I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

Quoting jh in sd: I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

I watched it. I thought Richard had a couple of interesting things to say, and I was happy to hear him speak so forcefully against excessive politicking in churches, but on the whole, I didn't learn much of anything from either. Whether that means my view of Evangelicals is not so narrow or is excessively narrow, I'll leave for you to say.

I think there will be more comments when the talk goes up on the home page screen. I am a big fan of Jim Wallis, so I found these guys quite interesting. I don't really have a stereotype of Evangelicals as necessarily right wing, since I've worked with quite a few Evangelical Christians in the peace movement going back several decades. I thought Richard had some insight into the conflation of nation and religion. Although many people have noted it before, the analogy between extreme right wing Americans to Nazis is powerful, coming from someone who's associated with the religious right. On the other hand, reading between the lines this dialogue is also an example of why most Evangelicals will never vote for a Democrat. Richard makes clear that "sanctity of life" issue (i.e., abortion) will ultimately remain a litmus test for all the Evangelical vote. It's too bad that abortion is the deal breaker because I think Democrats (with all their hawkish warts) are a less violent political culture with a more sophisticated Christian sense of social justice.

What's the deal with posting diavlogs now? This time the diavlog was four or five down the list on the left hand side. Are we posting for posting sake now?

In the context of their discussion on gambling, Land brought a social checks and balances system to imitate the political one between the three branches of the Federal government. In comparative political terms, what he's advocated comes closest to both Christian democracy and corporatism. Any form of community-based politics has been DOA in national politics, no matter how relevant it stays in localities, since the end of the 60s. It's a more useful start for a dialogue with progressives than libertarian, neoconservatives, and nationalist conservatism.

Mr land objects to the notion that a catholic can be an evangelical. Maybe not in his mind, but there are certainly Catholics who view themselves as such. I once heard a presumably Protestant evangelical explain that Mr Romney is not a Christian and went on to point out that neither are catholics Christian; funny if were not so sad.

I just wanted to say, the first section of this diavlog is really awesome, and I think these guys are great. "America's not as divided as you think." Something positive, oh my god...

Without having looked at this dialog yet, I want to simply make the point that this guy Richard Land is suspect as a spokesman for anything remotely defensible as upholding in our times the spirit of Jesus Christ. Aside from the fact that his particular denomination was founded on the theological defense of America's "original sin", slavery, and would not otherwise exist - or the fact that they didn't accept women pastors until 2000 and demonize homosexuals despite their protestations about "loving the sinner - Land was responsible for cooking up a "Christian just war" defense of his buddy Bush's invasion of Iraq: http://erlc.com/article/the-so-called-land-letter Land is a very shady, slippery character who represents a group more notable over the life of their sect for adherence to the most extreme moral and cultural relativism than attempting, however imperfectly, to vindicate the Christ who comes forth in the book of Matthew.

Once again I am baffled by the logic that insists that supporting equal rights and civil liberties in the style of Mr. Land (in the days of Martin Luther King) is in no way inconsistent with his fervent opposition to Marriage Equality. Denying equal legal and financial benefits afforded by our Government to families headed by heterosexiuals to those families headed by gay and lesbian couples is nothing short of punishment for those who disagree with Mr. Land's prevailing ideal and has nothing to do with protecting families. Instead, it is a direct attack against families, albeit familes that Mr. land would rather not let exist in the first place. But that argument aside, it is a denial of benefits to one class of persons that is granted to another class of persons by a Democratically elected government. I am not sure how much more of a clear case of discrimination and denial of civil rights and liberties is needed before Mr. Land faces his epiphany, or his hypocrisy.

Quoting brucds: http://erlc.com/article/the-so-called-land-letter

Good find. That letter certainly strengthens the feeling I had during the diavlog that these two guys were engaged in a rebranding exercise more than anything else. It seemed as though they realized the earlier evangelical message of complete intolerance was showing slumping returns, and they're now trying to roll out a new model: the kinder, gentler evangelical, as it were.

"I am not sure how much more of clear case of discrimination and denial of civil rights and liberties is needed before Mr. Land faces his epiphany, or his hypocrisy."
They'll change on this when they feel that holding fast is a danger to their institutions being perceived as legitimate, that the younger generation is likely to turn away and their pews/coffers won't be filled. Right now exploiting this issue is still a regional "winner" - just like defending slavery and then segregation was for them back in the day.

