Appearances

Earlier this week, former NBA referee Tim Donaghy released a four-page letter alleging that the NBA fixes games in playoffs and sometimes in the regular season. It should be observed at the start that Mr. Donaghy is hardly an objective witness in this matter, having admitted to gambling on NBA games he officiated. NBA Commissioner David Stern has pointed out that Donaghy could very well be trying to play for sympathy from the sentencing judge, or to make a deal with prosecutors. Also, as a group the referees of any professional league are a largely misunderstood group, who have to hustle just as hard as the athletes and who must be just as smart to what is going on, yet who never get paid even a fraction of the money made by just about everyone else in the sport. Ric Bucher of ESPN has a great article on just what it’s like to be an NBA ref.

I do not believe Tim Donaghy’s claims, frankly. Officiating is a vocation more than a profession; you do it for love of the game if you do it for any length of time, and you accept, in addition to all the study, training, road travel and stress of doing the job, a lot of undeserved abuse from people who do not have the first idea what the rules are, much less how they apply in the situations you call. When I called Baseball, there was a running schtick where umps in my TASO chapter kept a list of the “best” insults they’d heard from coaches and fans. If the NBA had decided to rig games on anything like the basis claimed by Mister Donaghy, we’d have heard about it long before now from the veterans who love the sport like their own kids. A lawyer representing several NBA officials (who are not allowed to speak publicly, as part of their employment with the NBA) said “if a referee were to do that he wouldn't be around long. Right now, they feel like a cop feels when another cop goes bad.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Stern, that does not settle the matter. I believe the facts are that the NBA referees do not give preferential treatment for any one team over another, nor would they be party to any plan to rig games or a playoff series. That does not mean, however, that the league’s hands are clean. For many years now, the NBA has ignored incidents of thuggery by players on-court and off, by a sharp decline in moral standards of personal conduct, and apparent inequities in how the league treats different franchises. The ‘rigged game’ claim found a ready audience this year, because of the sloppy and unprofesssional standards of this year’s playoffs. Whether or not it is fact, the sense that the NBA wanted a Boston-LA championship series is a strong one, and that appearance is important to the league’s condition and needs. The NBA’s refusal to address how its actions and statements are perceived has caused minor issues to become a major scandal. This problem won’t go away, Mister Stern, unless and until you sit down with the owners and fans of each town, and find some honesty and humility in your answers and pro mises. Arrogance won’t cut it anymore, and neither will denial.

God and Agony, part 2

I started to discuss the relationship between God and suffering yesterday, and I continue today. I wrote about the fact that we all suffer, and there is, I think, a reason for that, that we live this life for the purpose of learning at a level much deeper and more profound than merely training the mind. We are, if you will, souls in training, and we become the result of our decisions, especially when we choose to help. The suffering is completely real, but so too is the help, and when the pain and trauma have faded – and they do – the fact that someone helped address the suffering is significant. That’s not to say that I have suffering, pain, loss and death all figured out, but it seems to me that since Man’s actions brought all those things on himself, God took it upon Himself to find a way to make use of them fior good, to such a point that He suffered alongside us, as one of us. One of the most compelling images for me, is that Jesus died in between two thieves. For here it is not so much the question of whether the men deserved to die, but the fact that the Son of God willingly died as they did, for His love of us.

We don’t see much real humility these days, and when we do frankly we miss it for what it is. Modern society makes a big deal about getting ourselves full credit for what we achieve, and even if we fail, we still make sure we feel good about ourselves. Sadly, a side effect of that is that we obsess about ourselves and pay little attention to anyone else. That’s not new, though. Jesus was angry at the Pharisees for doing very much the same thing, and even then it was an old, common problem. Kings and princes do not think much about the common people, you see. And even when we have done with the titles, these days there are still plenty of “rich, young rulers” around. And I am not pointing fingers much here, because I include myself in that group. I say my prayers, try to live as I ought, and read the Bible regularly. For all of that, however, I sin every single day, even when I promise myself in the morning that ‘today will be different’. For some folks that makes me a hypocrite, and I won’t deny that either. But I do think that once a person has it in their heart that they want to be better, to help others and not be selfish, to give more than they take, it is a different kind of suffering to fail as we try to be better than we were. Not the same as physical suffering, mind you, but still, suffering all the same. This is important to the point, because some folks get the idea that the eternal Lord does not suffer, being all-powerful and such. I’d say that any parent who worries about their children knows that power does not mean there is no pain. I’d say that anyone who has read Scripture in context, comes to understand that God has spent all of time trying to deal with our pain, as I it were His own, which indeed I believe to be the case.

Enough for now, but something on which to think.

God and Agony

One of the things that is very difficult to address on any level, is the sheer scale of a genuine catastrophe. My cancer diagnosis hit me hard, but at least it was just me and did not threaten my familt. When Hurrican Rita blew through in 2005, it was a mess and gas and power were out for a time, but I was confident that the basic structure of things was sound. When I look at the devastation from the earthquakes that shook the Sichuan region of China, however, I am all but silenced by the scale, the vast size and numbers of the destruction. It’s as if your house burned and every house in your neighborhood, and the fire and ambulances could not get through because the roads were destroyed, and you could not call for help because the phone lines were gone, not merely down but the towers and grids also destroyed. You could not ask your boss at work for a loan to get back on your feet because the place you work had also been destroyed, and you could not file for insurance because the insurance company was also gone. You had no idea where your family was, and no way to find out. You had nothing to eat or drink, no way to cook it, and no safe place to live. That gives you a small idea of just what has happened. It’s all gone, everything these people knew as their home towns and communities. I had not posted in a while about the earthquake, because frankly the sheer size of the thing made me feel that my words were inadequate, but saying nothing is worse. Therefore this poat, an admittedly poor attempt to examine the disaster from different perspectives, in the hope of finding, well, hope itself.

For today, the perspective is God. That might seem a bit strange at first, especially for those people for whom such a thing as an earthquake seems to suggest that God does not exist or worse, that if He does that he is some cruel overlord, unconcerned by the suffering of people. I lack the intellect to prove the case beyond doubt I confess, yet I must speak in defense of the truth I know.

