All posts by redhatrob

Bible, children's books

The Christmas Story – illustrated by a modern Renaissance artist

1 Comment

The full title is:

The Christmas Story
From the King James Bible * According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
Paintings by Gennady Spirin

It’s quite unusual to find a modern artist whose style evokes the late medieval/early renaissance style of Giotto and Fra Angelico – but Gennady Spirin is such an artist. Spirin was born in the USSR in 1948 and studied at the Academy of Arts in Moscow. He came to the US in 1991. He has won four gold medals from the Society of Illustrators in New York.

Kathy Viksjo writes in The Times on June 7, 1998:

“He incorporates Raphael’s rich color—deep gold, blue and crimson reds—together with the Italian master’s classical compositions, into many of his illustrations. The microscopic precision of his super—realism recalls Flemish great Jan Van Eyck, while Spirin’s unbelievable graphic facility is like that of German Renaissance artist, Albert Durer…Even at first glance, viewers intuitively know that this is one of the masters of our time…Spirin is like a magician, using his paint brush as a wand.”

This is not a coffee-table art book. It is a comfortable 7.5″ x 7.5″ It is a book to be read out loud with a child in your lap – slowly, allowing reader and listener to linger and marvel over the beauty of the paintings.

The text and paintings move gracefully through the familiar sections of the Christmas narrative, weaving together the passages from Luke and Matthew. Gennady works in tempera, watercolor, and pencil. He quotes from the great masters of western Christian art, but in his own distinctively delicate style.

There is the Annunciation, the Journey to Bethlehem, the angels and the shepherds, the journey of the wise men, and finally the classic iconic scene of the Adoration of the Magi. Here are four examples:

The Christmas Story has just been released by Henry Holt this month for Christmas, 2008. It is a hardback, 32 pages and may be ordered directly from Greenleaf Press for $12.95.

– Rob Shearer
Publisher, Greenleaf Press

National Politics

A tale of three secretaries

1 Comment

Here are the bios of the last two Secretaries of State, prior to their appointments.

Colin Powell

BA, City College, New York; MBA, George Washington University.

Served overseas in Germany, Viet Nam, Korea

Senior Military Advisor to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger 1983-1986

National Security Advisor, President Ronald Reagan 1987-1989

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, President George H.W. Bush 1989-1993

Condolezza Rice

BA, University of Denver, Phi Beta Kappa

MA, Political Science, Notre Dame

PhD, Political Science, University of Denver
thesis on military policy and politics in Czechoslovakia

Stanford University: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Provost
Senior Fellow, Institute for International Studies – specialist on the Soviet Union

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution

Senior Director, Soviet and East European Affairs, National Security Council – President George H.W. Bush 1989-1991

National Security Advisor, President George Bush 2001-2005

No one seems to be asking what Hillary Clinton’s qualifications for being Secretary of State are. What are they?

Hillary Rodham Clinton

BA, Wellesley College; JD, Yale Law School

Impeachment Inquiry Staff, House Judiciary Committee, 1974

Failed DC Bar exam, passed Arkansas Bar exam

Partner Rose Law Firm, Little Rock Arkansas 1977-1992

Director, Legal Services Corporation 1978-1981

First Lady, Arkansas 1978-1992

First Lady, United States 1992-2000

United States Senator, New York 2000-

She has no experience in international affairs. She has never lived overseas. She speaks no foreign language. Her most remarkable accomplishments have been to turn $1,000 into $100,000 in ten months of trading in cattle futures, and trashing her husband’s approval ratings in 1993 when she headed an ill-advised attempt to nationalize US healthcare – an issue that led to the Republicans picking up 53 seats and gaining control of the House in 1994.

Why is this woman about to be selected as the next Secretary of State?

– RedHatRob

book reviews, Civil War

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

1 Comment

Just published – The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War! This is a worthy addition to the Politically Incorrect Guides. I’ve previously reviewed the Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, and the Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature.