What is an evangelical? Both participants identified themselves as such but didn't define what it is. John

This discussion was interesting although it reminded me how much of a minority I'm in: a social liberal who is scared to death of religion. I was watching Obama and McCain pander with Rick Warren the other day and it just made me want to move to San Francisco and get high while we wait for the inevitable apocalypse.

I have to say that having listened to Land on this diavlog, I don't believe a word he says. I'm going in biased, but he's presenting a public face here that's not at all consistent with the movement he's actively helping to lead: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_crusaders/ (Scroll about halfway down for Land's appearance...) Also, this is rather humorous in retrospect, as well as indicative of what a phony the Slick Reverend unfortunately happens to be: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/0...ushing_co.html

It seemed like they were playing a chess game. I think the dude on the right (is it my imagination of does BHTV do this on purpose) thinks evangelical means that you go to hell if you aren't saved and a good Christian is obligated to spread the news and save people. I think the dude on the left thinks evangelical means one should do good works (clean water in Africa etc.). I'm just guessing though. [Hitchens] A cynical person might see common ground among them insofar as they both are concerned about the poor: poverty has been good to religion so it isn't surprising. [/Hitchens]

Quoting bjkeefe: Good find.

That letter certainly strengthens the feeling I had during the diavlog that these two guys were engaged in a rebranding exercise more than anything else. It seemed as though they realized the earlier evangelical message of complete intolerance was showing slumping returns, and they're now trying to roll out a new model: the kinder, gentler evangelical, as it were.

Eh, so maybe the rebranding worked on me. Truth be told, I'm a total whore to just hear something positive come out of a conservative blogginghead's mouth this week. Maybe I'm picking the wrong ones to watch. Call Ross Douthat and tell him I miss him. No wait, bring Jim Pinkerton back on to tell me how I should kill myself because I went to college...

I believe they were both very pleased at just how wonderful they discovered they really are, despite the evil media's attempts to portray them as narrow minded, holier-than-thou, money hungry, smug, power mad evangelicals - all in Jesus name, of course. And I particularly enjoyed the railing against corporations and political parties that pursue money and power that, once they get it, abuse it. (All without the slightest hint of self awareness!) So just how big are their congregatons and churches? How much money do they take in weekly? What Politicians and lobbyists do they have access to? The pandering of both Presidential Candidates last weekend to evangelical voters is proof that they possess quite a bit of power and authority themselves as a group. Power corrupts; absolute power as granted by the divine creator corrupts eternally? Absolutely.

Quoting Running Dog: Mr land objects to the notion that a catholic can be an evangelical. Maybe not in his mind, but there are certainly Catholics who view themselves as such.

I once heard a presumably Protestant evangelical explain that Mr Romney is not a Christian and went on to point out that neither are catholics Christian; funny if were not so sad.

What is an evangelical? Do Catholics consider themselves evangelicals or is it just a Protestant designation? How about the ones on TV that are speaking in tongues and healing people - are they evangelicals? What is the difference between a fundamentalist and evangelical? Oh my, I am getting lost in these terms. Maybe they should teach some religion in school so I would know some of this material. I feel hopelessly lost in yet another diavlog. John

Quoting brucds: I have to say that having listened to Land on this diavlog, I don't believe a word he says. I'm going in biased, but he's presenting a public face here that's not at all consistent with the movement he's actively helping to lead:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...the_crusaders/

(Scroll about halfway down for Land's appearance...)

Yeah. This was a bit at odds with how he presented himself in the diavlog:

It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisers including Karl Rove. "We've got the Holy Spirit's wind at our backs!" Land declares in an arm-waving, red-faced speech. He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."

Quoting brucds: Also, this is rather humorous in retrospect, as well as indicative of what a phony the Slick Reverend unfortunately happens to be:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/0...ushing_co.html

Heh. Did Land say, in the diavlog, that he no longer endorses candidates? Maybe he's got an out.

One thing I do admire about Reverend Land: he's got that great TV preacher hair.

Guys and/or Gals, I admire you all for having the stomach to watch this diavlog entirely. I listened to about 15-20 minutes and gave up. There's only so much rotten BS I can listen to. And what's worse is the mellow tone of voice that goes along with that crap! My most sincere admiration for your patience and self sacrifice!

