My personal life is uneventful -- which is how I like it. So it's only occasionally that I find something worth noting on my personal blog. Something I noted there recently, however, sparked a train of thought. I noted how many Presbyterians there are in Korea: about 20% of the South Korean population, if I remember rightly. Yet Korea was never one of the many British colonies. India, on the other hand, was dominated by the British for centuries yet Christianity of any kind is rare there. Most Indian Christians in fact have mixed ancestry -- Anglo-Indians.
And then there is Fiji. The British presence in Fiji happened with a large degree of consent from the native Fijians -- via their traditional chiefs. Queen Victoria was simply recognized as the chief of chiefs. And Fijians to this day recognize Queen Elizabeth as their queen. And there are so many Fijians in the British army that their has been talk of putting a cap on their numbers. So what religion are the Fijians? They are almost all Methodists, and Methodists of the old school at that.
I am sure there is a moral there but I am not certain of exactly what it is yet.
And then there is another old British/Australian custom that probably prevails in America too: A sort of defiant custom. I think the most amusing example occurs in David Niven's autobiography. When he was about to graduate from Sandhurst, he was asked what regiment he would like to join. He put down: "Anything but the HLI". The Highland Light Infantry wear trews (tartan trousers) and Niven did not like that image at all. He was of course immediately posted to the HLI.
Another example of it occurred when the father of a friend of mine inadvertedly spoke with some satisfaction of his expense account. He was of course immediately told that he had to take us to dinner at a good restaurant on it -- which he was in fact glad to do, though it clearly was not an example of a work expense.
So is there an underlying principle or moral there too? I suspect that there is. An attack on hubris, maybe?
Newsweek: Republicans Are Successful Because They Scare Voters
Post below recycled from Gateway Pundit
The media onslaught against the Republicans and John McCain is officially on its way. Today's Newsweek article combines both the media's deep hatred of Republicans and love for Messiah in one piece:
While Clinton veered between playing Queen Elizabeth I and Norma Rae, Obama and his team chugged along with a superior 50-state campaign strategy, racking up the delegates. If the candidate seemed weary and peevish or a little slow to respond at times, he never lost his cool. But the real test is yet to come. The Republican Party has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower- and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. The 2008 race may turn on which party will win the lower- and middle-class whites in industrial and border states-the Democrats' base from the New Deal to the 1960s, but "Reagan Democrats" in most presidential elections since then. It is a sure bet that the GOP will try to paint Obama as "the other"-as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots (Obama is a Christian) and hangs around with America-haters.Here's some news for Newsweek: Republicans don't have to "paint" anything-- Obama's done a fine job all by himself.
(Top left clockwise) Barack and Michelle Obama and radical Leftist anti-Israel Professor Edward Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar's West Side), Former PLO operative and close friend of the Obama's Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and his racist minister Jeremiah Wright, and terrorist friend William Ayers.
To think that Republicans have to do more than lift a brush to paint Obama as "the other" guy who likes hanging around with America-haters is ridiculous. The truth speak for itself. STACLU provides of few examples of Democratic scare tactics that are more recent than 1968.
There is a great tribute to West Virginia here. It sounds like a place that I would like.
Not history alone: "Israel's fundamental right to exist doesn't derive from UN votes, or promises in the Bible, or its own Declaration of Independence. For ultimately, the right of statehood accrues only to those who can fashion and sustain a nation. "Why does the United States belong to Americans?" Yale's David Gelernter wrote in 2002. "Because we built it. We conceived the idea and put it into practice bit by bit." For the same reason, the land of Israel belongs to Israelis: "Because Israelis conceived and built it -- and what you create is yours. If you want a homeland, you must create one. You drain swamps, lay out farms, build houses, schools, roads, hospitals. . . . "That's how America got its homeland. And that is why Israel belongs to the Israelis."
Marines squeeze Taliban supply routes : "US Marines supported by British troops in Afghanistan now command three key locations south of the town of Garmsir, in Helmand province, putting pressure on the main supply routes of the Taleban for arms, opium and reinforcements. For the first time since the Nato campaign expanded to the south in 2006 the Taleban stranglehold in this part of Helmand - stretching from the Pakistan border to Garmsir - has been weakened. Crucial vantage points are now held by 1,200 US Marines from 24 Marine Expeditionary Unit (24 MEU) and 200 soldiers from the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (2 Scots) battle group. Lieutenant-Colonel Robin Matthews, the chief British spokesman for Task Force Helmand, said that the US men were guided by British troops as they moved at night "over extraordinarily difficult terrain . . . to launch their assault".
For more postings from me, see OBAMA WATCH, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here
The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)