First, a few caveats. Neither the book (nor this post) is an apology for or a defense of slavery. I believe slavery to have been a great moral evil – and I wish it had been ended in this country earlier and with less bloodshed. But there is much more to the Civil War than simply the question of whether slavery was evil and should be abolished.

Crocker deals directly with the topic of slavery early in the book in a 12-page essay in answer to the question, “Was the war really all about slavery?”

The first sentence of his answer is, “In the sense that the South was defined by slavery, yes.” He then proceeds to qualify that answer and show that the issue is far more complex than the politically correct answer.

As an example, he quotes a famous letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greely in August 1862, in which he stated: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others also I would also do that.”

As Mr. Crocker observes, “. . . the stated aim of the Lincoln administration in 1861 was not the abolition of slavery; it was the forcible reunification of the Union.”

Both Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States) and Robert E. Lee believed that the abolition of slavery was something that would happen peaceably in due course. Lee’s opinion was that “emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity than from the storms and contests of fiery controversy.”

Crocker’s summarizes the conflict as a clash of cultures:

“The South considered the North an unprincipled money-grubbing, self-righteously intolerant leviathan, and thought of itself as a liberty-loving agricultural Sparta of gracious gentlemen, classical culture, and feudal order.

The North considered the South a backward land of hot-tempered planter-aristocrats who kept a booted heel and a master’s whip on the backs of slaves, tainted the Union with its “peculiar institution,” and dragged it into wars against Mexico only to expand its hateful “slave power.” The North, in its own view, was enlightened, practical and business-like, and consequently wealthy, forward-looking, and the obvious moral superior to a region that kept imported Africans in bondage.”

As Crocker shows, each side tended to caricature the other – which only underscores that the conflict (although it involved slavery as a central issue) was about much more than slavery. Crocker argues, convincingly, that the war was fought, not to free the slaves (though in the end, it resulted in their freedom), but to forcibly prevent the Southern states from peaceably seceding.

The majority of the book is not about why the war was fought, but devoted to retelling the course of the war from the Southern perspective. There are two chapters which tell The History of the War in Sixteen Battles You Should Know. These are well worth the read.

This is followed by nine chapters which are admirable biographies of the leading generals on both sides. Southern generals sketched are Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Stonewall Jackson, and A.P. Hill. But there are also chapter length biographies of the Union generals George H. Thomas (introduced with the wry comment that “some of the best Union generals were southerners”), William Tecumseh Sherman, Ulysses S. Grant, and George McClellan.

Part IV of the book is a fascinating study of cavalry officers Wade Hampton, Philip Sheridan, J.E.B. Stuart and George Armstrong Custer.

Part V, titled Beating Retreat is an extended essay on the topic, What If the South Had Won? Crocker composes a remarkable speech that Lincoln might have given, but tragically didn’t, that begins:

We part as friends. We hope to reunite as friends. There will be no coercion of the Southern states by the people of the North. No state shall be kept in the Union against its will . . . but we ask the Southern states, to which we are bound by mystic chords of memory and affection, that they reconsider their action., If not now, then later, when the heat of anger has subsided, when they have seen the actions of this administration work only for the good of the whole and not for the partisan designs of a few; when this administration shows by word and deed that it is happy to live within the confines of the Constitution, that we will admit of no interference in the stabled institutions of the several states. I trust that by our demeanor, by our character, by our actions, by our prosperity and our progress we will prove to our separated brethren that we should again be more than neighbors, we should be more than friends, we should in fact be united states, for a house united is far stronger, will be far more prosperous, and will be far happier than a house divided, a house rent asunder by rancor, a house that undermines its very foundations by separation.
To the people of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Arkansas, I have a special message. I tell you that this government will raise no arms against the states of the Southern Confederacy. We will wage no war of subjugation against these states. And I confirm, yet again, that I have neither the right, nor the power, nor the desire to abolish slavery within these states or any other where it is lawfully established. What I do desire, as do all Northern states, is that we be once again a nation united in peace, amity, and common government. Let us through prayer and good graces work to achieve that end. I ask that all good men of the United States, and those now separated from us, work peaceably to achieve the reconciliation that is our destiny and our hope. Four score years ago we created a new nation, united in principle. I pray that sharing the same God, the same continent, and the same destiny, we might unite again in common principle and common government.”

