor succeeds in performing the surgery, but complications arise. Some of these are expected, but others are not. The second doctor now takes over and not only institutes his preferred treatments but also works to undo the work of his predecessor. He removes the stitches put in place earlier and alters the medication to what he wanted before the surgery occurred. Inevitably and tragically the result would be that the patient would likely now be in a far worse situation than before any intervention. 

Right now the critics of Bush's policy are saying "I told you so!" but I would suggest it would almost be better if they said, "We made it so!" Both the Leftist and Libertarian factions claim that had their advice been followed, the mess of the Middle East would be far more bearable than it presently is today. They look to the 2003 invasion as the first domino setting in motion the current crisis. Few are so foolish as to think the Arab World would be a picnic, but they see the Iraq War as making it all far, far worse.

But they are forgetting something here. To continue with the domino analogy, they are forgetting that the tiles have been rearranged in the past few years. They are forgetting that starting in 2009 a new recipe was followed and a new procedure was put in place. The plans and protections enacted by Bush were drastically altered or even removed. Rather than acting as a proactive force in the world which could be relied upon, US policy became far less engaged with the world and far more likely to withdraw in the face of hostility.

The foreign policy of the Obama administration has hardly been akin to what Libertarians would want in the world today. They're not even what his fellow Leftists would have wanted. And they certainly aren't what the conservatives among us longed for. Reversing TR's adage, this administration seems prone to talk loudly and carry a small stick, make big speeches but signal withdrawal from the world. However, what is pertinent to this question, the question blaming Bush for the debacle in Iraq, is that the strategy employed in the last five years has been nothing like what Bush himself would have wanted.

Does Bush bear some of the blame for the mess of the last decade? Certainly. What is more is that he admits as much. Specifically he admitted as much in action in 2006 when he reversed his emphasis on a light footprint and a reactive force in the face of intense terrorist attacks in Iraq. Sacking much of his command staff, he worked to take the fight to the enemy. As a result violence in the nation slackened dramatically. A real hope of peace was on the horizon, only to have these hard-won dreams dissipate with hope and change. Bush took the blame for his actions and then worked to reverse his errors. The champions of withdrawal pass the buck for their choices and double down on non-intervention.

Liberal Logic

Conservatives like myself are often puzzled when they hear their Liberal friends rail against the manipulative nature of Talk Radio and Fox News while they listen raptly to the latest NPR or CNN broadcast as if the latter two were pure as the driven snow. To help aid us in this confusing paradox, I’ve developed a list of rules that we must understand if we’re ever to fathom the ways of our fellow man (or woman).

A. A boisterous Conservative rally is “angry.”

B. A boisterous Liberal rally is “passionate.”


A. Conservative legislation that doesn’t achieve its goals is proof that it shouldn’t have been the law in the first place.

B. Liberal legislation that doesn’t achieve its goals is proof that the law didn’t go far enough the first time around.


A. Conservative politicians who play the system to stall a vote are “obstructionist.”

B. Liberal politicians who play the system to stall a vote are “principled.”


A. Conservative Presidents who use Executive privileges to enact policy are “setting aside the Constitution.”

B. Liberal Presidents who use Executive privileges to enact policy are “getting things done.”


A. Conservatives who point out the dangers of policy X are “fear mongering.”

B. Liberals who point out the dangers of policy Y are “raising awareness.”


A. Conservative candidates who call attention to their opponents’ foibles and unsavory associates are “distracting from the issues.”

B. Liberal candidates who call attention to their opponents’ foibles and unsavory associates are “demanding accountability.”


A. A Conservative politician whose de-regulation measures foster a dramatic decrease in the unemployment rate is “captive to business interests.”

B. A Liberal politician whose regulation measures foster a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate is “devoted to the common man.”


A. A Conservative President who goes to war with Congressional authorization, a multinational coalition, and tries to get UN approval is “a dangerous unilateralist.”

B. A Liberal President who goes to war without consulting either the Congress or the UN is a “global leader.”


A. Speaking derisively about a Conservative politician is a wonderful example of America’s freedom of speech and anyone who objects needs to get a sense of humor.