Dear My Friend BCruds,

I want to simply make the point that this guy Richard Land is suspect as a spokesman for anything remotely defensible as upholding in our times the spirit of Jesus Christ. Aside from the fact that his particular denomination was founded on the theological defense of America's "original sin", slavery, and would not otherwise exist...

Here's some straight talk: Dick Land is not pro-slavery. Back during the Korean War, before I met, cheated on and dumped my first wife, I dated Dick Lands's grandma, Daisy Mae Land. She was a fine woman. The family was very much pro-emancipation. Sure they had Negro servants who worked some cotton and tobakee on what used to be the Land Plantation, but they got paid, just like white folks. I'm not saying Daisy Mae would have let her daughter marry one, but that wasn't the style at the time. Still ain't where I come from. God Bless America,
John

Quoting jh in sd: I hope the lack of comments on this diavlog does not mean it has been passed over by viewers here. It was a good conversation and one that can be educational to those who take a narrow view of Evangelicals.

I heard little in this chat that would expand my impressions of Evangelicals. I heard some grumblings about christian persuasion not including coercion, yet the top down judgment remains. "Conception" as the perfect example of the litmus test that no member of the fold could in good conscience argue with is the prime example.
It is politically astute to rail against accosting vehicle inhabitants for their bumper stickers or not sharing congregant lists with election committees, but the result is the same as it ever was. The votes are practically signed, sealed and delivered without any real impetus for free thought, expression or acceptance of voting a conscience that isn't filtered through dogma.
Abortion is antithetical to the church belief system. Barry Lind was defeated as far as Mr. Land is concerned. If that isn't acknowledged political victory, what is it?
The separation of church and state allow for real

Bob, thanks for arranging this one. I suspect I'm one of the few regular bhtv viewers who is also a fan of Brian McLaren. I realize this type of exchange is going to be viewed by many with a healthy dose of cynicism, and I don't know Mr Land from Adam, but I do know that Brian McLaren is the real deal. Like Jim Wallis, McLaren has been working hard to bring about much needed reform to an institution (the church) that is clearly in need of it. Not surprisingly, he is often demonized by the same church for his views. I hope you can get McLaren to come back soon and do another diavlog, perhaps with Wallis or even someone like Shane Claiborne, one of the young leaders of the new monastic communities cropping up. It appears the evangelical movement is itself, ironically, evolving. Thank God for that!

Out of curiosity, Alyosha, would you be interested in seeing Brian paired with someone who didn't share his basic views?

Quoting bjkeefe: Out of curiosity, Alyosha, would you be interested in seeing Brian paired with someone who didn't share his basic views?

bj, Did you have someone in mind? Since most of McLaren's criticism comes from fundamentalists and evangelicals on the right who disagree with his theology and the whole "emergent church" thing, I would personally not be interested in hearing more of that debate. Or, by basic views, were you thinking more along the lines of a pairing to debate faith in general?

Quoting Alyosha: bj, Did you have someone in mind? Since most of McLaren's criticism comes from fundamentalists and evangelicals on the right who disagree with his theology and the whole "emergent church" thing, I would personally not be interested in hearing more of that debate. Or, by basic views, were you thinking more along the lines of a pairing to debate faith in general?

Huh. I wasn't aware there was that much difference between him and other fundamentalists and evangelicals "on the right," as you say. From what I gathered from this diavlog, I didn't hear anything to suggest any real disparities. As I said, it seemed more a difference in tone -- the "kinder, gentler" thing. I guess I could be persuaded that there might be slight differences in political priorities; e.g., Brian might think the abortion issue need not be first and foremost. If there really are significant differences, I'd have to disagree with you, and say that such a diavlog sounds interesting to me. This diavlog was too mutually congratulatory and self-reinforcing for me to understand what makes these guys different from every other politically prominent fundamentalist/evangelical, especially after following the links that have been supplied here in the comments. However, I was thinking

I am an evangelical, so I did agree with almost everything in this discussion. However, I would prefer if it went more to the substance of issues. Exactly which Republican positions did these two disagree with and why? How does a conservative (theologically) yet non-Republican Christian think about foreign policy or economic policy? Can Mr. Land really justify his position that trade agreements are outside his purview?
I think there's a strong Christian argument for pacifism (or something approaching pacificsm) and I am torn on whether the free trade movement embodies Christian principles. I would love to have thoughtful men like these discuss those specific issues in the future.