If Lincoln had not gone to war to keep the Southern states from seceding, would they have one day returned and reunited with the Union peaceably? We will never know. We do know what waging war to prevent secession cost – and it was far more than Lincoln, or anyone else, expected.

Included as an Afterword to this volume is an essay by Jefferson Davis which he composed for his own history of the Confederacy. It is worth reading if one wants to understand what motivated the Southern states to secede and to fight for their independence.

The Politically Incorrect Guides are intended for college students as a balance and useful corrective to the usual bill of fare in politically correct textbooks, but they could be profitably read by high school students who are studying this important period of history. This Guide will also serve as a thought-provoking read for parents and all those interested in better understanding what is still one of the central facts of the history of the United States, the Civil War.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War is a paperback, 370 pages. Like all of the Politically Incorrect Guides, it sells for $19.95 and may be ordered directly from Greenleaf Press by clicking on the links in this message.

– Rob Shearer
Publisher, Greenleaf Press
Director, Schaeffer Study Center

There are a number of other Politically Incorrect Guides. They are well-written, well-researched, and well documented. Each serves as a useful corrective to the overwhelming cultural bias that our current textbooks suffer from. We’ve decided at Greenleaf to carry them all. Here are all 15 of the titles:

Or you can order the Complete Politically Correct Library – all 15 titles – for $250 – a 16% discount (that’s like getting two books free!)

Uncategorized

Reapportionment & Redistricting 101

2 Comments

Every ten years, the federal government conducts a census. The federal government does this because the Constitution requires it (in Article I, Section 2, clause 3). After the census in 2010, the federal government will apportion the 435 congressional seats among the fifty states. According to the latest projections, 29 states (including Tennessee) are not expected to change at all; 9 states will gain representatives (with TX gaining 4!); 12 states will lose representatives (NY & OH each losing 2). Net gain +7 for the Red states by the way – an important detail for the 2012 & 2016 presidential contests.

But reapportioning the 435 Congressman among the 50 states will be only half the census impact (and it’s the easy and straightforward half).

After each state is told how many Congress critters it will half, each state legislature will draw Congressional District boundaries within its state. How those boundaries are drawn is left totally up to the states (with a few caveats from the voting rights act which requires the creation of majority black districts where there is a large enough population in the state to support them).

The census data will be made available in April 2011, and most of the state legislatures will adopt their new congressional boundaries in the first half of 2012, just barely in time for the November 2012 congressional elections, which will have filing dates as early as April.

Tennessee has nine Congressman now and that number is not likely to change. Five of our nine Congressman are currently Democrats and four are Republicans (David Davis, Duncan, Wamp, & Blackburn).

But, isn’t Tennessee a RED state? Yes it is, as you can see from the last three presidential races:

2008 McCain beat Obama 57%-42%
2004 Bush beat Kerry 57%-42%
2000 Bush beat Gore 51%-47%

So how does a RED state end up with more Democratic congressman than Republican? Through the magic of redisctricting. Here’s how it works:

Imagine a state with 100 voters, 54 Red and 46 Blue, and 10 congressional districts.

How many of the ten congressional districts can be created as majority RED?

Answer: Nine

By assigning 10 Blue Voters to D10 and carefully distributing the remaining Red Voters, we can create 9 out of 10 congressional districts as RED districts. D10 will be the safest of safe BLUE Congressional districts, but the other nine should be reliably RED.

Using the SAME data, from the SAME state, without altering the percentages (54-46), how many BLUE congressional districts (out of ten) could be created?

Answer: Seven

D8, D9, & D10 will be very safe RED Congressional Districts, but D1-D7 should be reliably BLUE. Note that under the second scheme, the Democrats would hold 7 out of 10 seats, even though they are a minority party when the total statewide vote is considered.