B. Speaking derisively about a Liberal politician is a sign of what’s wrong with America’s political discourse and anyone who objects needs to stop being so hateful.


A. An ambiguous statement by a Conservative politician should be assumed to have the most egregious meaning.

B. An ambiguous statement by a Liberal politician should be assumed to have the most innocuous meaning.


A. When Conservatives invoke the Bible to support their cause they are “religious” and are confusing the line between church and state.

B. When Liberals invoke the Bible to support their cause they are “spiritual” and bringing morality into the political realm.


A. Agreeing with a Conservative politician’s actions is to display your inability to think for yourself.

B. Agreeing with a Liberal politician’s actions is to display your ability to think outside the box.


I’m sure that some of my more liberally minded friends (or those who’d prefer to think of themselves as moderate) will object that 1) Conservatives are guilty of the same things and 2) Conservatives are guilty of other things. That is all well and good, and if you feel like coming up with your own list of Conservative failings, that’d be fine by me. There’s plenty of material for you.

But let me ask you, how does the myopia and inconsistency of Conservatives negate in any way the myopia and inconsistency of Liberals? One of my biggest grievances with Liberals is that while they go about making such a big deal about how tolerant and open-minded they are, anyone who spends any time around them will soon discover that they are anything but.

In my own experience I have heard as much (if not more) examples of intolerance of dissent, demeaning of opposition characters, and Lemming-like activity from Liberals than I have from their Conservative neighbors. To this is added their audacity to preen about their unbiased attitudes, respect for others, and independence of thought.

So long as any of us keeps pretending that we are without flaws today and without the potential for flaws tomorrow, then so long will discourse, political or otherwise, be tainted with rancor and self-righteousness.

Doing the Math

Perhaps someone else can correct my "math" and I simply haven't seen it correctly, but there have been a couple of rather interesting implications in the news in the past week that have made me wonder. It is not so much the events themselves, though they are compelling enough. It is more what they say about an apparently discredited political philosophy.

It has become axiomatic in popular culture and in the media that if George W Bush had been for a thing it must have been bad. Often following hard upon this point is the corollary that if something is bad that W must have had something to do with it. I'm not planning on arguing here that everything he did was good or that nothing he did was bad. However, we can't very well say that we've thought the matter through if we don't take into account what would otherwise have to be some rather remarkable coincidences recently.

The first is rather subtle. The North Koreans, for reasons that never seem apparent to anyone, occasionally go on saber-rattling fests where they challenge the rest of the world with utter destruction like some odd combination of Dr Evil and Cobra Commander. Its most recent incarnation has involved the threat of launching of a new missile that could possibly reach out as far as the Aloha state. Since they have apparently acquired nuclear weapons, this poses a more serious threat than their past ramblings.

Yesterday, on MSNBC, a local newswoman was interviewed about the attitude of the Hawaiians in the face of the newest danger. She reported that the people weren't particularly worried in part because of the assurances of President Obama about our military capabilities and the increased presence of said military forces. As an example MSNBC showed pictures of one of the United States's giant domed radar ships watching and waiting for any incoming threat.

The other oddity has been splayed all over the news for the past week and more. The Iranians have presented Americans with a gift. A riot in the Middle East where we are not the object of hatred or even have much to do with the argument. Young people who've grown up under a theocratic tyranny are risking (and losing) their lives in a demand for democracy that soon could be more of a revolution than a simple protest.

Here's where I get puzzled. During his administration President Bush (43) was railed at unceasingly for his cowboy, unilateral tactics. Exhibit 'A' was early in his first term when his abrogated the Ballistic Missile treaty with the Russian Federation enabling him to establish at long last a mini-me version of President Reagan's so-called 'Star Wars' defense program. Instead of a massive, space-based missile shield, the United States would now field a few dozen anti-missile missiles in the Pacific and in Europe designed to counter limited threats from 'Rogue Regimes.'

In the same way W was decried for his naive proposal about challenging hostile states by enabling democracy in Iraq. His proposal was that when the populations in neighboring countries saw the Iraqis practicing free elections that this would lead them to wonder why they couldn't have such rights too. Then, with more opportunities for free expression in their own lands, the people would have less need to express themselves violently overseas.

