Terrorism and Nuclear Weapons

[[[]]]

Part of the problem in fighting International Terrorism (those groups which are based in one country, and do their dirty work in other countries), is that so much of the cause and history of the conflict is hidden away, classified as secret or too intricate in details to attract much attention. This is especially the case in the matter of nuclear weapons proliferation, and the efforts by terrorists to acquire such weapons.

There are three reasons why we are winning that war, though people don’t hear them much, if at all. Those reasons are technical, political, and military, and they should be considered when weighing the peril and object of this war.
We have been unduly influenced by movies and television. To many people, it’s simply a matter of picking up a "suitcase nuke", which seem to be just lying around unguarded, and taking it to the target city, which is saved only through the unconventional thinking and bad acting of a ‘Jack Bauer’ type to save the day. The actual facts should be a bit more comforting. It’s true that if you get enough fissionable material together in one place, you create a critical mass, which leads to a reaction. But considering that radioactive material exists naturally without blowing up spontaneously, it follows that creating fissionable material is an artificial action, and a difficult one. People do not often consider that nuclear fission was mathematically understood in 1931, yet the first actual atomic weapon was not made until 1945, although a number of nations put their best minds and great resources to the task for years. Nuclear weapons are dangerous for a number of reasons; detonation is only one of them. There are functionally only three ways in which a terrorist group could detonate a nuclear weapon against a target nation:

1. Steal an inventory nuclear weapon, transport it to the target country, and find a way to set it off.

2. Build a nuclear weapon, using the group’s own experts and material.

3. Acquire a nuclear weapon through a third party, usually a nuclear-capable nation.

At first glance, these methods sound similar, but they truly are not. The first method considers the known stockpiles in the former Soviet Union; all other stockpiles are too well defended to be easily stolen, especially by a group with no insider knowledge of the country’s protections and order of logistics. But even the Soviet situation is not as perilous as some believe. That is, the Soviets kept lousy records on many things, but they cared about the WMD, and especially the nuclear warheads. Small wonder - it’s no secret that the Chechnyan rebels would very much like to get their hands on a nuke, which they would certainly use on a Russian target. Anybody want to guess how important nuclear warhead security became to the Soviets after 1995? The simple fact is, warheads are well-protected, even in places where the public perception doesn’t show it. Another indicator of better-than-advertised former-USSR security, is the sort of captures made in those countries. What’s basically happening is, groups are being caught in attempts to steal/buy spent reactor rods and missile parts. While these are important, they demonstrate that the groups chasing these things have largely given up on the warheads. It makes the issue a problem, but not to the degree it’s portrayed.

The second method is obviously the most difficult, so I will come back to it. The third method, using a third party, is where Israel, China, Pakistan, and Iran come in. These countries have all made money by selling nuclear tradecrafts, like telemetry and tolerances of specific metals, which can advance a program by saving money and time on tests and development. Formerly, Iraq was the foremost of these nations, known to be seeking WMD and simultaneously sponsoring more than a dozen international terrorist organizations. One sidelight of the Iraq conflict, though often ignored, is the proxy war paid for and directed by Wahhabist forces, especially Iran and Syria. This is an example of how terrorists pursue their unconventional warfare through indirect methods. But while this can frustrate conventional American response to terrorist incursions, it also dissuades the use of unconventional weapons - if, for example, Hezbollah were to gain access to a nuclear weapon and attack U.S. forces or an American target with it, the U.S. would not hesitate to deliver a nuclear reprisal to Iran and Syria. Those countries understand this fact, and this is one key reason those countries now demand tighter control of their sponsored forces; given substantial provocation, the United States can and will respond to a terrorist attack by taking out a significant target in a country basing or coordinating that group. In other words, a terrorist group can run and hide, but Teheran and Damascus cannot. Therefore, they will not supply terrorists with nukes, so long as Bush or a President who thinks like he does is in office.
So for now, any functional ability for a terrorist group lies in either building one themselves, or by stealing one from a country with inferior security; neither is a high-probability function. The second category is especially difficult for a terrorist group, because of the nature of the mission. Terrorists strike in three basic methods: High visibility attacks against low-security targets, especially in public places; Suicide attacks to attack secure positions in order to instill fear; And bombings/sniper attacks to destabilize government functions. A nuclear strike by a terrorist group is a suicide attack by definition, because no terrorist group would be willing to try a remote detonation, and risk premature discovery of the bomb. The fly in the ointment, is that a nuclear weapon is not a ‘fire and forget’ kind of device; manual detonation means the team preparing the weapon is the team firing the weapon, and that means the terrorists would lose their best talent in using the thing; it becomes a one-shot project, not a sequence of nuclear events. This is because a nuclear weapon is generally tested before its use in action, an option not available to terrorists, which means that the team which makes the weapon ready, will need to be there for its use; first-generation nuclear weapons, which is the definition for this situation, are by nature one-of-a-kind, with no extant manual to provide for a standard procedure; even if the terrorists managed to steal an inventory nuke, and procure a tech team familiar with the weapon, the unconventional use of the weapon and conditions for its operation would require a direct manual detonation. That creates a serious problem for the terrorists. First off, most people do not realize the careful and prolonged indoctrination terrorists use to prepare suicide attackers; it’s simply not a natural condition to plan on killing yourself, even less to deliberately kill yourself in the action of murdering innocents. Also, people with high technical knowledge are less likely to be suicide bombers. The 9/11 attackers were trained only to a certain point, and their life conditions were tightly regulated; the necessary education and experience necessary to develop and prepare a nuclear device practically eliminates such people as even possible suicide bombers.

The next element is political. As I noted above, the nuclear capability of nations is fairly well known, Congressional point-the-finger committees notwithstanding. Besides the technical means (Satellites, NSA intercepts, etc.), the Community of the Nuclear Club is real. One incident old enough to talk about, is the 1981 raid on Osirak. Iraq was clearly developing a nuclear program, and the Osirak reactor was intended to produce enriched uranium for the bomb, possibly even plutonium. The fact that the reactor wasn’t even running any power to nearby cities was a giveaway, I guess. Anyway, the raid to close down the plant was officially Israeli, but the HUMINT was largely Russian, and the Sat/Phone recon was American. Unconfirmed reports even claimed German and Egyptian assistance at various points. The mission, all told, was fairly ecumenical, because no one wanted to see Saddam with a nuke. The fallout from the raid began with the fact that most of the nations involved never realized that the Israelis would be the ones actually carrying out the mission. This incident reflects not only the unpublicized coordination between rival agencies and nations at times, it also explains why those cooperative actions are not constant.

Following the Gulf War victory in 1991, the United States found itself in an unexpected position. Prior to the Gulf War, the US enjoyed the repute of a Superpower, but shared that name with the Soviet Union, and sometimes with nations like China or Japan, when the description was limited to specific venues like Economics or Diplomacy. What changed after the Gulf War, was that the United States was no unparalleled in stature. The French sneered and called us a ‘hyperpower’, but in plain fact, the United States became the first nation in three centuries, which can act with effective impunity in any national enterprise. That hardly makes a license for recklessness, but it does shift the expectations of the International Community. That is, where the United States used to be considered an important member and sometime leader of international effort, now the United States is expected to take the lead, and to act first. This also explains part of the problem in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts – the United States was expected to act first and did so, learning only after its own commitment, what other nations intended. Worse, where the United States was a counterweight to the old USSR, now a loose confederation of old European states sees itself as the natural counterweight to America. The US created a coalition of 41 nations for the Iraq effort, often ignored by the media, the more so because the nations participating did so to a lesser degree than the US in many ways. This sounds like a limited commitment, until one considers that in comparing the manpower, money, and material in World War 2, the US was the majority contributor from 1943 to 1945 for the Western Front, yet no one claims the British, Dutch, and French were not full allies. Most agreements made by the US have multi-level protocols, some of which conflict with the public image presented by the nations. Saudi Arabia in particular, speaks one way in public yet quite another when asking for American actions. In the contest against International terrorism, it must be understood that few nations feel free to denounce specific terrorist groups and actions as the US does, for fear of a Madrid-style attack. There is also the complication of apparent alliances these nations do not want; if Jordan ,for instance, publicly joins the United States in decrying Hezbollah and Ansar al-Islam, they run the risk of being called an ally of Israel, unacceptable in Arab cultures and political thought. So, Jordan assists the United States informally, and with the caveat that the agreements be kept strictly private. This means that functionally, there is a lot going on under the surface in the Middle East, especially in counter-terrorism operations, which are in every regional government’s interest, save the terrorists’ sponsors, but the public is not informed of these operations. The public does not hear, for instance, how inspectors were tipped off to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, or how it is that a specific number of North Korean plutonium storage locations has been cited. This is an important aspect to the effort, and one which does not press in the American MSM, either.

Then there is the military. There is not a professional military organization on the planet, which has any tolerance either for nuclear weapons or terrorists; neither serves any true purpose in national defense, and both represent threats which must be met. Accordingly, the eradication of terrorist groups which are seeking access to nuclear weapons is automatically a high priority. Democrats do not understand the strong support George W. Bush enjoys with the troops; this is largely a matter of basic communication. Bush took the trouble to find out what were the troops’ top priority, and addresses them. It’s not necessary to be perfect, because he’s aligned with them on the priorities and goals. The troops in Iraq are not casual about the risks and costs, but they are deeply committed to the task of fighting terrorism, and especially about removing any group which is pursuing WMD. Congress can claim what it likes, but the troops are on board. This is the signal difference between failed missions like the Vietnam conflict, and successful missions like World War 2. This invasion and establishment of a free representative republic in Iraq is more than a successful replacement of a dictatorship with a democratic republic; it also realigns the region, setting a trend which at best will spread to other nations; at worst it will make terrorist groups’ work much harder. Things have changed in the Middle East, and the effect is firmer and more permanent than the media suggests.