Now do you understand why Marsha Blackburn’s district stretches from the Republican suburbs south of Nashville to the Republican suburbs east of Memphis?

Although the Democrats have been the minority party through the last three presidential elections in Tennessee, their clever districting scheme from 2002 has insured that they hold 5 of the 9 Congressional seats (instead of only 3 or 4).

In 2012, a competent demographer, with the population statistics and voting history by county and precinct, should be able to easily construct a congressional map for Tennessee that leaves Steve Cohen as a Democrat in Memphis, Jim Cooper as a Democrat in Nashville, and perhaps one other Democratic enclave in Knoxville. The other six Congressional seats should then be Republican.

If the Republicans keep control of the state legislature in the next election cycle (2010), and if they are as ruthless
thoughtful & wise clever as the Democrats, then Republicans should pick up two, and perhaps even three Congressional seats in Tennessee in the 2012 elections (going from the four current to perhaps 6 or 7 of the nine total).

By the way, the creation of “safe” districts for both parties explains why there is so little turnover in Congress.

Here endeth the lesson on re-apportionment and re-districting.

– Rob Shearer (aka RedHatRob)

Modern History

Modern Times, Stravinsky & Dr. Zhivago

1 Comment

Every year for the past eight years, I have been teaching a course to high school seniors on Western Civilization from 1870 to the present. Every year for the past eight years, once we reach 1920, the text I have assigned for the course has been Paul Johnson’s Modern Times.

And every year for the past eight years as I re-read the text, I am astonished at what a tour-de-force Johnson’s history is. There simply is no other treatment of the 20th century which combines a narrative of events with a close analysis of the importance of ideas and worldview. Johnson clearly articulates a moral vision of the twentieth century in which the villains are those who perversely embody the “will to power” and who attempt to use political power to build “despotic utopias.”

This year, for the first two chapters, I found short video clips which I have been able to use effectively in class.

Johnson’s first chapter, A Relativistic World, focuses on the impact of Einstein & Freud (and to a lesser extent Marx & Nietzsche) on the popular mind from 1900-1920. He mentions, as one example of the widespread appeal & impact of moral relativism, the premier performance of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, commissioned by Sergei Diaghilev for the Ballets Russes of Paris, and choreographed by Nijinksy. The premier audience found the dance & music so provocative that a riot erupted among the audience as supporters and opponents of the piece attacked each other violently. The Paris Police were called before the first intermission and had difficulty restoring order. Part of the audience’s outrage was the staccato, dissonant nature of Stravinsky’s music, part was outrage at the jerky, non-traditional movements of the dancers choreographed by Nijinksky, and part was outrage at the storyline which tells of the pagan sacrifice of a virgin necessary to usher in spring.

It turns out that in 1987, the Joffrey Ballet recreated this 1913 premier performance using the original sets, costumes, and choreography.

AND, there is a YouTube video of the performance!

The first three minutes of the piece are melodically deceptive – and then the fun begins! My students watched with close attention, and understood the significance of the performance in a much deeper way than could be achieved simply by reading a description.

The second chapter in Modern Times is entitled, The First Despotic Utopias. Most histories of the twentieth century move rapidly from the end of World War One to the rise of Hitler in Germany. Johnson tells the story is greater detail and provides a much deeper understanding of the developments that preceded, foreshadowed, set the example, and paved the way for Hitler. The first despotic utopias were Russia under Lenin, and Italy under Mussolini. Lenin ruled Russia from the Revolution in 1917 until his death in 1922. Mussolini (who had been a socialist before World War One, and who studied Lenin’s revolution closely) sent his 40,000 blackshirt militiamen marching on Rome in October of 1922. Mussolini in the 1920’s was an impressive figure in world politics. Lenin’s Russia was widely admired in the European and American press for having achieved an economic miracle and laid the foundations for a “worker’s paradise.”

The successes of Lenin in 1917 and Mussolini in 1922 were what led Hitler to attempt to seize power in Munich in November, 1923. Without studying Lenin and Mussolini, one cannot understand why Hitler acted as he did, or what he hoped to achieve.