So now, in the past week or so, we have seen Obama tout Bush's missile defense program and the protection Bush claimed it would despite the fact that the Democrats swore it never could, and we've seen a Middle Eastern tyranny be rocked by protests from its people demanding free and fair democracy just as Bush promised and not as the Democrats long denied.

If people want to go on thinking that Bush was the worst President in history, that is fine, but what will they make of this? Bush said he wanted to create a missile shield, and the Left said it would make things worse. Now, we have the protection and the Left thinks its all a great idea. Bush said fostering democracy in Iraq would lead to democracy movements in neighboring, hostile regimes. Now we have a massive democracy movement in neigbhoring, hostile Iran. Am I missing something here? or did maybe, just maybe, W got his math right?

by Timothy Padgett

Reasons and Romance

A lot of the time when I tell people that I am not among the horde planning on voting for Senator Obama, I am greeted with a quizzical expression. Apparently, the fact that I come across as mildly well-informed and somewhat well-intentioned doesn't equate in their minds with voting for Senator McCain. So as to alleviate some of their disequilibrium, I thought I'd offer some of the reasons I have for my irrational choice.

For one thing, I just don't get it. I'll grant anyone that he's a charming speaker, but if a pleasant persona were the criteria for the Presidency we'd all be voting for Tom Hanks and be done with it. Beyond this, I'm just not seeing what sets him apart from the rest of the gang. His policies, when he isn't off writing yet another autobiography and shows up to vote, are a part of the same Left-wing as a whole gaggle of others. He is a consistent Left-winger who votes with the Left-wing and hangs out with an even more Left-wing. I'm a conservative, ergo, I don't want him for the job.

I can understand the Left in America liking him, considering that he is one of them, but I don't get what the Center sees in this guy. What bothers me about so many of these Centrists is that they don't seem to know what they see in him either. They tell me that he'll bring the change we need to Washington. When I ask them to tell me what part of his record demonstrates that he even can bring about this change or that it is the change we need, they come up short on specifics. Now we can't be too hard on them. It's not their fault that he's done so little.

I'm told they want him in the White House because he understands their values. Really? How do you know that? He says so in his speeches? Call me crazy, but isn't that kind of what politicians are supposed to do? It's not like there's someone out there saying that you should elect him because he doesn't feel your pain. I haven't seen anything in what he's done to support all his pretty rhetoric, and no one who supports him has told me much either.

I'm not quite sure how to handle those whose first justification for supporting my Senator is that anything will be better than what we have now. Am I supposed to take that comment seriously? You think anyone would be better? If so, why don't you vote for me? I'm different! Aside from the fact that I won't be old enough until April, you'd be crazy to vote for someone so unqualified as me for the Presidency no matter how nice a guy you thought I was.

I am amazed about one thing concerning Obama. Apparently, it is impossible to have a valid criticism about him. It seems that anytime anyone brings up a point where he looks bad it turns out that that person is all about destructive politics. What an amazing coincidence! Obama can't be held accountable for going to a racist church for 20 years, but the unsolicited endorsement of an anti-Catholic pastor says something disturbing about McCain. When his supporters say spiteful things about the GOP candidates it's because they are passionate, but when angry words come from the Right, then they are just being hateful.

Now my final excuse for avoiding logic is one that a lot of his conservative supporters seem to want to push to the periphery. They tell me Evangelicals, like myself, need to show our independence as a group from the GOP by voting as a group for the Dems. They tell me that we need to get beyond single-issue voting choice and examine the whole range of issues.

Fair enough on the surface, but tell me this. If a candidate had consistently voted to maintain the privileges of companies willfully responsible for deaths of huge numbers of children, how would this affect your vote? If the police or military were systematically using kids as target practice and seemed to favor doing so with minorities, would you say this was the way to go? Senator Obama has consistently supported such a scheme that has killed not 4,000 or 40,000 but 40,000,000 plus. Is this the change you can believe in? Is this your hope? If this is not a single issue worth making or breaking your support, what would it take?