Huh. I wasn't aware there was that much difference between him and other fundamentalists and evangelicals "on the right," as you say. From what I gathered from this diavlog, I didn't hear anything to suggest any real disparities. As I said, it seemed more a difference in tone -- the "kinder, gentler" thing. I guess I could be persuaded that there might be slight differences in political priorities; e.g., Brian might think the abortion issue need not be first and foremost.

It depends on how you define "Evangelical." If you mean "religious right," then by definition they're all anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-war Bushies and Clarence Thomas fans. But if you mean literalist-leaning Christians, you have a much broader spectrum of views, including the pacifist Christians I feel closest to, a huge chunk of Dem-voting Mexican Catholics and many Dem-voting African American congregations.

Quoting Wonderment: It depends on how you define "Evangelical." If you mean "religious right," then by definition they're all anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-war Bushies and Clarence Thomas fans. But if you mean literalist-leaning Christians, you have a much broader spectrum of views, including the pacifist Christians I feel closest to, a huge chunk of Dem-voting Mexican Catholics and many Dem-voting African American congregations.

That's a thought. On the other hand, I wonder how much (self-identified Protestant) evangelicals would agree that these other Christians are also evangelicals. Seems to me that I've heard plenty of Protestants reject out of hand the notion that any Catholic can be an evangelical, for one thing. For another, I wonder how much patience the politically active evangelicals have for pacifists -- the overwhelming majority of them seem to be thirsting for holy war. And except for the fact the they tend to vote Democratic, aren't most of the African-American "evangelicals" distinctly conservative, at least on social issues? That is, except for which lever they pull in November and obvious differences on race-related issues, how do they differ from the religious right?

For another, I wonder how much patience the politically active evangelicals have for pacifists -- the overwhelming majority of them seem to be thirsting for holy war.

I don't know. Even Land showed mixed impulses. On the one hand, he was inspired by the Christian pacifist MLK; on the other, he apparently endorsed the war of aggression against Iraq. I would like to hear a couple of Evangelicals discuss the "Just War" doctrine on Bheads. The worst hypocrisy in the Evangelical movement is that they claim Jesus is a peacemaker, while they bless war from the pulpit. That's a big disconnect for a lot of Christians and it deserves plenty of attention.

And except for the fact the they tend to vote Democratic, aren't most of the African-American "evangelicals" distinctly conservative, at least on social issues? That is, except for which lever they pull in November and obvious differences on race-related issues, how do they differ from the religious right?

No, I don't think so. Ditto for Latinos. Most AA and Latino religious voters are progressive on a range of issues. I suppose you could call these issues "race-related," but they encompass a broad range of social and economic justice issues: poverty, health care, prison

bj,
Although I don't know anything more about Mr Land than what I heard here, I think this diavlog likely represents two people who actually do have significant differences of opinion on many issues, but chose to avoid getting into all that and instead have a civil discourse about things of which they could find some common ground. At least that is how I interpreted it, probably because I already have some familiarity with McLaren's ideas. Anyway, I dont want to speak for McLaren, but I can tell you that the characterization of him by some other commenters as just a toned-down or stealth version of the typical Christian conservative i.e. the "pro-war Bushies and Clarence Thomas fans" couldnt be more wrong. Nor does he seem to be a strong proponent for "faith-based politics", at least not in the current definition of what that term implies. He is more focused on social justice issues and comes at them from a post-modern Christian perspective. That perspective is different than most non-Christians think of when they hear someone described as an "evangelical". Actually, one potentially interesting future diavlog for McLaren might be to hear a

Wonderment: I guess I buy pretty much all of that. Thanks for the detailed response.

Quoting Alyosha: bj,
Although I don't know anything more about Mr Land than what I heard here, I think this diavlog likely represents two people who actually do have significant differences of opinion on many issues, but chose to avoid getting into all that and instead have a civil discourse about things of which they could find some common ground. At least that is how I interpreted it, probably because I already have some familiarity with McLaren's ideas.

Ah, that's a pity then. Coming into this knowing almost nothing about either, my impression was that McLaren spent the entire time fawning. I would have rather heard him spend some more time contrasting his views, again, if Land is the sort of person that those links suggested.