My students were puzzled by Lenin’s seizure of power. They had a hard time understanding how such a small party of communists wound up overthrowing the Tsar, the Duma, and seizing control of the Russian government.

In response to their questions, I played for them the following clip from Dr. Zhivago, which vividly illustrates the tactics of the communists in infiltrating the Tsarist army, encouraging desertion, mutiny, and the murder of the officers. After watching the clip, my students understood much better how and why the Revolution started in Russia.

The clip compresses the whole history of Russia’s involvement in World War One to about seven minutes. The opening monologue (by Alec Guiness playing a party member) is stunning:

“In bourgeoisie terms it was a war between the Allies and Germany. In Bolshevik terms it was a war between the Allied and German upper classes, and which of them won was a matter of indifference. I was ordered by the party to enlist. I gave my name as Petrov. They were shouting for victory all over Europe, praying for victory to the same God. My task, the party’s task, was to organize defeat. From defeat would spring the Revolution and the Revolution would be victory for us. The party looked to the conscript business. Most of them were in their first good pair of boots. When the boots wore out they’d be ready to listen. When the time came I was able to take three battalions with me out of the front line. The best days work I ever did.”

The clip shows starkly the anguish of the 900 mile Russian front and the suffering of the Russian army. By the second winter of the war, the boots had worn out. It then shows an encounter between a group of deserters and a company of replacements being led by their officers to the front. The deserters entice the replacements to join them. When they officers attempt to rally the troops, they are murdered.

From there it was just a matter of using the officer-less deserters to seize factories and city councils, and in a few short weeks, the entire Russian government.

My students understood.

– Rob Shearer
Publisher, Greenleaf Press
Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Ancient history

Learning from Civilization

3 Comments

That would be the computer strategy game, Civilization III by Sid Meier.

It’s my favorite computer strategy game. I take great delight in starting a new game, exploring the artificial world (which is hidden and unknown to you as a player until you send units to explore or trade maps with another civilization after you have come into contact with them).

And of course, there is the thrill of conquering the world. There’s a fascination for the game that is widespread. The tasks, conflicts, and obstacles are crude approximations of the historical development of the world’s major powers. You start in 3000 BC and most games end before 2000AD. Turns represent 100 years at first, then slow down until they represent 10, then 5, then a single year. Mastering technology gives a civilization advantages in several ways. Making contact with other civilizations and trading goods and ideas with them can jump-start your civilization. Still going strong now, six years after its release in 2002.

Here’s a summary of “lessons” gleaned (which I think are strangely applicable to the real world):

  • Explore the unknown early and aggressively.
  • Seize the high ground early (But do not overextend).
  • Be patient.
  • Achieve a balanced advance scientifically, militarily, culturally.
  • Trade opportunistically (but don’t give away your secrets).
  • Forge strategic alliances.
  • Concentrate your forces.
  • When you fight, use overwhelming force.
  • Battles/campaigns always take longer and cause you more losses than you expect.

– Rob Shearer

2008 Election

Pray for those who are in authority

1 Comment

1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,

2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy, Chapter 2:1-4

2008 Election

Why have McCain & Obama spent so much time in PA?

1 Comment

Because it is legitimately in play.

I am convinced the polls are faulty this year. Lots of others have analyzed them, but the basic critique boiled down is that faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions. The polls are a mathematical model. There are two ways they can err. If the data collected and input into the model is inaccurate, the model will yield inaccurate results. If the data are accurate, but the model does not accurately represent the election day total universe voter behavior, likewise the results will be inaccurate.

These two sources of error are in addition to the normal statistical problems of sampling errors and confidence limits. And the errors in both categories are biased in favor of democrats.

Data collection errors are rife this year. High refusal rates, deliberate deception by respondents, self-selection bias based on enthusiasm for a candidate, gaps between intent to vote and actual voting behavior, interviewer bias, shy voters, etc. Don’t even get me started on the Bradley effect.

