Jonathan's blog

Tralfaz picked up a second-straight win this week despite the Steelers giving so many gifts (sacks, fumbles, interceptions) to my opponent's defense. He had even worse luck with Grossman and Berrian from the Bears.

From an article of the same title by Ricardo Baca in the Denver Post:

Much of Christian music's integration into the pop culture mainstream comes via the rockers who happen to be Christian - as opposed to the Christian rockers who wear their faiths on their sleeves and crosses around their necks. Each group of musicians is writing about what makes them tick, but one crafts its art with more subtlety, yet its intentions are never fully hidden by metaphor.

Is it a conversion tool? Or is it simply art? Indie rockers from Dave Bazan (Pedro the Lion), Jeremy Enigk (The Fire Theft, Sunny Day Real Estate), Jeff Mangum (Neutral Milk Hotel) and Sufjan Stevens have developed secular followings regardless of their faiths - and it's not always an easy road with certain listeners turned off by any mention of a god. Which is where Page France comes in. The Maryland band's music is soft and sweet, melodic and melancholy, literate and lush - and heavily laced with Christian symbols, ideals and history.

"David Bazan from Pedro the Lion won't even say he's a Christian because of what (evangelical Christianity) has come to mean culturally," said Beaujon. "Part of the cost of the political polarization is that Christianity has become a really loaded term, and it's hard for people to reconcile the basic fact that rock 'n' roll came out of the church."

Many bands, including The Fray, who hail from Denver and are enjoying nationwide popularity, purposefully avoid religious issues in their music regardless of their devout faith. Other musicians' message is a baseball bat to the head. Then there are those in the middle - Page France, Stevens, Bazan & Co. - whose moderate approach leaves them scrutinized from both sides. "Dave Bazan has been pigeonholed, and I worry about Page France in the same sense," said Lewis. "Here's a band that makes beautiful music. They're just being sincere, but when you go into a public sphere, you have to be ready to deal with that."

Though I've always been an avid fan of music, I've never been an avid listener to contemporary Christian music. Pedro the Lion and Neutral Milk Hotel are two of my favorite bands ever. I listened to Page France on myspace. It sounds OK.

Last Wednesday I finished watching this documentary. From the film's page on HBO's web site:

Daniel Pearl and Omar Sheikh were both highly educated individuals from privileged backgrounds who saw the world very differently. Pearl was a humanist who became an accomplished journalist and spent most of his career reporting from the Muslim world as part of a quest to promote cross-cultural understanding. Sheikh was radicalized by events that he regarded as the global persecution of Muslims, and became an Islamic militant who chose a deeply violent method to achieve what he believed in. After 9/11, their paths crossed in Pakistan, with tragic consequences.

I remember hearing about Daniel Pearl at the time of his kidnapping and murder. I didn't realize that he was purchased from his original kidnappers by another group that filmed his murder and left his body for the original kidnappers to dispose of. Of course, this is a very sad story. I give the film 4 out of 5.

Ted Haggard resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals. An outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Haggard gave up his post "while a church panel investigates allegations he paid a man for sex." He has since admitted that he "visited a male prostitute for a massage and bought methamphetamine for personal use - though he said he threw the drugs away without using them." Today he was fired by his megachurch for "sexually immoral conduct." It's terrible timing for the environment as folks associated with the National Association of Evangelicals have recently announced a faith-based campaign on global warming. Also, please don't let these statements by James Dobson from Nov. 2 diminish his credibility in your eyes (via Dvorak Uncensored, from U.S. Newswire):

"It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation. Ted Haggard is a friend of mine and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment -- which Ted strongly supports. "He has shown a great deal of grace under these unfortunate circumstances, quickly turning this matter over to his church for an independent investigation. That is a testament to the character I have seen him exhibit over and over again through the years."

Via PreacherMike, Haggard's apology to his church is here.

You've heard about John Kerry's botched Bush insult that turned into an insult of America's service men and women, his refusal to apologize, his eventual apology...and probably saw the photo of a group of Minnesota National Guard soldiers in Iraq mocking Kerry's comments. I hoping this puts a stake in Kerry's presidential campaign plans for 2008. The more brash and snarky version of Kerry that I've seen lately is even more annoying than the one who couldn't beat Bush in '04. Via Today's Papers, Rosa Brooks in the LA Times asks the very interesting question: Was Kerry right?

SINCE John Kerry "botched" a joke and implied that those without education "get stuck in Iraq," political leaders from both parties have been piously describing U.S. troops as valiant young Einsteins in desert camouflage. But deep down, a lot of them probably think Kerry is right.

Most of our current political leaders didn't waste any time serving in the military. Like Vice President Dick Cheney, they had "other priorities." As recently as 1994, 44% of members of Congress were veterans. Today, it's only 26%. And despite the mandatory "I adore our heroic troops" rhetoric, most on Capitol Hill aren't steering their own children toward military service. Only about 1% of U.S. representatives and senators have a son or daughter in uniform.

During the Vietnam War, the controversial student deferments helped keep most affluent and educated young men out of the military, while those without college opportunities were far more likely to be drafted. Today, the military continues to attract many young men and women from less-affluent families by offering job training and scholarships. But recent studies of military demographics suggest that today's military is neither uneducated nor poor. Statistically, the enlisted ranks of the military are drawn mainly from neighborhoods that are slightly more affluent than the norm. The very poor are actually underrepresented in the military, relative to the number of very poor people in the population. That's mainly because the military won't accept the lowest academic achievers. The Army limits recruits without high school degrees to 3 1/2 % of the pool, for instance, while the Marines won't accept recruits without high school degrees. Poverty correlates strongly with high school dropout rates, so these rules significantly limit the access of the very poor to military service. At the same time, they ensure that enlisted members of the military are more likely than members of the general population to have high school degrees. The same pattern holds for commissioned officers. In 2004, for instance, only 4.2% of officers lacked college degrees, and a whopping 37% held an advanced degree of some sort, compared to only 10% of adults nationwide. The myth that the military is mainly the province of the poor and the uneducated is grossly misleading, and it's also dangerous. It obscures the far more worrisome gaps that have recently emerged between the military and civilian society. Demographically, the military is profoundly different from civilian society. It's drawn disproportionately from households in rural areas, for one thing. For another, the South and Southwest are substantially overrepresented within the military, while the Northeast is dramatically underrepresented. Compared to civilians, members of the military are significantly more religious, and they're also far more likely to be Republicans.

And though the average member of the military is neither poor nor uneducated, social and economic elites are dramatically underrepresented in the military.

If political elites don't like the thought of getting stuck in Iraq themselves, they should consider the results of a recent study. Duke University researchers Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi analyzed data from the period between 1816 and 1992 and found that "as the percentage of veterans serving in the executive branch and the legislature increases, the probability that the United States will initiate militarized disputes declines by nearly 90%." Want to make sure that the U.S. never again gets stuck in a pointless and aggressive war? Draft Congress!