Can a terrorist group can access to a nuclear weapon? Theoretically, but the chances of it happening went down significantly when Saddam was taken out. Could a nation decide to supply a terrorist group with a nuke? Theoretically yes, but the realistic chances of that sort of thing happening went essentially to nil after the Bush Doctrine became reality. That is the sort of element left out of far too many equations.

The Evolution of Nuclear War Planning

[[]]

Nature abhors a vacuum, we are told, and that certainly applies to planning. What I mean is, the planning in any situation not only acquires the influence of direct intentions, but also the influence of contextual effects.

In 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, ostensibly to compel unconditional surrender. While I believe this is true, I also agree that President Truman was sending a message to Stalin. The side effect of that message was the all-out effort by the Soviets to get their own nuke, which was successful, and in its own side effect began a long Intelligence war.

By 1962, the fear that the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. might destroy the world through a nuclear nightmare was an exaggerated rumor; there simply was not enough nuclear material to kill off the planet, a comforting condition lost over the next generation. The Cuban Missile Crisis concealed a deeper problem, however - proliferation of Nuclear Weapons technology, to countries like communist China, France, India, and Israel, some of whom were considered a bit less than completely stable.

Roll up to 1976. The Communists had developed their nuclear forces through two motives - fear of a US nuclear ultimatum, and as a fallback in the event of invasion, a neglected but ubiquitous fear in Communist countries. With the unexpected victory in Vietnam, however, the Communists set aside old plans and became aggressive in South America and Africa, creating or emboldening movements in dozens of countries, along the way creating dozens of international terrorist groups, like the Red Brigade and its like. They never planned on Ronald Reagan.

The significance of Ronald Reagan may never be fully understood by the average person, especially on the Nuclear level. By his election in 1980, the United States was at a low tide of influence, and many experts thought the U.S. would depend on unconventional warfare to stave off defeat in its many conflicts. Vietnam, they claimed, proved the United States could not prevent revolution, and the lack of effective conventional force diluted American influence in Europe, which was not beginning but continuing a slow surrender to Communism, by first setting up Socialist governments. The Conventional Wisdom was that the U.S. should try to get the best deal it could, while it possessed something of importance, albeit one in decline. Ronnie changed all that, drastically.

The victory in Grenada, the pressure on Cuba, the tough stance in El Salvador and Nicaragua, all were discounted because they appeared small, but they were part of a greater strategy, which countered the Communists and terrorists where they could not prevent American victory. The Achille Lauro incident, with its subsequent midair interception of the terrorists, showed not only resolve but competency, and raised the stock of American military credibility. This addressed the nuclear element, by showing the U.S. could and would act effectively, without even needing to consider a nuclear dimension.

The early theory of Nuclear Warfare, was essentially to use nukes as a trump card in reserve if your nation had them, and to chase their acquisition if your nation did not. That developed to a condition where both sides held nukes, but without a clear strategy for their use; they could kill and destroy a great deal, but were not precise enough or plentiful enough to single-handedly decide a war, and they were nasty enough to repel casual use. The proliferation issue only raised the stakes; no one who had nukes, could afford to set them aside.

With Reagan’s aggressive use of conventional forces in unconventional opportunities, the value and importance of nuclear arsenals was diluted. The Intelligence War was also in full swing, but the classification of vital data prevents full explanation of how Reagan’s CIA swung things around. Suffice it to say, that Casey at CIA and Faurer at NSA, with Bob McFarlane all through things, drove the Soviets nuts. The USA wins in Intelligence, though unreported by the press, were important factors driving Soviet acquiesence in WMD talks.

Fast forward to now. The number of nations which possess nuclear weapons capability is almost the same size as it was in 1984, an impressive feat of control. The number which possess effective arsenals is smaller still. The question most worrisome these days, is the risk of terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons, which is worth an extended work itself, but from a military point of view, the risk is actually negligible. What’s more, increased accuracy has actually led to much smaller warheads. The question then, is how to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict by other countries, the most serious risk being the possibility of an India-Pakistan exchange, escalated by China involvement for any number of reasons. This is the real trick to the North Korea warhead question - China has carefully made no public statement supporting or condemning the issue of NK nukes, though private sources indicate that Beijing has sent clear signals to Pyongyang that if they cross certain triplines, there are no restrictions to the potential Chinese response. Ironically, both NK and the PRC are looking to the United States to resolve the impasse, even as both nations publicly decry American involvement.

Saint Karol?

+++

It’s not surprising, really, that mere days after the passing of Pope John Paul II, there are calls for his sainthood. As a fundy Evangelical, I find such talk interesting, and so here is today’s post.

First, the downside. People can be really, really superstitious. We think of ourselves as rational and scientific, but when it comes down to it, we still hold on to “lucky” coins and colors and so on, some listen to what their horoscope or what a fortune teller says, and yes, we see that in religion as well, where people act as if a complete or relative stranger can answer questions they can’t handle themselves. People trust ministers and priests, sometimes to an unwise degree.

What this has to do with Sainthood, is the notion that a Saint can intercede, that asking for a Saint to help in a certain manner will help more than praying directly to God. That comes perilously close to Idolatry, because it replaces God as the object of worship with Man, even a godly man.

That said, however, there is much to recommend the practice of commemorating lives devoted to Christ. In our own lifetime, the example and virtuous work of Mother Teresa is well worth memory, especially as time passes and we may lose sight of such devotion and love; it simply makes sense to remind our children and fellow believers, of what a single person can do. While there have been many good Baptists and other worthy servants who are Protestants, we don’t hear much about them, and that is unfortunate - effective lessons are lost by neglecting the memory of them. In that regard, I would agree that Karol Wojytla should be sainted. I don’t know about the specifics of the decision, whether there has to be some sort of verified miracle and such, but as an object lesson, I cannot imagine anyone who would deny that we should be reminded, Roman Catholic or otherwise, about the life and work of this man.

The Way of Fellowships

+

With the Pope's passing, renewed interest has come up regarding the separate Christian denominations. one argument in particular involves the relationship Protestants (in general) to Roman Catholics. I might suggest that both sides are correct to some degree in their positions? Up to Arias, the Church was Catholic. Then it became Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox, and the RCC held sway in the conventional thought until Luther. The New Testament, the recited Creeds, the essential Doctrines, all were established by the RCC. In fact, I believe it would be fair to say that all of Christianity either follows the Roman Catholic position, or reacts to it.

With that said, however, the Church has always had dissent within its ranks, often in the capacity of what I may call ‘followers of Christ, but not of Men’. We see this in the many debates as the Church separated heresy from true obedience, and also in the arguments, even among the princes of the Church. We do not often consider it, but there are distinct differences between the Augustinian and Marionite orders, between the Jesuits and the Benedictines. Luther wanted, very much, to remain in the Catholic Church, but found it in conflict with the Gospel too much to accept the order. Say what you will about Luther’s anti-Semitism and other flaws, his motive certainly stands up well as he wrote, especially compared to, say, King Henry VIII’s purpose in setting up the Anglican Church. John is correct to say that there is little substantive comparison between the Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic Church, where doctrine and effect are considered. We follow the same Lord, but are clearly on different sides of the mountain. What the Protestants did not agree with, they discarded, and what RCC had that they found valid, they confirmed in their own method.

That is one of the great questions for Christians to resolve. All who call on the Lord shall be saved we are taught, but beyond that, there is much disagreement. It leads many who do not believe in Christ to doubt the presence of the Holy Spirit, and even among believers, it can be rancorous to discuss the intricacies of God’s will. Baptism, confession, penance, contrition, consequence, miracles, prophecy, mission, eschatology, judgment, all are myriad in interpretation, and there are more denominations and sects every year. Small wonder but sad, that so many people end up accepting Christ only as a concept.

This is one reason why the work of Karol Wojytla is so important. Like Mother Teresa before him, Karol is a true emissary of Christ, by everything I can see of his work. Did he kiss a Koran? Yes, but that does not mean he accepted Islam as the same as faith in Christ, nor even once mouth the words of the Islamic Shahada, ‘There is no god worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His messenger’ Did he stand with Protestants, even Atheists, on political matters? Yes, but not once did he deny his faith to do so. Did he let the crimes of priests against children go ignored for too long? Unfortunately yes, but in that case, Karol trusted his Monsignors and Archbishops and Cardinals to clean their own house, and we do not know the specific actions and words done and said in private; it has been reported by some that where other popes sugar-coated the scandal, Karol demanded the Church cooperate with secular authorities where these crimes were discovered, and that corrections be made, privately but directly. There are many points where people can criticize the Pope, but this one did as well as we can reasonably demand from one man, and excelled many times beyond what we see from any other world leader. Reagan was a great leader, but he did not publicly forgive John Hinckley. Ayatollah Sistani is a great man, revered for his tolerance, but he did not implore Muslims to consider Jews and Christians their brothers before God. Billy Graham is a great man in God’s service, but even he took vacations and time for himself. By any human measure, Karol excelled, and we would do well to consider his example.