All humans suffer. We are born in pain, and we die in pain. In between we experience all manner of difficulty, from common hunger and injury to extremes caused by accident or malady. Some few are blessed to never suffer serious deprivation or illness, while others must experience ghastly suffering, either in scale or duration, and far too often there is no justice apparent in the suffering. Some philosophers have argued that this is why we believe in God, in the hope that there must somehow be a right behind it all, beyond our understanding but there all the same, waiting to make things right, for everything to somehow make sense, lest we lose our sanity among other costs. I understand the argument, but it fails to sway me. Other religions besides my own Christianity have tried to address suffering. From what I understand, the Muslims believe suffering is God’s reminder to Man that God is Sovereign, a position I find untenable to my sense of Reason. The Buddhists believe that suffering exists in order for people to address it, for there to be a clear good cause for anyone with a mind to help his neighbor, and I sense that is closer to the truth. With God the all-powerful and perfect creator, how can any mere human hope to understand what He is about, what He wants us to be, unless we first take care for those among us who need help and healing, especially those in pain? Yet even there, I sense there is more than that.

It comes to this: I believe that Jesus Christ did indeed walk among us, as one of us, because of the courage and faith of His disciples. Peter, James, all of them who followed Him became convinced that he was indeed the Messiah, so much so that they would die rather than deny Him (post-crucifixion and resurrection you understand, and mere delusion would not explain the change in Peter, in Thomas, in James). This was not simple hysteria or the normal psychosis of hallucination, for the faith of the early Christians was – so far as anyone has been able to tell – one of significant practicality, humility, and peace. Would that we Christians today were of like faith! The skeptics try to suggest that Christ did not really die, or that he was made up, a fable to teach a moral lesson only, or some such story. But the faith and courage of the early Church, which survived and even prospered despite cruel persecution for over a century, this comes from something real, and something undeniably essential to the human soul. And I think it is this; that Jesus did not merely work among us and teach, He did not merely accept a mortal life, but one of poverty, of the social outcast, even of accepting punishment for horrific crimes He did not commit, in order to prove to any man that He bore our sins and punishment, for the sake of our very soul. Before we even knew Him, he loved us and died for us.

But it is not merely the death which I speak about. It is the life before it, the acceptance of every hardship without complaint. He was hungry and tired as anyone, but never complained. He was mocked even though completely right, He was insulted even though by right He deserved the adulation of every living thing. He took no wife, indeed He had no romance, because he belonged to all of us and therefore could not have the things granted to ordinary men, though He was fully human. He hurt, He suffered, He bore every slight without complaint, though not one was merited. And when His mission here was complete, His disciples began to understand. And they lived as He did, out of that same love, a love born not out of hope of reward or fear of suffering, but in hope of helping others and bearing suffering in order to help others who suffered.

Suffering seems to know no limit. I cannot imagine what it is like to rebuild everything you know, but I note and applaud the spirit of those who take on the challenge. Some may say that they have no choice, but I say that such who take up the difficult work become who they were meant to be in such work. And it is our place to help them, and so become who we are meant to be.

Convince Me

I had some fun yesterday, kicking over the anthill that is the Obama cult, and my, how the little critters are still furious about it. This is one reason I can’t be a Democrat; the people in that party appear for the most part to be driven only by emotion. Sure, it makes sense to care about the issues and your candidate of choice, but there really should be rational, logical reasons for your positions. And frankly, the Left seems to hate the very idea of defending its positions with logic and evidence. Take Global Warming, for instance. I agree that we humans must be responsible for the materials we use, and to be accountable for the effect our actions have on other people and living things. But accepting radical demands simply because they are couched in the ‘we can’t wait to prove our case’ arguments of Global Warming advocates is not rational, especially when there is reason to suspect hidden agenda and ulterior motives. Global Warming is an unproven theory, to say nothing of the claims that man’s actions cause it or can stop it. The Kyoto Treaty stands out as a particularly deceitful and hypocritical example of the thinking, punishing the US while excusing, even rewarding third-world nations and places like China, whose actions are – using the logic of the Left - far more contributory to pollution and Global Warming. A reasonable person could well wonder why we should even be concerned with Carbon Dioxide, known to be beneficial to most plants and inert to humans except in levels on concentration impossible to find in Nature, especially when we could and to my mind should focus on real pollution from particulates and known carcinogens. And that is merely one of the more obvious examples.

Economics is another arena where Leftist demands run into brick walls of Reality. Take the recent hike in the minimum wage, an artificial creation of Congress which does nothing to increase the economy’s effectiveness, but is merely another mechanism for wealth redistribution. The money to pay for the increased minimum comes from the businesses which pay employees, businesses which for the most part are sole proprietorships or small partnerships, that is businesses already running on tight margins which cannot afford to have their expenses increased simply because Congress wanted to do so. So they did what they had to do, they cut positions to make ends meet and this raised the unemployment rate. This is the same logic that adding a half-dollar tax on your gas would be a good idea, but if you look on the side of the pump the next time you fill up, you will see that the government thought that was a great idea, as well. The Left does not understand Economics, and certainly never considers the law of unintended consequences.

This brings us back to the Left’s poster boy for President; a guy whose experience is so thin that he barely got started in his first year as a Senator before he started running for President. A guy who boasted about his superior judgment, but who has had to admit that he did not really understand the character and nature of some of his closest associates. His mentor, Jeremiah Wright, has been exposed as an America-hating racist, yet Obama called this man his mentor and his closest advisor for years. Obama was a close acquaintance of Billy Ayers, even declared his candidacy from Ayer’s house, but now it turns out that Ayers was not only a member of the infamous ‘Weatherman’ terrorist group in the 1960s, he still holds the same values he did then. We find that Obama made deals with his fund-raiser Antoin Rezko, at least before Mr. Rezko got himself indicted and convicted for fraud and corruption. The list goes on much further, but you get the idea … Obama’s associates were and are as dirty as those we once saw surrounding Richard Nixon. Different party, but the same game.

So, convince me guys. What is the rational argument for electing Obama? What empirical support can you point to, that shows he can do the job and is fit for it?

Is there anything inside that expensive suit but a con man?