Model errors won’t be known until after election day, but all of the pollsters have made changes in their turnout models because they are predicting that voter behavior will be different in 2008 from 2004. Ironically the massive numbers of ACORN fraudulent registrations tend to bias the polling results – because pollsters weight their results based upon the ratio of voters registered as democrats vs. voters registered as republicans.

The youth vote. Bottom line: youths do not vote. James Carville has been famously quoted as saying that there is a name for those candidates who depend upon the youth vote: “LOSERS!”

Back to Pennsylvania:

Gore won Pennsylvania by 3.5% in 2000 (205,000 votes).

Kerry won Pennsylvania by 2.5% in 2004 (140,000 votes)

Who in the class of readers today believes that Obama will be a stronger candidate in Pennsylvania than Gore or Kerry?

Class? Class? Anyone? Bueller?

Bitter. Clinging. Guns. Religion. Joe-the-Plumber. Bankrupting coal.

McCain takes Pennsylvania.

Game over.

Congratulations to John S. McCain, 44th President of the United States.

– RedHatRob

Hat tip to SeanMalstrom who has done a much more detailed analysis.

book reviews

We the People

Leave a comment

We the People
The Story of Our Constitution
by Lynn Cheney, paintings by Greg Harlin

It is hard for us not to idealize the founding fathers. It is hard for us to put ourselves in their frame of mind. We know that the Republic endured. We know that the peaceful transfer of executive power has been faithfully observed for 220 years across the administrations of 43 presidents. The authors of the constitution were, in fact, embarking on a great experiment in government. Since the overthrow of the Roman Republic in 44 BC, no nation had been able to govern itself without kings, nobles, or warlords. By 1787, six years after Yorktown, and four years after the peace treaty signed with Great Britain, the confederation of former English colonies in North America was failing.

Here is the remarkable introduction by Lynne Cheney:

“When 1787 began, our young country was in turmoil. The central government was unable to pay off debts, there was armed insurrection in Massachusetts, and foreign governments were taking advantage of our weakness. The question of the hour, James Madison wrote, was ‘whether the American experiment was to be a blessing to the world or to blast forever the hopes which the republican cause had inspired.’

The framers of the Constitution made it a blessing, creating a new and stronger American union and flying in the face of prevailing wisdom as they did so. In the eighteenth century, representative government in a nation of vast scale was thought impossible, a recipe for chaos and confusion; but an extended republic based on popular sovereignty was exactly what the Constitution created in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 envisaged. The government based upon it has now endured more than 220 years.

The story of our founding document is an important one for our children to know. It is a tale of persistence, as delegates kept on despite obstacles that at times made their task seem impossible. It is a tale of creativity, with the delegates providing a framework for a government entirely new. It is also a story that makes clear there was nothing inevitable about the Constitution that emerged from the Philadelphia convention. History might have gone otherwise but for the framers’ genius, and we should be grateful for James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and the others who gathered in Philadelphia. We should be grateful as well for men and women such as Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Martin Luther King Jr., who in later centuries took up the work of the founders, making the union formed in 1787 the more perfect one we know today.”

Cheney tells the story in a simple, straight-forward style. The proposal to separate the powers of government into three branches, the fierce debate and compromise over equal votes for each state or proportional representation in the legislative assembly; the call for a chaplain and prayer made by Franklin; and the debate over who would ratify the Constitution. The text has a quotation from a founder on almost every page that provides further insight into the issues. The paintings focus on the characters of the delegates. Gestures, glances, frowns, and extravagant gestures help the reader to understand the fierceness of the debates. There is a marvelous painting on one page of Washington taking the day off to go fishing and another that shows Franklin entertaining visitors in his garden.

The text overall is middle to upper elementary. The large illustrations will capture the attention of younger children if the text is read to them.

We the People by Lynne Cheney is a hardback, 40 pages, full color, $17.99 directly from Greenleaf Press.

– Rob Shearer
Publisher, Greenleaf Press
Director, Schaeffer Study Center