Jesus warned His disciples long ago, that the Kingdom of Heaven was designed for little children. Our knowledge can be useful as a guide to our daily walk, and can also help us discern what is and is not from the Lord, but in the end, we must be childlike in our hearts. Roman Catholic or Protestant, to be Christian is to accept God as ‘Abba’, and this is the Way. This speaks also, to the question of other faiths. I will not speak to their Way, except to acknowledge that if God accepts them, I shall not be an obstacle. It is my belief that God wants us to know and accept Christ, but that again is a matter of faith and hope, rather than restriction.

Shalom, Insh’Allah.

Why Die?

Just a short thought for the moment.

We can all understand something of the value of life, but why must we die?

I know and accept the theological purposes, but it seems to me there is also a functional component. As literally millions of people file past the body of Pope John Paul II in respect and love, it occurs to me, that it is the signal of that death which highlights life, by reminding us there is an end to these things. As Christians, we believe in the eternal life granted by God through Jesus Christ, but even so, we take note of death, to mark the lesson of a life we come to know.

Even in death we may learn something of love, goodness, and hope.

God rest you, brother Karol. Your example is one to remember and remind others.

Baylor vs. Michigan State Tonight

O

Last night, a local sportscaster admitted it. When the Big 12 Athletic Conference decided to accept Baylor into its membership, the Conference was thinking about raising its academic credentials. The conference never seriously believed that its first chance at a National Championship in Basketball would come because of Baylor.

Tonight, Baylor plays for the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship against Michigan State.

Neither MSU nor Baylor has ever won a National Championship in any Women's sport.

Prayer, Scholarship, Faith, Perseverence, Hope, Practice, Excellence. Whatever happens tonight, well done ladies.

Go Bears!


UPDATE:

Baylor 84, Michigan State 62.

Way.

To.

Go.

Ladies!

Doctrine?

+
++
+
My series on the 'Judgment of God' has produced some interesting e-mails and questions, particularly the matter of my personal Doctrine. CharlyG, in his blog “Reformed Politics”, has a neat recap of the major themes and doctrines through the Church’s history here, which is well worth your time, even if you count yourself familiar with the terrain. These days, there are many people who seem to approach Religion only from an emotional perspective, and discernment is neglected to later cost.

However, with that said, in response to the question about my personal Doctrine, I would have to say that to I, to some degree, reject them all. This is not to disparage the worth in their consideration, or to pretend that they are all equal in their truth and validity. The problem with them, however, is that they are all human constructs, and so to some degree erroneous. That is, God alone understands His ways, and I have found many times, that I need to set aside my voice on the matter and accept His truth alone.

Speaking to a particular point in debate, I want to review my point about man accepting Grace, and God’s Sovereignty. I am one of those people, who believes the Bible is true and trustworthy. That is, if the Bible states a thing as a historical event, I believe it really happened, and if the Bible quotes a saying, I believe it was said in just those words (although the passage of time brings up controversy, as we have to go back to the original language to find the exact words used). So, it is important to me, to note that nowhere did Jesus say to someone that they were saved, unless they first asked for that Grace in some way. The thief on the cross is a favorite example to me; he did not have a fancy phrase to toss out, but simply asked Jesus to remember him, when Christ came into His kingdom. You may recall the Lord’s response. So also through the Bible, we see people encountered by God or His emissary, and God allows us our choice. Therein lies the confusion.

We humans love to think ourselves important, and so naturally believe that even if we are not the center of the Universe, the Universe still acts in relation to us at all times. Many among us would even apply that to God. Now, here is the paradox – God allows free will to us, because He is no slaver. No one will be dragged into Heaven, or made a believer against his or her will. Thus, it must be so, that we can choose to accept or reject what God offers. At the same moment, however, God is truly and perfectly Sovereign, so that no man may say that he was able to deny God, in anything. Accordingly, it must be that no may enter Heaven, except that the Lord orders it to be so. Form this, many arguments on Ordo Salutis have risen, and they make the same mistake: They assume the matter follows an order that human minds may comprehend. This is hubris, and should be set aside. I might make analogies to try to explain the matter, but it really comes down to accepting that God is both just and merciful, and somehow no one will make a single choice that defies God’s own will, nor will God be in any way cruel, wrong, or mistaken in His judgment.

I trust the Lord. The rest are details

The Congressional Championship

O

Here are the Semi-Final results:

Senate Majority Leader (Dr.) William Frist (R-TN) defeats Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) defeats Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL)


The Championship match-up then, is

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) vs. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tx)

Presidents’ Tourney Championship

[][]
The semi-final round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

Ronald Reagan defeats Dwight Eisenhower, 270-265
George Washington defeats Teddy Roosevelt, 217-197

The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The third round is now ready to begin, with 8 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties


So, here is the Championship Matchup:

Ronald Reagan vs. George Washington

If you want to make a pick, please remember that the method here is to show a 1-10 rating for each President in the seven categories.

And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.

Pop

+
+
+
I have been trying to think about what to write, on the passing of Pope John Paul II. After reading so much from others, I realize the grand and profound stuff is already up.

I did, however, think of one point I wanted to make. When I was a boy, I knew about popes the same way I knew about ministers, elected leaders, or celebrities. There was nothing especially great about a Pope. Pope John Paul II changed that, on many levels.

When I was young, there was a nickname commonly used for some of the older men; 'Pop'. Some used it disparagingly, to suggest a person was past their prime, but it was more commonly used to refer to someone who was like a family member, respected and with some affection. It was not commonly used in connection with an authority figure, but more someone who taught by how they lived and worked, and with whom young people sought a conection. When that older person passed on, or even when they retired, it was as important to the younger people as a family crisis.

For many of us, Pope John Paul Ii was "Pop". He was much more than a guy we heard about on the news, or who was only a triviality. He mattered, from what he did to what he said and stood for. Even for non-Catholics like me, he was family.

We'll miss you, Pop.

The Judgment of God IV - Suffering

+
+
+
Suffering is a universal human condition. We all suffer to some degree or another, we generally consider suffering to be unfair, unjust, and we all look for a way to prevent or reduce suffering. This also is a barrier to accepting God’s Judgment, since many people believe the Judgment is about apportioning eternal suffering to people, which appears to condone the worst actions of evil men. After all, a tyrant may have you tortured, but the worst that can happen is you die; compare that, horrible as it is, to the image of eternal suffering with no hope of relief or an end, and God becomes a monster beyond anything known to Mankind. The notion of a truly Just God is incompatible with the notion of a God Who would torment people forever. Also, the notion that God is all-knowing and all-powerful raises the question; why would a God who knows all things and can do anything, allow for Damnation?

As I am only human, and not wise enough to rise to the level of many great minds in History, these questions which have vexed many Philosophers and Theologians must be answered, at best, inadequately from my perspectiove, yet I have noticed a point upon which some resolution may be had. That is the Christ.

In most religious descriptions, we humans live on Earth, while God (or the gods) lives in Heaven, separate from us. The devil, demons, evil apparitions, and the leaders of the opposing political party live and work in some kind of underworld, or else here on Earth. Separation of powers on a celestial scale! And even when God (or His angels) comes to Earth, it’s usually on a short visit, and God is visibly distinct from any mere mortal. This shows up in the Bible, too, and we understand that it is not Pride or Arrogance which so drives God to appear in this way; consider how difficult it is for an adult to appear to a child as anything other than an adult, or how unlikely an athlete in his prime is to be mistaken for an involet. God, being the full accomplishment of power and might, is beyond our comprehension in His full glory, but what we may see is an image of power and glory beyond any man.

If we were talking only about image, this would be a trifle. It speaks, however, to a fundamental problem for Mankind - how can we have a proper relationship with God, when we cannot even approach Him on any level we might call equatable, even to ask for His help? Remember that for my purposes, I am presuming that the Bible is true, in speaking of God as Holy, Pure, Good, and Just. Fortunately, you can add Merciful to that list, as well. This question of how sinful Man may hope to hear Holy God, much less approach Him, demonstrates a flaw in so many religions. If there are many gods, you have to reach a resolution with all of them, each on their own terms, or you can never have peace. If there are no gods, then there is no help at all for you; once you sin, you fall off the cliff and cannot slow down or stop your plunge to destruction. Even if there is one God, but He must remain locked away in some place of required purity, you cannot meet Him. If He is the absolute essence of Holiness, then even though He may approach Man, Man cannot stand His Holiness, and would be destroyed by His sin in the very moment He was in God’s presence. Only the Triune nature of God explains the matter in a way which grants God His perfect Holiness, yet allows a chance for Man. The Father is pure, and Sin is destroyed in His presence. The Holy Spirit then, is that Person of God who is able to reach Man in his deepest heart, even in his deepest sin, and speak both Conviction and Consolation. Man is not compelled to obey the Spirit, but that is the choice.

Now, man understands something of Justice, but many are led to believe that it is only an ideal, and not a fact. The Father is perfect but is not a man. The Holy Spirit speaks to all of us, but is not a man. The Christ is the fulfillment of the Covenant of God with Man, because as the Christ God walks among us as one of us.

Now, to suffering. The Gospel accounts tell how Jesus was born, raised, and lived as a poor man, with no money or property of his own,how He did many great and good things, yet was blamed as a blasphemer and charlatan by the leading mean of His country, falsely accused of sedition, flogged and crucified by the Romans. Surely Jesus knew of suffering, on so many levels, which makes Him approachable by any of us. Have you been cheated, abused, tormented, ridiculed? So was Jesus. Now, consider what it says of God, that he would take such treatment from us.