No Kings Here, Including Obama

One of my favorite stories about our first President, George Washington, concerns the period immediately after the victory at Yorktown in 1783. At long last the hated Redcoats were packing up and leaving, and the Yanks could see about putting their plan for an independent America into peacetime practice. The story goes that a grateful Continental Congress wanted to crown George Washinton as the first King of the United States, and made the offer not once but three times, before General Washington made it clear that he would wear no crown. “No kings here”, he said plainly.

George Washington was a brilliant and charismatic leader, but he also understood that the nation needed a broader leadership than a monarchy could provide. Too few people realize that the Constitution of the United States was not drawn up until long after the War for Independence, and Washington’s decision was one of many critical choices that proved the United States different from so many other rag-tag revolutions. The leaders of the French Revolution did not choose nearly so well in their structure and form of government, for example.

Now here comes Barack “The Messiah” Obama, and with him all manner of arrogant assumptions. Arrogant, because nowhere in these fantasies does he accept limits to his authority or whims. At best, Obama’s supporters have a very poor grasp of the role of the President of the Uniited States, and at worst they mean to ignore the job’s clear limits. For all the whining about imaginary abuses by President Bush, Obama’s supporters expect him to be in complete control, without regard for the Constitutionally defined limits to the roles of the office. Already we are hearing how Obama will address domestic economic issues, military decisions and diplomatic overtures, taxation and spending. We have heard how the Kennedy family is ‘America’s Royalty’ and Obama is somehow heir to a crown of indisputable right to lead the country as he chooses, without obstruction or opposition. And that scenario ought to scare anyone with a grasp of history, anyone who understands the need for the checks and balances which were carefully built into our system of government.

The President of the United States is an executive, yes, but he remains essentially an employee of the citizens of the United States, working in a position which role is limited to specific responsibilities and limits of authority.

Someone should advise Mr. Obama that there are no kings here.

Rocks In His Head, Then His Gut

At the top of the page here, you see my fine furry family members Bingo and Cody. Bingo is the Collie, and she is smarter than many people I know. Cody is the black Lab, and he’s dumb as a doorknob, as recent events proved once again.

The dogs often like to sleep in the garage at night, away from the weather and passersby. So it was that last night they were happily sleeping in their kennels in the garage. Then a little after 3 AM, Bingo started barking and I went to see what was wrong. Turns out Cody had barfed up his dinner from last night, so I took the dogs out to the back yard, then started to clean out Cody’s kennel. And so I quickly found the reason for his distress; a small pile of pebbles sat amidst the vomited dinner. Cody had been eating small rocks!

I knew that dogs get into all kinds of strange behavior, but this was a little different. The dogs have each other and a lot of toys, they have plenty of food (Cody’s starting to get a gut, actually) and water, and I spend a lot of time with them both. I think this was an experiment, and hopefully Cody has learned from it. I checked him out, and he seems to be okay, with a good – if tentative – appetite and full mobility, no signs of pain or further complications.

The First ‘I Am My Own God’ President?

Barack Obama has made a number of questionable statements, including a recent pronouncement in which he seems to count moral values by how well they fit his personal choices. If that portrayal is accurate, then rarely have we seen so self-centered and self-serving a candidate who won his party’s nomination to become President of the United States. The office is an exceptionally demanding one, and it often requires a selfless individual to do the job right, so whether Mr. Obama is the delusional narcissist he appears to be is an important question.

To address that question, I went looking for the whole interview from which the damning statement was taken. It turns out that in 2004, a reporter with the Chicago Sun-Times spoke at length with Mister Obama about his beliefs. Cathleen Falsani posted the interview in whole on her blog, “The Dude Abides”.

Obviously, I strongly commend the reader to visit that site for full details, and I thank Ms. Falsani for her service in providing that interview. The interview led to a book called “The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People”, for those who wish a more in-depth study.

The first thing that jumped out at me was how Mr. Obama described his faith. He said “I am a Christian”, but does not – ever – speak to any personal experience of redemption or salvation. Indeed, Mr. Obama says of Jesus:

“Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.”

Obama appreciates Jesus for what he can get out of the relationship, yet he never mentions how Jesus Christ made the ‘bridge’ possible. Mr. Obama carefully avoids ever using the word ‘Christ’ during the interview, and the rest of the discussion shows why he did that.

Mr. Obama explained that he took influences from more than Christianity in developing his faith, saying “I believe that there are many paths to the same place”, which opposes what the Gospel accounts say. It runs directly against Christ’s own teachings, and is therefore a warning sign for us to consider.

So what does Mr. Obama think Christianity is meant to do? Mr. Obama said that “religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.” In other words, Mr. Obama sees religion only as a philosophical force, a humanist tool rather than the word of God.

Here’s another problem statement from Mister Obama: “I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding.”

This statement can only be made by someone who has ignored or rejected the foundation of Christianity, the faith on which so much depends. Christ Himself made pronouncements and prophecy on the strength of His own faith, the certainty granted by faith in God. The disciples also died rather than rebuke their faith, a certainty which proved their spirit in a way which Mr. Obama’s meal-mouthed humanism cannot possibly understand. The sort of understanding which is granted to the Christian is indeed alien to the man who rejects God, but certainty through faith is one of the primary gifts from God, and is a signal that Mister Obama treats Christianity (and the Lord) as no more than a tool of convenience.

Further on, we see an illuminating statement from Obama which seems to reveal a Freudian slip:

“I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing.”

Ahem. A conversation with ’God’ in which Barack asks things from himself.

This is compounded by his money quote just a little later:

“GG: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.”

Once again, the same signal, that Obama serves as his own god. He reinforces that, when asked about when he thinks he is most spiritually aligned:

”It’s when I’m being true to myself.”

Himself. Not God, himself. And that is a clear warning to everyone who trusts the real God.

History Ignored by the Politicians

One of the truly weird things about this Presidential election, is the way that both Democrats and Republicans have ignored their most effective lessons in political campaigning. For Democrats, the last time they truly routed the Republicans in a Presidential election, was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964. Johnson’s repertoire included a long resume of legislation and long name recognition, as well as tremendous political infighting skills. If Kennedy was the charismatic image of the Democratic Party in 1960, Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the unstoppable force. Yet no Democrat has copied the LBJ model since then.