I don't want him for the job because he is spectacularly unqualified for the position, I don't think his policies are well-founded, and he is promising more than I see he has reason to vouch for. My question for the Centrist is this: What is it in Senator Obama's policies and record (and I mean record, not rhetoric) that distinguishes him from the rest of the crowd? Disagree with me if you want. If you're convinced he's the man for the job, then more power to you. If you agree with his voting record, then you should vote for someone who agrees with you. We ALL want a better world. Who's has the better chance of moving towards that right now?

Finding Yourself at Church

Like most American church kids, I grew up going to Wednesday night church each week. For much of this time it was all an unmitigated misery as we were compelled to participate in choir activities and then rebuked for not displaying the proper enthusiasm. Granted, there were plenty of us who somehow enjoyed spending the evening singing songs when we could have been playing hide-and-seek or other pleasant diversions, but I just thought those folks were weird.

Needless to say I was greatly pleased when we finally reached the age when we were deemed worthy of activities more interesting than becoming cannon fodder for off-key “show off to your parents” performances. One of the first times where I recall my own individuality being taken into consideration was when they gave us a “Spiritual Gifts” test. For those who don’t know, these tests are basically personality tests that help you figure out what sort of things you are best at or interested in. Armed with this knowledge you can then know how your particular skill set can contribute to the overall community. I can spend my life looking up obscure points of historical interest while my friend Sarah Catherine can continue to enjoying singing as much as she did when we were in choir together twenty-five years ago.

On the one hand, this whole approach makes a whole lot of sense. Taking these sorts of tests helps you distill out from your own desires and the expectations of others what kind of role you can play in the church as you grow up. This is an integral part of the Christian message. Any group of people will have a mix of gifts within it that each will be necessary for healthy growth and life and none of these gifts can be seen as fundamentally greater or lesser than another since they all depend on one another. To put it fancily, what is functionally hierarchical is ontologically egalitarian. (Big words are fun!)

On the other hand, there are some ways in which this focus on an individual’s own interests and practical abilities is open to a peculiarly American form of misunderstanding. We Americans are a very practical people. We are very good at getting things done. It might not be the right thing all the time, but we sure are going to find a way to do it, dammit! Our focus on functionality and the bottom line is one of the key things, for good or ill, that has made us so influential in the world.

In addition to this we are incurable romantics. We believe wholeheartedly that deep down in our hearts we can just know what we need to do. If I have a longing to do this or that, then surely this is what God wants me to do. We have trouble with the idea that it could ever be a good thing to do something as our life’s work that does not resonate with something deep within. Our love for the individual’s quest to find himself in the world leads us to pay attention internal impressions and the practical ability to do given task.

I begin to get antsy when I wonder how consistent our connection between interest/skills and calling is with examples of calling as seen in the Bible. We tend to seek for ourselves and suggest to others that their proper role for God in this life can be found by looking to our practical abilities and within our hearts at what we most enjoy doing. How often in the many biblical accounts of someone being called to an office or even a temporary role is that person’s practical qualifications or even desire to perform the thing in question even mentioned?

The focus in the Bible is much more on the incompetence and unwilling nature of the “hero” than on his ability and eagerness. Even when, with our 20/20 hindsight, we can look back and see how a Moses or a Peter was able to accomplish some great deed for God, is there any mention or real expectation at the time of their calling that they could even do the thing asked of them? Is there any suggestion that an Abraham or an Amos enjoyed the tasks given to them? Or that they had always felt the call towards it? If these things are not the priority in the Bible, then should we really put so much focus on them ourselves?

A Souring Sensation

When I was growing up in Nashville the people living next to our house were rabid fans of the University of Tennessee. As anyone who’s met a UT fan can assure you, there is something about such fans that can go well beyond mere mania. My neighbors were so incredibly excited about their boys in orange that they have forever turned me against my native state’s most prominent college team. Having their fight song Rocky Top screamed at you is somehow not endearing.

It’s not as though I now intellectually believe that there is something wrong with the Volunteers. They are neither more nor less moral a sports franchise than any of the other “amateur” athletes. But after years of their garish insistence on the superiority of all things that lovely shade of orange I cannot emotionally bring myself to side with them. The obnoxiousness of that advocacy has forever soured UT in my mind.