At this moment, Karol Wojytla is lying on his deathbed, clearly suffering as he has been for a number of days now. Yet, many have noted that there is a dignity in his dying, a sort of lesson and example to us. One answer to suffering, is to learn from it, to make it mean something, to find good even in a thing which seems to have no good about it. And in ending suffering, even in one place or moment, to bring about good where there was not good before. It seems to me that is part of God’s will and Judgment about suffering - we need to learn from it, and in so doing learn our identity in His will.

What Is A Life Worth?

ooo
The tragic (and to my mind, criminal) death of Terri Schiavo, along with new concern about the health of the Pope, brings to mind the continuing debate, now observed, now forgotten, of the value of Life. Whatever your opinion in a specific case, it seems fit to me that we should examine that basic question.

Biologically, the will to live is arguably the strongest instinct in any animal. This is why thoughts of suicide are presently considered a sign of mental illness, since it runs counter to the hard-wiring we live with. It’s also counter to almost every social order- suicide and death are signals of failure, resignation, and denial of community. Philosophically, the common theme has been consistently to prefer life – “Where there’s life, there’s hope” is an old and common saying, so pervasive that no one is sure of its origin or source.

Modern society has begun to war against that morality, however. “Suicide is painless” was the title song for the movie and television show “M*A*S*H”, and that theme has crept into the political dialogue, to the point that when Terri Schiavo’s case became a national debate, it was phrased as “right to die”, rather than “right to live”; the assumption was made not only that Terri wanted to die, but that it was morally right for her to commit suicide, even by starvation. Doctors sworn to Hippocrates’ admonition to “First, do no harm” are actually debating the practice of killing patients, sometimes by their choice, sometimes without their consent, under certain conditions. And lawyers schooled in a nation created by a nation founded on the premise of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and the protections of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in particular the 14th and the Bill of Rights, argue for the destruction of unwanted pregnancies and the extermination of people unable to speak for themselves. Guardians are now made Executioners in this obscene parody of justice and ethics.

But what is a life worth? A reader on one of the many threads about the Terri Schiavo case observed that by and large, it is the young and physically strong who believed the most strongly that Terri would want to die in such a condition. Those who are older and who have ourselves seen something of what happens in the world, do not jump so quickly at the prospect of leaving life, not from fear of death but love for the gift that is Life.

Back in 2001, my daughter came down with an illness, a fever which rose and fell, but always stayed above the 100-degree mark. The diagnosis came back as Biological Meningitis, but this was scant comfort, as nothing done could lower the fever. After the third straight day, the doctors warned my wife and me, that our daughter might die if they could not break the fever, and in any case would likely suffer brain damage. After the fifth straight day of high fever, anywhere from 101 degrees to 106, the fever finally broke, and my little girl recovered. Fully. I am not able to explain why she recovered fully, anymore than the doctors could ever explain why the fever resisted all efforts to lower her temperature, but I am very, very grateful to God for that grace. But even if my daughter had suffered brain damage from the disease and fever, there is no chance that I would consider her life any less precious, or any less important for me to protect. I love my wife and daughter more than myself, and if necessary I would die to save them. In sickness and in health, for better or worse, as the vows go, and it is true for my family as it is for my marriage. Anyone who will not keep that level of commitment should not offend God by pretending the words in the first place. Thank God no one was in a place or position to kill my little girl, no matter her condition.

A couple years ago, I collapsed at work, dizzy from a stomach virus. An ambulance was called, and they ran all sorts of tests, ignoring me completely, as if my personal and direct experience were worthless in the diagnosis and treatment. The nurses and doctors paid no attention to me at all, and in the end the whole episode was played out to its ludicrous and expensive conclusion, which finally discovered what I had been trying to say all along; if the doctors had just listened to me, they could have saved the insurance company (and my premiums) a lot of money, and themselves a lot of work and time. I know from direct experience, that when professionals do not listen to the source, they are arrogant fools, and there is no shortage.

A few months back, I was laid low with a nasty virus. I couldn’t stand, couldn’t eat, even water made me vomit. So I just laid on the bed, watching things go round and round by themselves. Talking was extremely difficult, and I was effectively helpless. It occurs to me, that if my wife had a mind like Michael Schiavo’s, she might have gotten me confined to a hospital bed with a feeding tube, and I might have ended up badly indeed. Think I’m exaggerating? Stick a finger down your throat and try to talk, and see how coherent you sound. Now, imagine you are under a drug regimen, so concentration and focus are made very difficult, and of course, if the person who put you into the hospital also enjoys control over your treatment and doctors, if you get doctors already convinced you’re a vegetable, it’s that much harder to fight for yourself. Now, imagine more than a decade of such experience, and if torture isn’t the word that fits, you haven’t been paying attention. This is not to berate the many fine medical professionals out there, or disparage the people who really are trying to do the best they can for their loved ones, but it begs the question, of how we really know whether the best interests are being pursued, when the range of options is allowed to include death, especially a lingering torture like starvation of food and water.

Pain and suffering is not a reason to die. Many of our veterans suffer life-long pain, and they go on living very productive lives, and their courage in bearing their pain is continuing proof not only of their integrity and purpose, but a boon to all those who meet them and can learn of heroism from a living example. Some have noted the case of Stephen Hawking; imagine if such a mind lived in a body paralyzed just a little more than it already is; a century ago, his condition might well have been diagnosed the same as Terri Schiavo. Only the truly ghoulish would suggest we should dispose of a person, simply because their body has limits! Admiral Nelson lost an arm, leg, and eye, but went on fighting. Helen Keller could neither see nor hear, yet she went on to write and teach. What cowardice indeed, and how small a vision, to think that a disabled body means a useless life!


And who shall set the standard for a life worth living, anyway? There are artists and writers, whose work is not fully appreciated until long after their lives have ended. There are many types of accomplishments, some of which need to be experienced to be recognized. How then shall anyone say ‘this one is productive and may live, but this one is unproductive, and shall be destroyed’? Who has the right to say that a hundred years is enough if you can still walk around and chat like a talk show host, but if you need a wheelchair or are quiet or seem a bit unusual, you are not worth the effort to keep around? Who has the right to say that a baby may only be born if he/she will be physically perfect, as some have now argued? Who has the right say that an infant must earn his first breath? Who, when it’s all considered, has the right to close off a life when there is any choice? We are none of us perfect, so when a decision is in doubt, why would anything but Life be the choice?

We have turned a corner. It remains now to be seen whether Hell or merely Purgatory is under our next step, but we are moving away from Heaven, if we dare to move away from Life.

The Final Four (Congress)

O

"Chicago" Regional Final Results

5. Sessions beats 10. Barrett


"Syracuse" Regional Final Results

1. Hastert beats 12. Kyl


"Austin" Regional Final Results

2. DeLay beats 6. Brady


"Alburquerque" Regional Semi-Final Results

16. Frist beats 11. Ryan



Here are your National Semi-Final Matches:


Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) vs. Senate Majority Leader (Dr.) William Frist (R-TN)


Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) vs. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)




Who goes to the big finale?

The Judgment of God III – The Purpose

.._
..[]
So, by now I’ve colored the picture rather darkly, I’d have to say. Thoroughly Holy God gazes down upon the wretched form of thoroughly sinful Man. Uh-oh. Actually, though, there’s a great deal of hope to be had, again because of the nature and essence of God.

It seems strange to me, but most people don’t seem to spend much time or thought in consideration about why God made us, and what His plan for us means in terms of our future, especially the final Judgment. It might be that subconscious acknowledgement of our sin, which not only bars us from approaching God on the merits of any worth, but also shames us from believing He would still want us. It also might be the devil, whose last desperate act of rebellion is, knowing he cannot touch God, to hurt Him through the proxy of hurting His creation here on Earth.

But God is truly omnipotent, and while we can argue about what that means in any specific detail, it certainly means that His will shall be done, no matter what we have in our hearts and minds. Those He wishes to grant Heaven will surely see it, and those He denies Heaven have no chance of it.

Whatever else we may say about Heaven and Hell, it stands to plain reason that Hell is not at all good, and Heaven is perfect. The problem, of course, is that by its nature only perfect people can enter Heaven, and so it would appear that once again we are undone by even the smallest of our sins.

Thus Christ. By His perfection, we are not only forgiven of our sins, but through His perfection we are ourselves made perfect, reborn into a life impossible to lead through human industry, but given for us all, and to us all who will accept the gift. I will speak more about the qualities of divine ift-giving at some other time, but for here this is surely a great and wonderful gift, that we are not only freed from our sins and wrongs, but made fit as well in every aspect. It follows of course, that a person must be able to reject a gift for it to truly be a gift, and that means that some will in fact reject that gift. By definition, their lot is Hell.

Heaven and Hell have also been very difficult to write about. Heaven is difficult to write about, because we know only imperfection, imitation of the good at best, and so it is beyond us to fully describe the qualities of a perrect abode, much less an eternal dimension of such perfection. But Hell is also difficult to describe fairly. From the Bible, there are different classes of punishment, and this may apply to severity, duration, any number of factors we can consider and some of course beyond our comprehension, since we are again talking about an Absolute, and therefore something beyond our ken.