It’s not as though the Republicans have been smarter, however. Ronald Reagan was undeniably the most successful Republican President in more than a century, and he absolutely destroyed Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale. His composition of personal authenticity and clear conservative values appealed to Americans across the board. Yet no Republican since Reagan has made a serious effort to run a ‘Reagan-style’ campaign.

Heavy Handed, Cold Hearted

The Texas DFPS has finally discovered limits to its arrogance. Following an Appeals court decision (and Texas Supreme Court confirmation), that the DFPS exceeded its authority is grabbing hundreds of kids from their families and dispersing them across the state in a fairly callous disregard for the rights of just about every civilian involved, another judge has ordered that all the children must be returned to their families.

Despite the excuses and claims of the DFPS, the general lesson one may take from their raid is that the state jumped to conclusions, failed to do its job properly, and in the end violated the rights of hundreds of innocent people. Two months after the raid, no evidence whatsoever exists to support the initial contentions against the group, despite a great deal of malignant rumor-mongering by the DFPS. The claims of abuse which the DFPS claimed justified the raid, turned out to be at best assumptions the state never tested, and at worst the deliberate portrayal of the FLDS as monsters its accusers knew were not so, in order to attack the group with public support. In a just world, the state officials who planned and approved the raid should be fired and made accountable for this injustice.

I am not so naïve however, as to believe that the FLDS is perfectly innocent simply because the State of Texas abused its power. The possibility that the group does indoctrinate young girls to ‘marry’ mutiple men in arranged marriages is a serious charge which ought to be investigated, but strictly within the scope of its authority. I have written before, that if someone molests a child they have committed a crime for which I would not hesitate to seek a life sentence for the guilty in a place where molesters serve a very hard sentence, but the charge does not excuse abuse of authority in seeking a prosecution, indeed one of the few crimes as foul as child abuse would be the false allegation of such a thing. In today’s world, the media often portrays a suspect as guilty as soon as he is accused, and even if he proves to be completely innocent of the charge he may expect no real effort by the state or the media to make his innocence clear. In the case of the FLDS, the crimes of Warren Jeffs led to a broad public damnation of the whole group, on nothing more than the assumption that the charges must be true. It is also apparent that the State of Texas has no plans to apologize or make amends to the FLDS, much less to hold anyone accountable in its ranks. This should be unacceptable to anyone of conscience.

So what now? The State still has power, you know. The courts never said it could not do its job, and CPS has the right to visit families and assess risk and safety, but only on a case by case basis, as with any family. If abuse is going on, the State may investigate, collect and build a case, and bring the matter before a grand jury, with due process observed all the way. There will be lawsuits over the raid, of course, and we the taxpayers will have the privilege of paying for abuses by government, even as it denies both the act and accountability for it.

Arrests and raids by armed men should only be made when the evidence has led to a proper indictment or warrant, not simply because an excuse of good intentions is made, or the agency believes it holds rights and the accused do not. Rights are inviolable. On this point, one hopes that liberals and conservatives may agree.

The Obama Electoral Plan Revealed

When Senator Barack Obama stated that he had only visited “57” of the states in the United States, with 3 untouched by the Obamashoe as of yet, the comment was met with some derision, in the belief that the Senator had managed to miss the number of states in the nation. This week, however, it was discovered that the additional ten states are part of a plan to win the general election this fall. The new ten states are heavily Democrat in alignment and certain to support Senator Obama in any election. The new states recognized by the DNC are as follows:

The State of Financial Irresponsibility
The State of Personality Infatuation
The State of Media Imbalance
The State of Radical Inexperience
The State of Extreme Moral Relativism
The State of Obsolete Devotion to Socialism
The State of Politicized Religion
The State of Class Warfare
The State of Naïve Assumptions
The State of Non-Accountability

Intelligence and the Presidency

There are sixteen official agencies which collect and analyze intelligence data for the federal government of the United States of America. Most Americans are unaware of all but a few of them, and even knowledgable people often fail to understand what each agency does, and the significance of the Presidency on how they operate. The President who takes office in 2009 will redirect intelligence priorities and allocate resources to suit his preferences, a fact which has significant value to the character and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence.

A complete examination of the intelligence community would take far more time and space than is appropriate for a weblog entry, so for this article we must examine the world of intelligence only as brief overview. Intelligence is used by the government to observe trends, threats, and opportunities. These may be military, political, economic, social, religious, or geographical in type. Intelligence operations are planned for any nation seen as hostile to the United States or a likely opponent in some forseeable potential conflict, but the majority of operations and the most resources are applied to the nation seen as the greatest threat to American security.

The most obvious point of focus in how a president regards intelligence, may be seen in his preference for either human agents (HUMINT), technological surveillance (SIGINT), or military goals (MILINT). For example, President Carter distrusted human intelligence, and preferred to rely more heavily on satellite surveillance. As a result, he was caught by surprise when Iran’s government collapsed. President Reagan supported the development of new satellites for intelligence, but also the renewed development of agents in place. President Clinton followed President Carter’s preference for SIGINT, while Presidents G.H.W. and George W. Bush have focused primarily on militarily actionable intelligence, in terms of policy. If Senator McCain is elected president this November, he is likely to maintain the emphasis on MILINT primacy, while an Obama victory would likely result in a sharp decrease in support for field officers.

Their Surrender, Not Ours

An early distinction between the Democrat and Republican candidates for President, is the question about whether countries like Iran represent a threat to the United States, and if so what sort of posture should be taken to protect America. Speaking for the Left, Senator Barack Obama says that Iran should not be considered a real threat to the US, generally because it lacks the size of army and scale of armament to threaten American territory. It is laughable to argue that a nation like Iran would invade any land where US troops have boots on the ground. He makes the point that one-size-fits-all does not make sense when addressing different types of enemies, and suggests that discussions might prevent more costly confrontation later. In theory, this makes a kind of sense.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the reality of the situation is very different from what he believes to be the case. In the first place, the government of Iran is known to have supplied and supported groups which entered Iraq for the specific purpose of destabilizing the post-Saddam government of Iraq. This means support for terrorist actions, including the abduction, torture and murder of innocents, including women and children. The government of Iran has also supported groups which attack American military personnel, making Iran the defacto enemy of the United States; discussions with a government which is deliberately murdering Americans is unthinkable for any prospective American President, as the would-be commander-in-chief of our soldiers.