Anyway, I dont want to speak for McLaren, but I can tell you that the characterization of him by some other commenters as just a toned-down or stealth version of the typical Christian conservative i.e. the "pro-war Bushies and Clarence Thomas fans" couldnt be more wrong. Nor does he seem to be a strong proponent for "faith-based politics", at least not in the current definition of what that term implies. He is more focused

I have been following the comments. I acknowledge that it is [I your opinion,[/i]that McLaren focuses on post-modern Christian social justice and not so much in faith-based politics. But, from my perspective, your view is biased. You are looking at this from "inside" a faith-based evaluative system. You are seeing differences in degree between subgroups. For an outsider, although there may be some differences, they are minor and besides the point. I would personally like to have a secular discussion of social issues. I have no interest in knowing about how evangelicals may differ from other religious groups, or how they are developing a different view of the world. I'm plainly not interested in any evangelical business. In my opinion, this kind of discussion belongs to a different kind of forum, perhaps one of the faith-based websites. If BHtv finds that a significant part of its members is interested in more diavlogs like this one, I would request that they add an identifier that will allow me to skip it at will. No matter how I look at it, I can watch and read, and still leave empty handed.

Ocean,
Well... I agree with you about one thing, we all interpret this through our individual biases. For what it is worth (just because I happen to be reading the book right now), another blogginghead, Jonathan Haidt, offers a nice explanation of how our biases on topics like this effect our perceptions consciously or subconsciously in his book "The Happiness Hypothesis". Interesting reading.

Quoting Alyosha: Ocean,
Well... I agree with you about one thing, we all interpret this through our individual biases. For what it is worth (just because I happen to be reading the book right now), another blogginghead, Jonathan Haidt, offers a nice explanation of how our biases on topics like this effect our perceptions consciously or subconsciously in his book "The Happiness Hypothesis". Interesting reading.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the book and the general concept. My opinion is absolutely biased. I certainly didn't mean that the bias would only apply to you. The point wasn't that. It was about the perception of differences when you look at them from inside the group vs from outside. And of course, that difference in perception affects our judgment and decision making, not to mention our preferences on diavlogs!

Quoting Wonderment:
And obviously, even abortion is not a deal breaker for the black and Latino vote. This is especially evident in the Mexican Catholic church. The clergy makes a huge issue of abortion, but priests and congregation end up voting Dem.

Check out Sojourners magazine's website for more on the Evangelical left.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I don't think I am.... In a number of countries where abortion is a less "anything goes" sort of thing, I think you often find a lot of Christian pro-lifers on the far Left. We're not just talking about Mexico.... it often holds true in South America and in Europe. Hugo Chavez is perhaps the most famous, but he's not really an outlier. I don't think one has to be on the Right to find that the idea of widespread, latter-term abortion makes one queasy. Further, it is often poverty and lack of choices that facilitate some of these "choices". Again, something that the Left is often more attuned to than the Right. And, if we get down to it, a lot of liberal outrage and anger comes from a religious-like moral certitude... often times far more moralistic than anything I hear

Quoting Chef: Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I don't think I am.... In a number of countries where abortion is a less "anything goes" sort of thing, I think you often find a lot of Christian pro-lifers on the far Left. We're not just talking about Mexico.... it often holds true in South America and in Europe. Hugo Chavez is perhaps the most famous, but he's not really an outlier.

The issue of abortion in South America has always escaped my understanding. Although it would be expected that non legalization of abortion is directly linked to religious belief, I don't completely agree or understand it. I was born in one of the least religious countries in the world, and certainly the least religious country in the "Americas". However, abortion has not been legalized. Gay and lesbian marriage has been recently legalized. Some forms of euthanasia have been practiced for decades. The current President is from a leftist political party, he is a physician, and yet he is anti-abortion, allegedly because his wife is a devout catholic. But, in a way, this is more an exception than a rule. At the same time, and for decades there are abortion clinics everywhere. They are disguised, but

I was born in one of the least religious countries in the world, and certainly the least religious country in the "Americas". However, abortion has not been legalized. Gay and lesbian marriage has been recently legalized. Some forms of euthanasia have been practiced for decades. The current President is from a leftist political party, he is a physician, and yet he is anti-abortion, allegedly because his wife is a devout catholic. But, in a way, this is more an exception than a rule.