For here though, there is a purpose to what God does, and it seems to me that a key to His mercy lies in pursuit of that purpose. Jesus told His disciples that whatever they asked, would be granted, and it's qualified somewhat later by observing that we have not, because we do not ask in Jesus' name. That always bothered me, but it seems to me that while we receive much freely as God's gift to all of us, there are things which God disposes to His servants, and to receive these things, one must be in the right place, spiritually, to receive them.

That is the point I am considering today; how to be right in God's purpose.

The Judgment of God II – Justice and Mercy

...
In my entry yesterday on this subject, I considered the denial Mankind embraces about the issue. Not surprising; if there’s anything more intimidating than Death itself, it has to be the notion that there is something even more Absolute, unavoidable, and dire.

The excuses are myriad on why people believe they won’t or shouldn’t be judged, but in simple fact, it’s going to happen, so the questions we ought to be asking, are what is likely to happen, and what should someone do to ensure the best results? This is complicated not only by the critical question of making sure you have the right God in front of you when you worship, but also of being true in spirit before God. That is, while it’s completely natural to want to avoid Damnation and Eternal Torment, it’s not going to help you if that’s your case before God. I suspect one thing which scares the non-religious, is that while the Bible shows all sorts of people entering Heaven, at that particular point none of them looks like the average guy, which sounds like very bad news for the so-very-many of us who are average – on a good day.

Before going further, I think I should emphasize that I am speaking my own mind here. No divine dictation here, no private revelations, just a guy trying to sort out in print how the Great Court will settle these affairs. And with no lawyers either, though there will be an Advocate for some. I realize that to some of my audience, this all seems silly, and the atheists who grace my site with a visit are doubtless wondering just a big a fool I am going to be about this. As a Christian, my answer to them is, by your understanding, a very great one. The wisdom of God is foolishness to Man, though I won’t claim I have all that much of the Lord’s wisdom with me here. I am seeking it, which means that those who reject God will find me unreasonable.

Of course, to some degree that’s intentional on my part. To be “reasonable” as men use the word, is to accept Human rules and conditions, a thing plainly less than the level of God’s standards. The Holy is a thing well beyond our comprehension, and so a thing which must plainly be adored or abhorred. Yet that same Holiness is what makes a truly just judgment possible. It’s not enough that God has total power and knowledge, it is His Holiness which gives us reason to believe He will be just, and which indeed creates and nurtures the hope of mercy.

To understand the situation effectively, we also need to remove false impressions created by our human perspective. Many humans, for example, contend that hell is an unreasonable proposition, that it cannot be just to punish humans eternally and without limits, for limited sins in both effect and duration. The problem with such a statement is the inherent hubris. As an example, I used to drink, and on a couple occasions I was not sure if I was in sober condition to drive, so I didn’t drive. The thing is, I had a friend I used to go out with, and he didn’t think the same way, and one night he got himself pulled over and written up for DUI. I was able to help him keep his job and make bail, but it was still both a bad time of his life, and a lesson he learned. Now, some would say there was no sin here, especially for me – hadn’t I made sure I didn’t drive drunk? The thing is, because I didn’t want to look weak, I never told my buddy about the times I wasn’t sure about my condition, and if I had told him, maybe he could have managed to avoid that problem himself. Even so, some might say, no harm no foul, right? The trouble there is, that I don’t know of anyone who drives drunk in order to hurt anyone; the injury happens because they drive drunk, and it’s just chance that my friend didn’t hurt anyone by driving inebriated. So, what if he had had an accident while driving drunk, and killed someone? Would that still be a sin of “limited” effect and duration, the ending of someone’s life? And so, even though he did not have an accident, my friend’s actions, on the moral level, are the same as if he did. And for my part, my decision not to discuss my own experience prevented my friend from considering his own condition, so I bear my own responsibility in the same context. We are all of us guilty of the same thing, separated only by degrees of environment, so we are all of us guilty of the same sin as a moral offense against God, permanent and total in its duration and effect. Or, if you prefer, consider a bit of gossip you might tell. Have you considered that the words carry on and expand, until invariably some version of them reaches a person who would be damaged by them? Perhaps damaged to such degree, that a life decision may be made by the effect of a careless rumor? When the total truth is known, we shall all be appalled to realize that we are all of us guilty of sin to some degree, but that degree is not, however phrased, sufficiently minor as to claim that we did no permanent harm. We did, and must come to terms with that grim fact.

The next element, is the matter of our plea. In human courts, a person is either expected to prove his innocence, is held to be neither innocent or guilty until the court decides, or is considered innocent until proven to be guilty. In each of these cases, however, the court bears responsibility for producing the facts, to make the guilt or innocence of the accused plain. Not so in God’s Court, where His Omniscience means He already knows our condition. The sole reason for the hearing then, is to record our response. Some cynics have claimed that the Christian faith is false, because it would allow the worst of murderers to enter Heaven by simply saying the right words, while condemning the best of saints to hell if they fail to utter the right sayings. This is not correct, but shows again the assumption that human conditions would prevail. If it happens that a person speaks of faith but his heart is dead, he is still in his sin, and will fool no one when he stands before God. The difference is between ’Attrition’, where one fears the penalty but is not sorry, and Contrition’, where one is truly penitent of his sins and wrongs. The need for this repentance is critical for each of us. We stand in the gravest of peril.

Enter the Lord. Part of the problem Humanity has with God, is that we see things through the filter of what we want and understand. We are just able to understand that we have done wrong, many times and in many ways, and that we cannot correct what has been done; it is beyond us. We fear discovery and consequence, and yet that is a good thing. It is good, because only when someone loves what is right and good, can one fear the consequence of sin and evil. The devil and his angels fear their punishment, but not their sin, and that is everything in this matter. It is exactly what Jesus meant when He said that every sin would be forgiven, save blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The reason for that is plain – the Holy Spirit is an agent of God, the Person of the Trinity who reaches out to us no matter what our condition, so that while we cannot stand the presence of God in even the slightest of our sins, God is able to reach us even in our worst day and conduct.

So, to the question of God’s judgment. Have you ever considered why God wants a judgment at all? I mean, there is some small merit in the argument that God is greater than any man, or all of us together, so that we cannot really affect Him at all. The thing there is, God is not acting in our universe for His own benefit but ours, and the judgment we receive is a blessing from Him, no matter what we choose to call it. Life shows us many times, that a truly great person is able to accept what many would call a curse, and turn it into a blessing. Others, sadly, take what many would call a great blessing, and hate it as a curse. The choice, as always, is made in the heart. The head does little more than come up with a description for what has already happened.

In my piece yesterday, I wrote that I only woke up this morning, because the Lord chose to give me another day of life. I did not earn it, He gave it to me freely. As a result, everything I do comes as a result of what God contributed, which is to say that even if I lived perfectly, everything I accomplished would rightfully belong to God, and be no more than my duty. Since I have failed to live perfectly, even in the one day, I have sinned against God and bear responsibility for that sin, all on my own. Justice then, on the Absolute scale, is very frightening indeed, especially acknowledging the times when I deliberately chose to sin, acting in hatred, lust, or greed.

That brings in Mercy, which ultimately is the stronger component of God’s Judgment. That Mercy does not equate to “free pass”, or say, at all, that God will condone or excuse evil. The devil and his angels are to be thrown into the everlasting torment of the lake of fire, after all, and the same of anyone who chooses to join them. The measure of Mercy from God, then, is the choice to accept Holiness.

I intend to write more of Holiness, and the reason Christ is the way, in my next installment.

Final Four - Presidents

[][]
The fourth round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

Dwight Eisenhower defeats James Monroe, 135-109
Ronald Reagan defeats Thomas Jefferson, 216-208
Teddy Roosevelt defeats George W. Bush, 165-160
George Washington defeats John Adams, 217-160

The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The third round is now ready to begin, with 8 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties
Here are the Final Four Presidents:

Dwight Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
George Washington


And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.

The Pink Mafia

<>

Please don't laugh at the title. The matter is serious, and there are already two recent victims.

I published a story about the attempt to shut down Gay Patriot. It turns out Michael Rogers wasn't done with his vendetta. When Robert posted the same article, complete with a "Gay Terrorist" headline, Michael Rogers contacted his CSP and got his site shut down. Note please, that Mr. Rogers did not try to work things out with either blogger, or discuss the issues. Nope, he tried to cause trouble with one guy's job, and harassed another guy's Service Provider into dumping him. First Amendment? Never heard of it, I guess.

Here is Lime Shurbet's write-up. Note that Robert has saddled up with another provider. That alone deserves respect.

More details about Mr. Rogers' 'gotta whack free speech' campaign can be found at My Pet Jawa.


I want to mention that I have decided not to include the "Wanted" Poster of Michael Rogers, that Gay Patriot and Lime Shurbet used. This is because I do not use the word "terrorist" for anyone except a particular class of villain. That does not mean, however, that Mr. Rogers has any basis or merit in his vindictive attacks on honest bloggers, especially as he is apparently unable to argue his defense through facts or reason. Given the tactics he has used to harass his political opposites, Rogers is actually validating their charges against him, I would say. He's not a terrorist, but he is a thug.

The Judgment of God (part I)

.._
..[]

I used to be a regular poster on the religion and faith website, Beliefnet. I found the site an interesting place to gain insights from other people’s beliefs and perspectives, and to work to avoid the pitfalls of assumptions about my own understanding and opinion of Reality.