But the matter goes far beyond the blunder of not recognizing the role of the American President. Iran has been at war against the United States since 1979, from the seizure of the American Embassy in Teheran (for which Iran not only has never apologized, but in fact celebrates) , to attacks on American-flagged vessels in the Gulf over many years, to the present cross-border attempts to kill Americans and defeat American interests, as well as the development of its nuclear weapons program. Proper “discussions” with Iran are impossible, since the regime in place supports terrorists, seeks nuclear weapons, and every leader of note in Iran for the past generation has unanimously stated the intention of destroying all American interests and allies in the region. The only action by an American President which the mulllahs and functionaries in Teheran will accept is unconditional surrender. One hopes that this is not the intended course of Mister Obama.

Yet even that does not tell the whole matter. For all the fact that the Left hates American power and influence, it is undeniable that the United States has been the defender and sentry for more than half the world for two generations. America won World War Two, more than any other power. And after that, the world depended on America to stop the spread of Communism, and to support the growth of wealth and freedom. The enemies of America ranged from those who wielded nuclear missiles from far away, to those within who hated their homeland enough to spread lies and slander against her. Sadly, some of America’s enemies hold office as elected officials of the United States government. While I do not count Senator Obama among that number, it must nonetheless be remembered that the words and actions of a President will support and advance a doctrine, and as President Carter discovered, a weak and timid President will not be able to protect American interests.

The world watches the United States, and responds to her lead. We are not equal to anyone else, and it is vital to understand that if we falter, there is no one else among our allies who can carry the standard of freedom and liberty. That is, a step back by America, even to protect our troops from casualty and our image from criticism, will condemn real people to submission under a tyrant, and will prove us liars in our promise of hope. If we do not oppose the supporters of terrorism, no one else will. If we do not defy the likes of Ahmadinejad and Assad, then their practice of asymmetrical warfare is validated, and will be repeated in countless other places against untold numbers of victims. 9/11 did not happen because we were arrogant, but because our enemies thought we would not be able to punish them. The fact that no international terrorist organization has been able to successfully perform an operation on US soil since 2003, demonstrates the success of our doctrine, and the critical need for its continuance. We are at war with certain powers which oppose all we stand for. We do not need to discuss anything with them, except to make clear that we will destroy such evil with every means at our disposal. Anyone who would be President of this nation must make completely clear that he understands and supports American victory, and will not countenance any hindrance to that effort.

Big Trouble In China

This week, my wife and I watched the tragedy of the Sichuan Earthquake unfold to a greater scope. What was once focused on a handful of towns, has now devastated more than one hundred. What once had killed perhaps twenty thousand people, has a confirmed death toll four times that number with estimated deaths well above one hundred thousand people. What was once rescue, has become the grimmer task of recovery and rebuilding. In reading and watching news about the earthquake, I have noticed some fools who want to compare the Chinese response favorably to FEMA’s response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a political spin which only demonstrates how poorly they grasp the scope of the catastrophe. That is, from one perspective the US response to Katrina was significantly faster and more effective than the response to the Sichuan earthquake. Rescuers were on-site less than an hour after the levies broke, beginning with the Coast Guard. In comparison, the first rescuers arrived on scene in the Sichuan region about four days after the quake hit, and on foot. Organized rescue efforts in China did not effectively begin until almost a week after the earthquake, in part because China has never established an earthquake response protocol. Also, it is becoming increasingly obvious that neither buildings nor roads nor bridges were built in China to the same sort of code expected in the United States.

For now, the Chinese people are united in support of their government and in efforts to help the Sichuan survivors. There is a certain adrenaline to the movement, and action to help people is universally preferred to someone trying to agitate public opinion. Also, the Beijing government has been adept in showing its human face. President Hu Jintao has been seemingly everywhere in the region, and the People’s Liberation Army has always been shown leading in delivery of food and medicine, never a weapon in sight of the cameras. For at least another year, the consensus of opinion will favor the government, not least because unlike the West, the media in China will not attack the Central Committee or its decisions, much less the Politburo. But already a few warning signs of discontent are appearing; CCTV noted the need for armed troops in certain areas to deal with looters, groups in some of the larger towns have protested the poor quality of construction, and the Beijing government admitted on Friday that it has not yet arrived at more than fifty towns and villages, even this long after the earthquake. China is often compared favorably to leading nations of the West, but it has no Coast Guard in any Search & Rescue sense, it has no equivalent to FEMA, it has no Corps of Engineers in any sense relevant to the civilian populations, and it has absolutely no disaster planning in place to address weather and natural events like earthquakes.

This is salient to China’s future because of two words: Rising Expectations. During the regime of Deng Xiaoping, literacy climbed above 90% in China for the first time ever, and the government loosened the leash on private business, especially in the ‘autonomous’ regions. The theory was that Communism could rule the country, while allowing a smidgen of Capitalism to make life easier. But people get used to a world of free choice, and an educated population is more aware of the choice available to everyone else. At some point in the next few years, people will begin to discover how Western nations deal with disasters, and they will want to know why natural disasters kill so many fewer people in the West. They will begin to demand accountability from their top leaders, and a more functional response than the platitudes of Mao. It will be slow, and may take decades to emerge fully, but the momentum of such change is historically impossible to stop. The earthquake in Sichuan has sent a lesson which will eventually be learned by the whole country; that even the enlightened Communism of 21st-Century Beijing is far less effective than it needs to be, and the economic success of a little Capitalism will create a growing appetite and demand for a political model in the same alignment.

A Brief Observation

The news this week was about Cancer, disasters which kill tens of thousands, governments which sweep away families solely on unproven charges, and the hard uncertain road to feed your famliy and protect them.

And even then, so many still deny that we need God …

Sichuan Death Toll

The number of known dead has climbed above 40,000. The estimated death toll from officials in Beijing has climbed above 72,000. Almost that many remain missing, and more than half of the 45 cities and towns hit by the earthquake have still not been reached by rescue and recovery workers, even eight days after the 7.9 earthquake (revised yesterday from 7.8 by USGS).