Years later I encountered another sort of fan. This kind is not nearly so annoying but still manages to turn my allegiance away from the focus of their team-loyalty. It’s like this. Have you ever been watching a game with some friends where you go into it not caring who wins? You could be just as easily persuaded to go along with your friends as to root to the other guy. Yet the more you listen to your buds, the more you want the other guy to win.

I remember one particular time watching a college basketball game. Neither team was “mine” so I was content (at first) at least not to cheer against my friends. Tragically, my resilience was not strong enough to withstand the temptation. By the end of the game I was actively going for the other team. Unlike my UT fanatics these friends weren’t throwing their team colors in my face or even pressuring me to join them.

The problem this time was the unhinged irrationality coming from people who I could otherwise count on for their solid sensibility. Every time a ref would make a call in their favor was “about time!” since it was obviously only their due. Every time that same ref made a call against their team it was just as obviously a bad call flowing from the ref’s bias. My otherwise rational friends were sincerely convinced that the powers that be were actively working to prevent their team from winning.

From my neutral perspective I found this baffling. Despite their insistence to the contrary there simply was no greater amount of calls going against their team than those going for them. I simply could not bring myself to support their guys when they had such ephemeral reasons for doing so. If going for that team left my friends bereft of their faculties I didn’t think that was the course for me.

This sort of counter reaction spills out from sporting events into the real world combat of politics. Jogging through my neighborhood I have repeatedly come across a van that I really wish wasn’t there. Despite being several hundred miles north of the Mason-Dixon Line this vehicle sports a collection of Confederate flags. Whatever positive connotations the Rebel flag might have in some people’s minds there is a far more common negative feeling associated with it thanks to the boys in the KKK. For most Americans this flag is connected with ignorance and hatred.

If this were all the van was emblazoned with then it would simply be a matter of either a racist or someone unaware that everyone around him thinks he is a racist. Unfortunately for my political sympathies, this guy also has bumper stickers supporting the party and some of the particular candidates that I usually go for. I am sorely tempted to scrape off the pro-Republican stickers since I don’t want the people in this largely Hispanic neighborhood to think that to be conservative is to be racist. This guy’s obnoxiousness, just as with the UT fans, would be enough to keep me from voting his way had I not my own reasons for going for the GOP.

This souring sensation also explains part of my opposition to my Senator’s quest for the Presidency. Like with my otherwise reasonable sports fan friends, I am disturbed by the nature of some of my friends support for Obama. It is not so much that they give me reasons for doing so that I then disagree with as much as it is as they offer so little reason for supporting him in the first place.

I have heard all sorts of reasons why he should get the top job, but none of them has any specific substance to them. All I hear are platitudes about how great a communicator he is, or what a great moment it would be to have an African-American in the White House or how we all need to believe in hope. No one goes into any detail about how his words of hope and change are going be translated from rhetoric into reality. No one seems to think its important that they can’t cite anything he has done in the past as proof of what he can and will do in the future.

People talk about how he is not a part of the DC political machine, but they don’t notice that he’s been in thick with the Chicago machine. (I hope I don’t have to explain how Chicago stands in terms of political sanctity.) People talk about how he is above partisan politics and will be his own man, yet they fail to mention that his voting record shows him voting as entirely allied with one party. People say anything will be better than what we have now, but they don’t explain how this golden age is to be achieved.

A friend of mine who was for the Senator long before it was popular to do so was talking to me back at Christmas. With glowing excitement he told me of a mass message he received from the campaign. Obama, his wife, and their children were shown sitting by a warm fire. After a few holiday greetings from the candidate, the two kids then in turn said, “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Holidays.”

My friend was so enthusiastic about the cleverness of the message that for a moment I thought I’d missed something. I thought that surely my friend was not being so carried away by something no more clever than found on a greeting card. But that was it. There was nothing else. Like anyone else infatuated he had seen something amazing in the innocuous.

I can fully understand not wanting to vote for the Republicans. If I thought there was a worthwhile alternative who could actually get elected I just might do the same thing. What I do not understand is the enthusiasm of Obama’s fans. He is indeed charming and great at giving speeches that convey all sorts of happy feelings. He has a knack for getting you to want to please him. However, I’d like more reason to vote for someone to be the most powerful man in the world more substantial than a slightly more sophisticated version of “He’s just so dreamy!”