There was a downside as well, I learned. There are the sort of people who cannot allow others to believe freely as they choose, but they must attack them, using ridicule, insult, and intimidation to crush any inconvenient belief. I am saddened to have to say, some of these were people who claimed the same faith as I hold, yet their tactics bore nothing of the love we receive from God, and are commissioned to extend and share. The other most oppressive group were vicious atheists, who ridicule every Christian tenet and doctrine, as well as those who hold them.

Those Christians who attack others for their differences are, I think, misguided, and so I conclude the same is true of those who attack Christianity with such malice. Anyone familiar with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, could not deliberately choose to insult or harm someone in the evangelism to which we are called. I also believe that no one who understood the message and purpose of the Gospel, could find fault with it or anyone connected with it. And an essential part of both sides’ confusion lies in the topic of Judgment Day.

Hollywood has made a lot of money off the theme of Judgment Day, although their version has a lot more to do with evil demons or the final foolishness of Man, than any consideration of the Lord. Yet it is the Lord’s hand in things, which drives much of the emotion on this matter.

Christians understand that we are all of us sinners, in need of God’s love. Accordingly, it seems plain truth to us, that we must confess our sins and accept forgiveness on God’s terms, if we are to have hope. Some believers have concluded, however, that anyone who rejects the premise of the Gospel as we bring it, must be willfully rejecting Christ, and this pains them, sometimes to the point of bitterness. This is unfortunate, not the least because the confusion between the believer and unbeliever is not corrected in such cases.

Those who do not believe in God, as I understand the matter, can respect the desire to do good to other people and to accept a moral code of ideals, but they find it laughable to place trust in a being whose existence cannot be confirmed by any human measure, much less His intentions. To make matters worse, the secular nature of most schools, even at the Collegiate level, precludes sufficient access to the great writings of Theology, to help explain the intellectual reasoning behind the Christian faith. This is not to say that Christians believe because of a philosophical or moral argument on the intellectual level, but it does mean that Atheists and Christians often meet with no common ground, and so there is no common language. Everything must begin ab initio. And since there is so much History and Doctrine out there, even a willing party can only discover so much, and we all eventually prove our limits in ability or comprehension, at which point the conversation either loses its focus, or fails altogether.

For here though, I would like to write, thinking in print as it were, on the subject of the Judgment of God. For it seems to me that this point might be worth the consideration, especially when we compare the image to the truth as I hope to present it.

One of the stranger things I’ve read in religious debates, is the claim that God has no standing to judge people. A variant of that, is the idea that because God is loving, He won’t judge anybody, or if He does, punishment won’t be an option. The rejection of Divine judgment is not surprising, though. First off, if you do not believe in God, you would hardly take seriously the notion that an Omnipotent Third Party would control the final resolution of all our actions. Worse, even believers get caught up in the image of a man sitting in Judgment of Mankind. The Bible has all sorts of images of God, and every last one of them makes God look like a man. A very powerful, large, scary man, but a human for all of that. When we face the image of a human judging the whole of Humanity, it’s ridiculous on its face, and that’s exactly what the non-Christians do. After all, from their perspective, there is no logic that one belief is going to trump all others. The fallacy they miss, is that while Man can and does miss the mark in Absolute Justice, God is Just by definition.

Perhaps I can explain this way. Gravity is a difficult force to understand, but no one really denies it exists. Essentially, if you have enough mass, you have your own gravitational field. Simply being a planet gives you gravity. Now apply that condition to existence. If an existent essence is such that it is the source of all Creation, then any idealistic or moral absolutes are defined by that essence; it is impossible to exist in violation of those conditions. That’s how it is here. If God exists, God is just because God is God. This is also why the pantheist and polytheist explanations fail to work here; power is one thing, but if Absolutes exist, then some essence controls them, and is therefore Absolute by definition. The notion of Yin and Yang imply a balance between equal opposites, but we find that does not hold up in moral discovery; good and evil oppose each other but are not equals. Superiority exists, and from that the exposition into Supremacy follows. That also implies an eventual resolution, the obliteration of either Good or Evil must at some point occur.

One must come to grips with the fact that God will, in plain fact, judge us all. The consensus is non-existent on the matter of what we may expect, but since the Bible speaks clearly about it, I will venture to say that we all will receive a mixture of Justice and Mercy.

Going back to the basics, if we’re going to be logical about it, God has given us everything we have, and everything we are. Most people wake up in the morning, and don’t give a conscious thought to the fact that God was under no obligation to give us life to wake up at all. We received many thousands of these days, each without doing anything worth their value, and we carry on all through our lives in the pursuit of our personal interests, as though we have bought and paid for our lives, when in fact we simply take them with little in even the way of thanks to our Provider. Now, some have argued that because God gives us these lives freely, and all the things which are in them, we are under no debt to God, even to account for what we have done. Of course, carrying that logic to its natural extension, that would also mean that the God who gave us these good things without any responsibility on our account, would be free Himself to do as He liked to us later, even tormenting us for eternity, with no more accountability than we admitted in receiving the good. After all, if there is no obligation created if we receive Good, then we have no rights on our side, and whatever we receive is just by definition, even destruction or torture, using that same definition of terms.

Accordingly, we are going to receive our resolution on some terms, and if there is a judge, then He shall set those terms. As a Christian, I find the Bible true and trustworthy on that point, and therefore come back to my initial assertion, that God will judge us as He promises, with a mixture of Justice and Mercy.

Tomorrow, I plan to discuss the aspects I can see of that Justice and Mercy.

WARNING: Thugs In Your Mirror May Be Closer Than They Appear…

...

I have linked “GayPatriot” on my Blogroll for a number of months now. This may seem strange for a fundamentalist Christian to do, but if you have taken the time to visit the site and read his work, you will note the intelligence and much-needed perspective he provides from a much-misjudged segment of the population, and a voice which deserves respect on his own merit.

Courage has been present in a number of GP’s posts, not least when he took issue with the malicious practice of 'outing', a means not only of identifying individuals as alleged homosexuals, but also in such fashion as to cause embarrassment and personal cost – in plain words, ‘outing’ is used as a weapon by the Left to punish and attack alleged homosexuals on the Right, in many cases simply for keeping their private lives private. GP put up a post identifying these thugs for the villains they are, and found himself under immediate assault, including harassing calls to his employer. In consequence, GP was forced to remove the post identifying the thugs, and has been compelled to cease his blogging. More on the story may be found at Outlet Radio Network.

Dan, aka “GayPatriotWest”, is not giving up, and deserves our full and vocal support. For my part, the conduct of Michael Rogers in particular is shameful and evokes images one hoped would have died out with KKK membership and cross-burnings. The Old Media may not be expected to address this, as the “Pink Mafia” has proven itself effective in malice and coercion before, always to the applause of Hollywood. It falls to the blogosphere to raise the bulwark against this assault.

It may be that you don’t care about gay rights, especially when a gay happens to be Conservative in his opinion. It may be that you don’t care about a blog’s existence, or you may not be concerned that a voice has been silenced through threats and belligerence.

But one day, the thugs who tear down the rights of those they hate, may find their way to your place, may oppose your beliefs, may shout down your rights. The defense of one voice now, may save your own later.


Hat Tip: Polipundit.

Regional Finals (Congress)

O

"Chicago" Regional Semi-Final Results

10. Barrett beats 8. Harris
5. Sessions beats 3. Cornyn


"Syracuse" Regional Semi-Final Results

1. Hastert beats 2. Schumer
12. Kyl beats 3. Blunt


"Austin" Regional Semi-Final Results

2. DeLay beats 9. Domenici
6. Brady beats 12. Thomas


"Alburquerque" Regional Semi-Final Results

16. Frist beats 10. Hatch
11. Ryan beats 5. Hyde



Here are your Regional Final Matches:


"Chicago" Regional Final:

[10] Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) vs [05] Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


"Syracuse" Regional Final:

[01]. House Spkr Dennis Hastert (R-IL) vs. [12] Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 06


"Austin" Regional Final:

[02] H Maj Ldr Tom DeLay (R-TX) vs. [06] Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)


"Alburquerque" Regional Final:

[16]Sen Maj Ldr William Frist (R-TN) vs. [11] Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)


Who makes the Final Four?

Elite Eight Presidents

[][]
The third round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

John Adams defeats James Polk, 098-097
George W. Bush defeats Franklin Roosevelt, 243-220
Dwight Eisenhower defeats John Kennedy, 265-218
Thomas Jefferson defeats Abraham Lincoln, 131-094
James Monroe defeats Bill Clinton, 165-096
Ronald Reagan defeats Harry Truman, 258-241
Teddy Roosevelt defeats William Taft, 165-123
George Washington defeats Woodrow Wilson, 217-125


The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The third round is now ready to begin, with 8 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties

Here are the Elite Eight Presidents:

John Adams
George W. Bush
Dwight Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
James Monroe
Ronald Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
George Washington


And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.

Lies, Damn Lies, and TIME Magazine

:.

The lingering death of Terri Schiavo is, whatever else, a tragedy and a focus which has brought about strong emotional reaction. The Old Media has largely failed to represent the matter objectively, however, so that additional issues have been created, to the initial question of whether her feeding tube should have been removed. A representative sample is the latest poll from TIME magazine, which runs a headline claiming “A MAJORITY (53%) OF THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES EVANGELICALS SUPPORT REMOVING THE FEEDING TUBE”; the magazine’s sub-title claims “TWO-THIRDS (67%) OF AMERICANS WOULD CHOOSE DEATH OVER LIFE IF THEY HAD TO RELY ON A BREATHING TUBE TO SURVIVE”. The details, however, prove the falsity to those claims. The details may be found on a pdf file attached to the press release.