Prayers and help, whatever you can do for the people in Sichuan, would be appreciated and are desperately needed.

Food
Water
Tents
Tools
Medical supplies
construction equipment

are most needed.

Please contact

US Aid for International Development (US AID): http://www.usaid.gov/

Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/news/in/profiles/Intl_profile_ChinaEarthquake.asp?s_src=HomeLatestNews

World Vision: http://www.worldvision.org/

Doctors Without Borders: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

International Medical Corps: http://imcworldwide.org/

Ted Kennedy and Hope

I was dismayed to hear about Senator Kennedy’s brain tumor, not least because the consensus seems to be that there is no hope for his survival. Speaking as someone told by his oncologist to prepare for death not so very long ago, I say to the Senator the following:

Do not, sir, give up this fight or yield even an ounce of your energy to despair or worry. If the enemy is fell and fearsome, do not forget that you yet have hope and avenues to pursue.

I am no expert on tumors, nor of the sort of cancer which caused Senator Kennedy’s condition. But I do know that research proceeds on all fronts, and there are possibilities today which were undreamed of just a decade ago. Just as my oncologist was unaware of new information and treatment options on Pseudomyxoma Peritonei when he considered my condition, so too there may be possibilities that Senator Kennedy’s doctors have missed. This is not a slight on the doctors, but simply an observation that there is a lot of information out there, and many times an informed and intelligent patient may find things that even his doctor has missed. On a less charitable note, I recall that my first oncologist behaved rather badly when I decided to get a second opinion from Dr. Lambert at M.D. Anderson, to such a point that I had to remind him of the provisions of HIPAA, specifically the part about the patient having a right to their own medical records. I worry that some medical professionals are less than humble about admitting the limitations of their knowledge; they simply refuse to ask for help or admit that someone else might be better able to meet a certain medical challenge.

Even as a layman, however, I am aware that there have been significant advances in the treatment of metastatic brain tumors, including hyperfractionation of chemotherapy rather than massive doses, and targeted radiation treatment using such things as proton therapy (which delivers radiation strictly to the tumor boundary and within, avoiding damage to healthy tissue) protocols. In short, there are many new tools which are not only more effective in these situations, but which also significantly reduce risk of impairment even as they protect quality-of-life. While Senator Kennedy’s doctors may well be familiar with these options, it is still vitally important for the family and the Senator himself to understand these options and to develop a course of action which gives him the best chance not only for survival, but for optimal quality of life.

It has been mentioned that Senator Kennedy’s politics make him something of a target for criticism, and in political debates this is fair enough. But I know from personal experience, that Cancer is a damnable enemy which respects no moral boundaries. It will attack a Republican just the same as a Democrat, a man or a woman with equal energy. Cancer is a horrifying malady, one which seeks to kill its victim, but only after excruciating torture. I know it too well, from my own cancer to my mother’s recent return of Breast Cancer, to the deaths of old friends and some new ones (and children – the damned thing goes after children as if it were the devil himself). No one deserves Cancer, and any victory over Cancer is a good one, one to celebrate. I pray for the recovery of Senator Kennedy and for his family’s comfort in this time. But I counsel the Senator to keep his courage strong for the fight ahead. It will be difficult, but it can be won.

Locality Report Sichuan Earthquake

As of 6:15 AM Tuesday May 20 2008:

Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture – 161 known dead, no details. No water or power or phone service.

Barkam - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Bianr - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Baiwang - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Chengdu (Sichuan capital) – city destroyed, no water or power, gas shut off because of major line breaks. Heavy casualties, number unknown but estimated at between three and four thousand dead in main city. Notable: 900 students trapped in collapse of Juyuan Middle School, no report of deaths yet from that collapse.

Deyang City – no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Dujiangyan City (suburb of Chengdu) – no standing buildings, no usable roads or bridges, essentially 98% casualties (dead or seriously injured) but specific numbers not yet known, estimated at two thousand dead.

Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture - casualties reported via radio but no specifics estimated 7,500 dead, no phone service, no power or water, bridges out and roads impassable.

Guangyuan City – 700 known dead, no details. No water, power, or phone service.

Hongyuan - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Jinchuan - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Kangding - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Leshan - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Luzhou - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Mianyang City – 7,400 known dead, 18,500+ missing trapped in fallen buildings. Notable: Collapse of Beichuan Middle School killed over 1,000 children. No gas, power, water, phones.

Mianzhu – 2,000 known dead, 10,000 known serious injuries. Estimated 4,800 trapped in rubble, including 200 children at two collapsed schools.

Namda - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Nanchong - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Neijiang - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Pingwu - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Sanggarmai - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Shifang – 2,500 known dead. Two chemical plants destroyed, leaking ammonia and unknown gasses. 30,000+ missing or trapped in rubble.

Shimian - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Suining - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Tianchi - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Wenchuan County (epicenter) – 7,700+ dead, all roads impassable, no standing buildings, no water, gas lines, or electricity. Notable: Region is home to largest known population of Pandas, casualties unknown.

Xindao - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Xinshiba - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Ya’an - casualties reported via radio but no specifics estimated 3,500 dead, no phone service, no power or water, roads impassable.

Yanmemba - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Zhehor - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Zigong - no specific information, not even estimates at this time.

Ziyang – casualties reported via radio but no specifics estimated 2,000 dead, no phone service, no power or water, roads impassable.