Si la esposa se llama María Auxiliadora no me sorprende tanto que sea muy religiosa. ¡Qué nombrecito! ¿Sos uruguaya, Oceancita? Por fin, sale tu secreto. No te preocupes. Yo no se lo diré a nadie.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I don't think I am.... In a number of countries where abortion is a less "anything goes" sort of thing, I think you often find a lot of Christian pro-lifers on the far Left. We're not just talking about Mexico.... it often holds true in South America and in Europe. Hugo Chavez is perhaps the most famous, but he's not really an outlier.

You have to bear in mind that the left opposition in much of Latin America was against fascistic right-wing governments and military dictatorships. When you are resisting dictators who are in bed with the USA and CIA, abortion is not really a high priority on your list of grievances and among your bottom lines when making coalitions. So it's perfectly consistent under those circumstances to be anti-right wing and anti-abortion. Also, many people who are anti-abortion are still in favor of legalization. A black market/back alley abortion society is a far more hideous alternative than legalization for many Latin American Catholics.

Pero, usted ya tiene!

Quoting Wonderment: Si la esposa se llama María Auxiliadora no me sorprende tanto que sea muy religiosa. ¡Qué nombrecito!

¿Sos uruguaya, Oceancita? Por fin, sale tu secreto. No te preocupes. Yo no se lo diré a nadie.

En realidad, no me esmeré mucho en ocultar "el secreto". Simplemente para la mayoría sería totalmente irrelevante. Y puedes decirlo si te parece. En cuanto a la Sra. de Vázquez, es una mujer muy atípica. Hace muchos años, cuando era estudiante de Medicina en mi país, trabaje por seis meses con Vázquez en el Instituto de Oncología de Montevideo. En aquella época, él no estaba involucrado en la política, y era el Director del Instituto. Pero, no recuerdo haber conocido a su esposa. No puedo evitar reírme por el término "Oceancita". Se que en Méjico se usan los diminutivos en forma generalizada, pero en mi país no es así. Suena gracioso...
Creo que Jeff va a tener que esforzarse bastante para entender esto. Será un test para él.

Quoting AemJeff: Pero, usted ya tiene!

Ya tiene qué? Jeff, what a nosy guy! My response to Wonderment is a Spanish test for you. We didn't want to leave you out... Guys, you are making me laugh!

Quoting Wonderment: Also, many people who are anti-abortion are still in favor of legalization. A black market/back alley abortion society is a far more hideous alternative than legalization for many Latin American Catholics.

I agree. And this makes it even more puzzling to me. Everybody knows that legalization is a better alternative.

Compruebe mi gramática atroz. Hablo muy poco español, pero mecánico herramientas de traducción son fáciles de encontrar!

Quoting Ocean: Ya tiene qué?

Jeff, what a nosy guy!

My response to Wonderment is a Spanish test for you. We didn't want to leave you out...

Guys, you are making me laugh!

No hay ninguna pregunta sobre mi nosiness. Su primer puesto creado un rompecabezas para mí resolver. Yo iba a tener que buscar un montón de Geografía! Wonderment la respuesta de mi tarea en verdad muy fácil. Viva Google!

Quoting AemJeff: Compruebe mi gramática atroz. Hablo muy poco español, pero mecánico herramientas de traducción son fáciles de encontrar!

Very resourceful! But, yes, the grammar is for a "C-". It's better than failing!

No puedo evitar reírme por el término "Oceancita". Se que en Méjico se usan los diminutivos en forma generalizada, pero en mi país no es así. Suena gracioso...
Creo que Jeff va a tener que esforzarse bastante para entender esto. Será un test para él.

Ojalá que no te hayas ofendido por lo de Oceancita, Oceancita. Te lo digo con cariño. Y te perdono de antemano por escribir México tan atrozmente (es decir, a la española). Yo creo que Jeff intentaba decir "you already have". Tienes que hacerle un poco de ingeniería inversa y sale perfectamente bien.

You get an A for affort, Jeff

Quoting Ocean: Very resourceful! But, yes, the grammar is for a "C-". It's better than failing!

My English grammar is only marginally better!

Quoting Wonderment: Ojalá que no te hayas ofendido por lo de Oceancita, Oceancita. Te lo digo con cariño. Y te perdono de antemano por escribir México tan atrozmente (es decir, a la española).

Yo creo que Jeff intentaba decir "you already have". Tienes que hacerle un poco de ingeniería inversa y sale perfectamente bien.