Let’s start with the most important quality; knowledge of the case. By its own admission, the poll focused on people not familiar with the details of the case. TIME’s poll only found 1 in 3 respondents (Question 4) who claimed to have followed the Terri Schiavo case “very closely”, and given the poor information presented by the Old Media, this invalidates 2 of every 3 answers by the lack of knowledge essential to an informed decision.

In Question 5, TIME sets the stage by describing Terri as being in a “Persistent Vegetative State” or Coma-Like State”. The magazine made no attempt to mention that the diagnosis is in dispute, and that ‘Coma’ is a completely inaccurate description for her condition. Note also that the same question states “Her husband says that Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially in this state”, failing to mention at all that the “husband” already has a replacement wife, to such point that he has had children with her, and that Terri is a Roman Catholic, which religion considers suicide a mortal sin. The poll makes no effort whatsoever to observe the controversy over these claims, but instead presents them as if they were fact.

In Question 7, the poll claims “Florida State Courts … have repeatedly ruled to remove the feeding tube” without once mentioning that the sole decision to remove the tube came from Judge Greer, and that the other State and federal courts have ruled on nothing more than his courtroom procedure, and not the merits of the case or any contested testimony/evidence.

Questions 10 and 11 asked the respondent to say what they would want if they were Terri’s Guardian or Terri herself. Bear in mind, these are, in the main, people who have not followed the close details of the case.

Question 15 asked the respondents if they would like to be kept alive on a ventilator, even though such a condition has no relevance to the Schiavo case.

Whatever one thinks of the case itself, this sort of manipulation of public opinion is shameful, especially as the poll tried to blame Congress, and Republicans in particular, for defending Terri’s right to life and simply to establish a ‘de novo’ review. The people at TIME magazine neglected to ask if any of their respondents would like to have the facts in their own case made clear, in the event they faced a similar situation of having a biased individual given control over their life. TIME referenced a “right to die” (Question 16), but ignored that people might like to have their “right to live” protected

Image

[][]
[][]
Some years back, a Jesuit friend of mine explained the historical significance of stained glass windows in churches.

Many of the cultures which the Catholic missionaries met, were not literate, especially in Latin. The stained-glass windows were beautiful and attracted attention and discussion, and allowed the priests of the churches to explain the stories described in those windows. The beauty of the windows only accentuated the message, he said.

I was thinking this week about the images of Christ we see. He gets a lot of publicity, but when you think about it, Jesus is always seen as gentle, loving, ful of forbearance. Basically, one gets the idea from the movies, pictures, and books, that Jesus forgives everyone for everything, pretty much to the point that those who do evil have nothing to fear - a few ‘mea culpas’ and you’re cool, right?

Not at all. If you read the Bible, you see another Jesus, the one whose Holy person does not condone sin, and whose patience has limits. Consider these verses:

“That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness” Zephaniah 1:15

“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evil-doer will be stubble, and that day is coming will set them on fire,” says the LORD Almighty.” Malachi 4:1

“For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” Matthew 7:13b

“I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” Matthew 10:15

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matthew 18:6 (cf Mark 9:42)

“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnasking ot teeth.’ “ Matthew 22:13

“Such men will be punished most severely.” Mark 12:40b

“Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter’. He treads the winepress of the fury of God Almighty. On His robe and on His thigh has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” Revelation 19:15-16

Read the darker parts of Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel sometime, and you’ll see confirmation on a larger scale, and to even greater degree. There is a point at which God Himself says “Enough!”, and works His wrath.

I think we ought to see a few portraits of the Angry Christ, to warn people while there is still time. It sure seems that most people are unaware that the Lord is Just. And angry.

Early Warning

-------
Excerpts From a Speech to the Harvard Law School Forum, February 16, 1999:

"I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain "acceptable" thoughts and speech are mandated...

"Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes from separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong...

"Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus...

"So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and - by God's grace, built this country."

- Charlton Heston

Comments

Comments have been re-opened.

Common-sense expectations remain in effect.

Good Friday Observation

Terri Schiavo, the innocent victim of a murderous husband, an incompetent judge, and a callous judicial system, lies starving to death, her enemies having destroyed the last apparent legal recourse to save her life.

Friday signals the remembrance of Our Lord's Passion on the Cross. Also, it seems everything which can be said about the Schiavo case, save the grief, has been written. Those who want Terri to live had said their piece, and those who want her to die have said theirs.

Because of Good Friday, because I wish to keep my mind and heart free from needless argument on this day while I focus on my Lord, and because I am grieving for the needless and cruel death which approaches for Terri Schiavo, I have restricted Comments for the time being.

Presidential Tournament Round 2 Results

[][]
OK, the second round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

John Adams defeats Ulysses Grant, 160-148
George W. Bush defeats Franklin Pierce, 241-082
Bill Clinton defeats Warren Harding, 140-087
Dwight Eisenhower defeats Martin Van Buren, 265-133
Thomas Jefferson defeats Zachary Taylor, 208-079
John Kennedy defeats Andrew Jackson, 158-100
Abraham Lincoln defeats Calvin Coolidge, 183-072
James Monroe defeats GHW Bush, 109-093
James Polk defeats William McKinley, 134-109
Ronald Reagan defeats Herbert Hoover, 258-086
Franklin Roosevelt defeats John Quincy Adams, 220-180
Teddy Roosevelt defeats James Madison, 197-125
William Taft defeats Grover Cleveland, 155-138
Harry Truman defeats Richard Nixon, 241-201
George Washington defeats Benjamin Harrison, 217-155
Woodrow Wilson defeats Lyndon Johnson, 101-079

The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The second round is now ready to begin, with 32 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties

Here are the 16 Presidents still in the hunt:

John Adams
George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
Dwight Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
John Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
James Monroe
James Polk
Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt
William Taft
Harry Truman
George Washington
Woodrow Wilson

And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.

Congressional Tournament Round 2 Results

O

"Chicago" Regional Second Round Results

8. Harris beats 1. Byrd
10. Barrett beats 15. Feinstein
3. Cornyn beats 11. Warner
5. Sessions beats 4. Pryce


"Syracuse" Regional Second Round Results

1. Hastert beats 9. Ryun
2. Schumer beats 10. Leahy
3. Blunt beats 11. Davis
12. Kyl beats Voinovich


"Austin" Regional Second Round Results

9. Domenici beats 1. Bennett
2. DeLay beats 10. King
6. Brady beats 3. Johnson
12. Thomas beats 13. Bunning


"Alburquerque" Regional Second Round Results

16. Frist beats 9. McCotter
10. Hatch beats 2. Kennedy
11. Ryan beats 14. Nelson
5. Hyde beats 4. Hagel



Here are your Regional Semi-Final Matches:


"Chicago" Regional Round Three

8. Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) vs. 10. Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
3. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) vs. 5. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)


"Syracuse" Regional Round Three

1. House Spkr Dennis Hastert (R-IL) vs. 2. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
3. House Maj. Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) vs. 12. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 06


"Austin" Regional Round Three

9. Pete Domenici (R-NM) vs. 2. H Maj Ldr Tom DeLay (R-TX)
6. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) vs. 12. Rep. William Thomas (R-CA)


"Alburquerque" Regional Round Three

16.Sen Maj Ldr William Frist (R-TN) vs. 10. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
11. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) vs. 5. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)


Sweet Sixteen pushing to make the Elite Eight.

The Fight For Life

...
Sir George at "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler" has a cogent observation on Terri Schiavo. His conclusion is especially apt:

"If our facts are in error our heart is not, and it is the heart of a man that is judged, not his depth of accumulation of trivia and legalisms. Terri may live but will certainly die, now or later as will we all, but when we follow her we would like to say to St. Peter, "I was a friend of Terri Shiavo's, and I am standing to face G-d's judgment. We may have delayed her arrival, but with you as my witness I confess that we would not act to hasten it."

Read the whole thing. It's more than just words.

Power

. . .

"All that is required for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing a judge to be in charge of the decision"
. . .

Terri Schiavo's husband wants to murder her, and the courts say that since he's her husband, he can.

The Florida State Legislature passed a law last year and governor Jeb Bush signed it, trying to save Terri. But a judge killed the bill all on his own.

The United States Congress issued subpeonae for the persons involved, but the judge presiding over the "wanna murder" ignored it.

Then the Congress of the United States passed a law requiring "De Novo" examination of the case, and President Bush signed it into law, but the judge in Florida refused to comply with reinserting the food tube during the review, and now three out of the last four judges to consider the appeal have sided against the victim, against the clear intent of the United States Congress, and against the President of the United States.

In the past month, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that laws passed by a majority of the states may be overturned by the preferences of a minority of the states, when the justices can revise the definitions of majority and precedent. This same court determined that the United States Constitution itself may be compelled to comply with the prevailing opinion of foreign bodies.

Our courts are drunk with power, and have now declared (by their actions) war on the Legislative and Executive Branches of American Government.

Send in the Marines!

When Evil Is Chosen

.
“Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.”

Exodus 23:7


“How much more-when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his own bed-should I not now demand his blood from your hand and rid the earth of you!"

2 Samuel 4:11


“When a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks the despair of the innocent.”

Job 9:23


“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the innocent of justice.”
Proverbs 18:5


“they are swift to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are evil thoughts; ruin and destruction mark their ways.”