Total deaths for the quake now estimated at 50,000 (34,000 confirmed), 250,000 missing, 2 million+ injured, 5.5 million homeless, 45 cities, towns, or villages have confirmed deaths from the quake.

detail - 5.4 aftershock hit Chengdu Monday evening. Mudslide killed 200 rescue workers, additional 50 missing, roads impassable again, only helicopter transport possible in region

Sichuan

Beichuan, May 18 - The man was trapped below thirty feet of collapsed concrete, somehow alive although his head, body, and legs were sandwiched between two 18-inch thick sections of roof and floor. Earlier survivors removed from the building had reported hearing voices from further inside the rubble, but one by one the remaining voices were silenced before the rescue teams could free them. By May 14, two days after the 7.8 magnitude earthquake which had brought the building down, all of the people in the building had been freed or had died. All except this one man, incredibly still alive despite the crushing weight on his body. Rescue teams had cleared a path to the man, but needed better machinery to get him free. He could not move, except for one hand which could reach out but not back in. Painstakingly, rescuers worked a line to get him better air and fresh water, and some soup. Day after day, the man continued to survive as teams struggled to free him and other victims pinned under concrete and steel. Between May 12 and 18, some sixteen aftershocks of 5.0 or greater on the Richter scale rocked the town and region, toppling temporary structures and bridges and wiping out the repair work on roads. Yet the crews continued to work, without stopping and with almost no sleep or food themselves. One by one the crews freed victims, some amazingly alive despite their injuries and going days without food or drink. Such stories made the news and cheered the rescue teams immensely, charging their emotional batteries for the next challenge. But in many other cases the story was not allowed a happy ending.

A colonel from the PLA held the hand of the man trapped under the building, praising his stamina in lasting so long under the crushing weight. But as night fell, the man’s grip suddenly fell slack, and he did not respond to pleas to respond. Just twenty minutes later, the building sitting on top of the man was raised enough to pull him free … but he was dead. He had survived a week after the first quake, survived for days with no food or water until rescuers found him, but in the end he joined the thousands of dead. The rescue team wept bitterly at the injustice of the loss, hardened soldiers along with doctors and engineers.

The official count for the Sichuan earthquake passed 29,000 Saturday, the unofficial estimate is more like fifty thousand dead, and many fear the toll will be much higher. Literally millions of people in the region are homeless, having lost everything they know, and a number of cities simply do not exist anymore, their water pipes, electrical lines, and roads utterly wiped away in the devastation.

The GOP’s Credibility Crisis

A few years ago, I had the privilege of speaking to a gentleman who worked for the Gallup Organization. We had a substantive discussion about the business and standards of opinion polling, especially with regard to elections. The gentlemen and I differed on the question of party demographics. Polls weight the responses from people according to a number of demographics in an attempt to show poll results in a context proportional to the real population. This is controversial in terms of party identification, because different polls use different weights. The key question comes down to whether people are quick or reluctant to change their party identification. Also, party identification may or may not be salient to an election’s conduct. Ronald Reagan, for example, was undeniably a Conservative in his politics, yet he won support from many Democrats, Democrats who voted for Democrats in Congressional elections but voted for Reagan as President.

This phenomenon, that party identification may or may not be a factor in support for a candidate in a given election, depends on an often overlooked quality in voters; party identification is not necessarily the same thing as their values. To understand this, let’s look at what’s happened since 2005 to party identification. It’s reasonable, I think, to say that in the last three years a greater proportion of voters consider themselves Democrat, while a smaller proportion of voters consider themselves Republican. Imagine three pools of voters – Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. At first they are all roughly the same size, but events cause this to change. First off, the Republican Party chased off its Conservative wing by breaking key promises and abandoning the values which gained it the majority in Congress. Ironically, when in subsequent elections the Republicans lost House and Senate seats, they blamed it on the Conservatives, rather than admit and correct their error. During that same time, the Republican Party began to steadily desert the President , even where his position matched the stated positions of Republican office-holders and candidates; Republicans fell prey to the lie that President Bush was wrong in his policies and appointments, and millions of Americans who supported the President were ostracized by his own party. Alienated by the Republican Party, Conservatives and Bush supporters in large part chose to sit out the 2006 midterm elections, and rather than heed the cost of their folly, the GOP in the main chose to tack hard to the Left, not quite to the point of supporting the madness of Pelosi and Reid, yet not opposing them in force either. Having banished millions of supporters of the President and Conservatives from its ranks, the GOP further emasculated itself in imitation of the Democrats. This clearly reduced public support for the Republicans.

As for the Democrats, their continued success in the media and in the elections held after 2004 have emboldened the party, and there is strong optimism in the DNC that in addition to increasing control of both houses of Congress, they will claim the White House in 2008 to complete the trifecta. Liberals are greatly enthused by the campaign of Barack Obama and other radicals, and the optimism of the party has energized public support. As a result, the situation is one where fewer and fewer voters are willing to publicly voice support for a Republican, and alignment with the Democrats is becoming once again the norm, indicating a return to pre-1994 levels of power and influence.

All is not as it may appear, however. Democrats enjoyed a resurgence in the spring of 2004, which fell as Kerry’s campaign proved to be something less than advertised. Also, the feuding between Obama and Clinton threatens party unity for the fall campaign. But the greatest threat of all lies in assuming that strong party identification for the Democrats will result in comparable gains in the election of the President. I noted the shift in party identification and public support of a political party, but people vote according to their value system, which changes slowly if at all. I mentioned Reagan earlier; Reagan won support from some Democrats because of his strong defense stance, and his common-sense support for American business. In the Presidential race, therefore, the door is open for a candidate to win support outside his party, or at least to consolidate support within his party, by clearly stating where he stands and what he will do.

That said, however, it is clear that at this point the Democrats have build a reasonable degree of unity, even with the fractious debate between Obama and Clinton supporters. The Republicans, on the other hand, have a crisis of credibility, not only with the American public but within their own ranks. There is tremendous opportunity for an amazing comeback, but at the present point in time there is little evidence that the GOP is willing to do what is needed to make that happen.

The Bush Supporters Will Choose the next President

It is safe to say that the 2008 Presidential election is a mess. The media’s favorite, Senator Barack Obama, is simultaneously on course to clinch the Democrats’ nomination for the party’s top spot, and seeing his political posture erode through a series of gaffes and undesirable revelations about his associates and character. The candidate once dubbed the ‘inevitable’ next President, Senator Hillary Clinton, has gained some significant primary victories in recent weeks, most notably the 41-point rout of Senator Obama in West Virginia, but the mathematical position of the race makes it very difficult for Senator Clinton to realistically win the nomination. On the Republican side, these self-imposed difficulties for Obama and Clinton should provide good cheer for Senator John McCain, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, but McCain has deliberately burned bridges with the GOP’s Conservative wing, and has reinforced his disrespect for the work done by President George W. Bush, in the apparent belief that such conduct is politically advantageous. Yet the numbers show that the voters who still support President Bush may well decide the election for the White House this fall.