Ahhh... Now I get it! No me ofendí, es solo gracioso. Espero que no nos enredemos con la "X" y la "J" otra vez. Pero creo que sería mejor continuar las conversaciones en inglés. No es muy considerado excluir a los demás... no te parece?

Quoting Wonderment: You get an A for affort, Jeff

Gracias! Buenas noches a todos!

Quoting Wonderment: You get an A for affort, Jeff

Very kind!

Quoting AemJeff: Gracias! Buenas noches a todos!

Good night!

Pero creo que sería mejor continuar las conversaciones en inglés. No es muy considerado excluir a los demás... no te parece?

Que aprendan. Just kidding. You're right. Although I did notice you speaking Italian with "John McCain." Not as obnoxious as me speaking Hebrew with Mvanthony, but close. Seriously, when did you leave Uruguay? We have some friends who left in the 80s and went back for the first time in order to vote (!!!!) for Tabaré in 2004.

Quoting Wonderment: Que aprendan.

Just kidding. You're right. Although I did notice you speaking Italian with "John McCain." Not as obnoxious as me speaking Hebrew with Mvanthony, but close.

One of the advantages of multiculturalism is that you get to learn other languages. Or at least a little. Not to mention the cuisine... As to JohnM, I just do that to confuse him. He likes it.

Seriously, when did you leave Uruguay? We have some friends who left in the 80s and went back for the first time in order to vote (!!!!) for Tabaré in 2004.

I left about 20 years ago. I don't think it makes sense to vote there when I'm living in the US. I do vote here though. But, I also know people who went back to vote for Tabaré. He is quite controversial. I never liked him that much. Unfortunately most of my youth was spent under a military dictatorship. I did vote once, right after the dictatorship. Back then there were three main political parties, which you are probably familiar with. The Military demanded that the political parties agreed to grant them amnesty as a condition for re-democratization. Two of the parties, Partido Colorado (the right conservative party), and Frente Amplio (coalition of left fractions, that although

Hey, I know this is WAY off topic, but I've been looking for a good book or two on the War of the Triple Alliance (in the 1860s). Any recommendations? Preferably in English, since I'm, like, totally provincial.

Quoting Chef: Hey, I know this is WAY off topic, but I've been looking for a good book or two on the War of the Triple Alliance (in the 1860s).

Any recommendations? Preferably in English, since I'm, like, totally provincial.

Certainly waaaay off topic... Unfortunately, I have no recommendations. I looked at the history books in my library, but I don't have anything specific about the War of the Triple Alliance. I can only give you a personal reference. My great-grandfather was a hero in that war. One of streets in the Capital is named after him. But that will not do... Considering that you are inquiring about one of the bloodiest and most convoluted episodes in the history of southern South America, I have to ask: how come you are interested in it?

Thanks for sharing! I always like learning about fellow-commenters backgrounds. I've never been south of Machu Pichu, but I've known lots of refugees from the dictaduras del cono sur. When I lived in Mexico there were tons of Chilenos.

Quoting Wonderment: Thanks for sharing! I always like learning about fellow-commenters backgrounds. I've never been south of Machu Pichu, but I've known lots of refugees from the dictaduras del cono sur. When I lived in Mexico there were tons of Chilenos.

You are welcome. It feels like I'm talking about "another life". And I guess it is in a way. In retrospect, and for what I know now about the various dictatorships in South America, I can say that ours was "milder" than most of the others. Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay had so much violence and death that it isn't even worth talking about it. It's interesting how the political situation has turned out to be these days. I choose to believe there is a brighter future. The eternal optimist!

It's a good thing that Mickey doesn't read the comments or he would see all this Spanish as evidence of the imminent take-over.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: It's a good thing that Mickey doesn't read the comments or he would see all this Spanish as evidence of the imminent take-over.

Si, señor Tío. Usted tiene mucha razón. Y dígale a ese Miguelito que se porte bien o lo enviaremos a tomar clases de español a las sierras de Colombia.

Y dígale a ese Miguelito que se porte bien o lo enviaremos a tomar clases de español a las sierras de Colombia.

O de una buena vez a la cárcel con los otros rateros, ratones y roedores indocumentados.

Interesting article on the new pro-choice law in Mexico City

Quoting Wonderment: O de una buena vez a la cárcel con los otros rateros, ratones y roedores indocumentados.

Are we going overboard again? I meant it to be an educational experience...
On second thought, the above could be educational as well...