Isaiah 59:7



Mark the day. A terrible sentence of lingering death, considered too cruel for any animal or even convicted murderers, has been established and held firm against Terri Schiavo, simply because her husband wishes it so.

A pace has now been set, and a trail blazed. An inconvenient wife may be destroyed for nothing more than not setting out a desire to live, a thing considered common sense not so very long ago, but which now must be documented at the peril of a person’s very existence.

What next? If a feeding tube is considered life support, if water itself is now to be designated “extraordinary measures”, what can we say to the mother who chooses to deny food and water to her children? What shall we say to someone who no longer wishes to care for his parents, since they cannot feed themselves, but need constant care. There are millions in this nation alone, from infants to the elderly to the mentally impaired, who are unquestionably innocent of any offense, but by this precedent are not subject to whatever cruelties their “guardians” may desire.
The Constitution is now construed to protect villains and causes, but not those people who have done no wrong, and is made available only to those who can pay and stand on other strength; the weak and helpless are denied even the most basic presumptions.

Good is mocked, and Evil chosen in its place. There will be a price, a terrible one, for this wickedness.

Mark the day. This nation shall surely rue it.

George Will: Part of the Problem

<..>
Sunday morning, I turned on the television for my regular installment of “Insulting Your Intelligence”, otherwise known as “ABC This Week With George Stephanopolous”.

The beginning topic, not surprisingly, was the Terri Schiavo case. What was disappointing to me, was the jelly-spined acquiescence of George Will to the argument that Terri’s murder was a good and proper thing. Will began his sermon with the notion that “all steps of due process have been followed”, and followed with the arrogant notion that because Terri married Michael, this gives Michael the only say in the life-and-death decision. Will went so far as to claim that a decision to review the case in a Federal Court “would overturn the culture and standards of hundreds of years”, simply because it considered more than the will of a spouse. This attitude was, at best, naïve, and suggested to me a mind concerned with expedience rather than even the most fundamental purpose of law.

Let’s step back for a moment, to Will’s statements. Will appeared to be very uncomfortable even discussing the case. Not surprising, since the deliberate death by starvation, even denying water, to an innocent woman, amounts to the worst sort of torture, the kind of treatment we would not allow a person or group to mete out even to a murderer, even to Osama bin Laden. The very notion that it would be sanctioned for an American citizen innocent of any offense is obscene on its face, the more so when there is no clear evidence that Terri wants anything of the sort, and doubt even remains about the specific nature and degree of her condition. Also, George Will is certainly intelligent enough, to recognize that he was clearly casting his lot among the “Kill The Inconvenient” crowd. His statements, however he considered them, were not sympathetic to either the innocent or the moral elements of the matter.

Considering the matter of Due Process, then, we can break the case down to the essential players and events (a good review of additional relevant details can be found here):

· Terri Schiavo was reported to have had a heart attack in 1991 by her husband Michael, who reported finding her at home. It’s worth noting that the 1992 Malpractice suit Michael won, was based on a mis-diagnosis by the doctors and hospital treating Terri. If it happens that Michael did not correctly relate the events which led to Terri’s condition (see the reference to the 2002 bone scan which indicates unreported injuries to Terri at the same time as the “heart attack” Michael claimed, which are not consistent with a heart attack and fall, but instead indicate a physical attack on her person), this becomes germane not only to a proper diagnosis, but establishes a criminal motive for Michael’s desire to see her die.

· At the time of the Malpractice trial, Michael made statements about wanting to care for his wife until his death. It was not until after the malpractice award, that Michael “remembered” Terri wanted to die, a statement not supported by any other relative, or by any sort of documentation, such as a DNR order.

· Michael denied Terri any substantive therapy, even refusing to allow for a urinary tract infection to be treated, or for Terri to receive a P.E.T. or MRI. This conduct is not only malicious on its face, but violates specific conditions of the malpractice award.

· The only judge to consider the evidence in the case, is Judge Greer. All appeals courts reviews have dealt solely with procedural issues. Judge Greer has over-ruled a Superior State Judge, and now defied a Congressional Subpeona, in what can only be deemed egotism and spite.

· The medical diagnosis of Terri’s condition is in serious dispute, even by board-certified Neurologists. This point is largely due to the lack of relevant tests, so that any decision to end her life is premature, by definition.

Taken at the essential level, what we have here is one man who wants Terri dead, for reasons which cannot be confirmed to be sympathetic to Terri by any reasonable standard. The sole authority pushing for Terri’s death is one State Judge, who has admitted he refused to consider sworn testimony from acknowledged medical experts in the condition assigned to Terri. The husband and judge have refused to allow any sort of review of the statements and facts, laboratory test of the physical evidence, or procedural oversight to the matter. And George Will is cool with that. We must have multi-level review and oversight before sending a terrorist to Guantanamo, yet we cannot take a closer look before torturing a disabled woman to death. No person with a conscience could reasonably make such a balance, yet there they are.


As to the matter of Michael’s rights as a husband, here are the essentials:

· As I noted above, there is reason to doubt Michael’s explanation of how Terri became injured. There is forensic evidence of unreported injury, consistent with abuse.

· Michael did not produce any claim that Terri wished to deny treatment, or to die, until after he had money in the bank from a malpractice settlement, money which would be depleted by letting Terri live, and at the point where it became obvious that Terri would continue to live unless murdered, Michael suddenly “remembered” a death wish.

· Michael has effectively remarried another woman, to the point of living with her for years and having children with her, even while he remains married to Terri. That’s either Bigamy or Adultery (or both), but in any case is serious grounds for removing his standing as guardian. By no rational standard could Michael’s conduct be called consistent with the actions of a loving spouse.


So, once we consider the facts, George’s claims fall of their own weight. It’s not strange that people would make them; there are any number of self-serving hypocrites, willing to allow any sort of crime against someone else, so long as they get what they want. It is rather sad to see such conduct by a man considered to be Conservative, however, though it is illustrative.

One of the strange qualities of majority, is that the majority is often unable to exercise its strength. This comes from the fact that many people in the majority are separated from each other in one detail or more, and this shows up in disagreements, sometimes minor, but also sometimes major. George Will, articulate though he is, intelligent though he is, simply has forgotten to consider the essentials of what makes a Conservative.

There are any number of labels which are plastered on Liberals and Conservatives, and to the degree that we are all of us individuals, these labels are false. However, for all of that there are also basic truths which establish identities, even for groups, even as large as nations. I will leave Liberals to define their own purposes, though I have my ideas about them, some good, some bad. For Conserrvatives, however, in the matter of Law the essential is very like the Oath of Hippocrates: “First, Do No Harm…”. The basics of American Law come from our own Declaration of Independence, which includes the phrase “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. It is a common interpretation in American Law, that the Constitution which sets out the limits and roles of Government follows that template, and especially in the order set out so plainly:

1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Pursuit of Happiness

It means that killing someone should only be done when absolutely necessary, not simply because it can be done, or when someone finds it expedient. The whole Bill of Rights is premised on the notion of assumed innocence, and restricts action by any authority which would confine the innocent, to say nothing of taking life of an innocent person against their will. If Will thinks Due Process is sufficient, then he has forgotten the lessons of Dred Scott, or Jim Crow, and many other laws which were legal in their time, but rejected when they were finally considered against the Constitution.

When the motions are considered so closely that the moral and essence are ignored, then the people in power become not the engines of solution and progress, but the moral enemies of Justice.

In this matter, George Will has chosen to be part of the problem.

Presidential Tourney First Round Results

[][]
OK, the first round of the POTUS Tourney is done, and here are the results (recall that I hid the actual match-ups, asking for 1-10 ratings on the basis of seven key skills):

John Adams defeats Chester Arthur, 160-120
John Quincy Adams defeats James Garfield, 135-104
George H.W. Bush defeats James Buchanan, 139-076
Benjamin Harrison defeats Jimmy Carter, 186-060
Herbert Hoover defeats John Tyler, 078-075
James Polk defeats Gerald Ford, 097-043
Teddy Roosevelt defeats Rutherford Hayes, 180-145
Zachary Taylor defeats William Harrison, 045-043
Harry Truman defeats Millard Fillmore, 228-075
Martin Van Buren defeats Andrew Johnson, 092-034

The scores were the results of multiplying the average rating for each skill, by the historical factor for that skill (using the 1-10 ratings for each skill in the six historical areas), then adding the resulting sub-totals for the final score).

The second round is now ready to begin, with 32 Presidents competing head-to-head. To avoid subjective influences, I am again asking the readers to submit 1-10 ratings (1 = lowest, 10 = top) for the Presidents in each of the following skill sets:

Diplomacy
Economic Policies
Judicial Doctrine
Military Command
Social Policies
Tax and Tariff Policies
Treaties


Here are the 32 Presidents still in the hunt:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
Grover Cleveland
Calvin Coolidge
Bill Clinton
Dwight Eisenhower
Ulysses Grant
Warren Harding
Benjamin Harrison
Herbert Hoover
Andrew Jackson
Thomas Jefferson
Lyndon Johnson
John Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
James Madison
James Monroe
Richard Nixon
Franklin Pierce
James Polk
Ronald Reagan
Franklin Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt
William Taft
Zachary Taylor
Harry Truman
Martin Van Buren
George Washington
Woodrow Wilson


And remember, if you don’t enter your ratings, that means the decision will go to those who do enter their choices.