Let’s look at the polls. Job Approval for the President has not been strong for the past two years and more, but for all the bad press there is a foundation of stone which supports President Bush at all times. That number has been as low at 29% in national polls, but recently is a point or two above that. A good example would be the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It’s important to note that neither ABC News nor the Washington Post is particularly even-handed on this question, and so there is a certain amount of spin applied to attack any Republican President. The ABC poll accordingly shows President Bush at 31% support, but grudgingly concedes that 69 percent of Republicans approve of President Bush. The poll goes on to note that 39 percent of Republicans “strongly approve” of the President’s job. Working the numbers backwards, the ABC poll weighted 64% of responses from the Left, against only 36 percent from the Right. The reader should decide for themselves whether that weighting accurately reflects the voters’ polarity.

Let’s now look at 2004 again. President Bush claimed over 62 million votes in that election, and while that was admittedly against a clearly weak Democrat opponent, it demonstrates a strong base. Obviously, Bush has lost some of that support in his second term, not least because he is not running again, but if 39 percent of Republicans still support him “strongly”, that works out to more than 24 million voters who would not mind seeing someone like George W. Bush in this fall’s election, but who would not like anyone who attacked and demeaned him. Stating it bluntly, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the Democrats’ nominee would lose a certain number of votes this fall as a result of the fierce infighting during the Primaries and residual damage which would resurface during the General campaign, but probably no more than 10% of the numbers from 2004, resulting in no less than 53 million votes for the Democratic Party nominee. If John McCain can rebuild support from Conservative and Bush-approving Republicans, even the attrition from party blunders would leave McCain with effectively 88% of the Republican support Bush enjoyed in 2004, or 54 million votes. McCain’s appeal to independents would probably raise his numbers by another 5 or 6 million votes. However, under no circumstances should McCain expect significant Democrat support, or to win the majority of Independent voters, meaning that he will be most dependant on a solid core of GOP support. McCain’s stance will probably cause between 5 to 6 million Conservatives to stay home this fall, washing out most of the gains he hopes to make from Independents. That means, when everything is said and done, that the 24 milllion Bush-approving Republicans will be essential to a McCain victory. If McCain collects less than 85% support among Republicans who approve of the job done by President Bush, he will lose the fall election to the Democrat. It remains to be seen if Senator McCain grasps this critical fact, and if so, what he will do to convince Bush voters that he deserves their vote.

The Job

In my present position, I am often called upon not only to review the performance of my staff and to hire new employees, both contract and permenant, but also to describe job positions. This happens because as my company grows and evolves, the positions needed to perform even core competencies also change, and we have to make sure people are brought on board who are qualified for the work and clear about expectations. The job description provides a template for determining who makes the cut for later interviews. It seems to me that it would be worthwhile to consider the job description for the President of the United States.

The United States of America is a well-established global concern, mature yet also still enjoying growth. USA Operations are directed by its Constitution, which established three legitimate arms of control, none of them supreme and none of them inferior. Laws are created and passed by the Congress, pursuant to approval through signature from the President, who is accorded limited veto power. The federal courts may also rule a federal law to be unconstitutional, requiring modification or destroying the law. The President holds the power to begin wars and to a large degree control their conduct, although funding for all wars depends on Congressional approval, and therefore Congress can end any military venture it deems should be ended. Congress can create Congressional amendments by which (if ratified by the states) the Courts must abide. The federal judiciary is appointed by the President, pursuant to approval by the Senate. As a body the Congress holds the most power, as a group the Supreme Court is the most independent (facing no elections or term limits), but as an individual the President of the United States is arguably the most powerful and influential human being on the planet.

The President of the United States must be 35 years of age at his inauguration or older, and he (or she) must be a ‘natural’ citizen of the United States, which is to say born to American citizens and by law a citizen at birth. There are no additional formal requirements to become President, except that the person who would become President must be elected to that office, or else be the sitting Vice-President or next-in-succession at such time as the sitting President resigns, is removed from office, or becomes unable to preform the duties of the office as defined in the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are no requirements regarding education, military service, race, gender, employment, or vocation. Depending on the mood at the time of election, various types of experience and background have helped or hurt various candidates throughout the years.

Because the President has authority to deploy troops anywhere around the world, and to initiate military actions at his decision, a candidate’s military service is often a key qualification in electoral practice. However, in recent years the requisite quality more often desired is judgment, the ability to gauge the effect of a decision in advance of the action. Accordingly, a candidate who second-guesses a decision without a clear and productive alternative is weak, as is one who holds a position without explaining his reasoning. A candidate who can respect actions taken by a predecessor, yet offer an effective new direction for future strategy, however, is far more formidable a candidate.

Because the President has authority to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices, a candidate’s political bias and environment is crucial to voters’ perception of his likely nominations. While judicial appointments are often cast as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, better descriptors might be ‘activist’ and ‘constructionist’ judges, on the basis of whether the President would appoint judges inclined to believe that the Constitution is incomplete or sufficient to define and address the conditions on which those judges will decide the constitutionality of a lower court action.

The President has no formal authority to influence the Economy, beyond presenting a proposed federal budget each year to the Congress, in practice a President often enjoys a unique position to influence public opinion, and in such position to sway a close Congressional vote on a key action, especially one involving taxes. The President enjoys a traditional annual forum to speak to the nation’s key issues, called the State of the Nation address.

That’s it, essentially. The President appoints judges, signs or vetoes legislation, proposes budgets, sends the military on missions, and influences the national course through persuasion. He does not and cannot stop hurricanes, foretell the future, control the affairs of foreign governments, or command the economy to lower prices, increase wages, or otherwise make life wonderful through sheer will. He can work to persuade business leaders to make sound decisions, he can stay out of the way of people who know what they are doing, and he can do his best to appoint people to federal positions who can make a difference, but he is not Superman, despite the election hype.

There you have it, a job description of what the President should be and do. One final mention, the references to ‘he’ does not mean that only a male would make a good President; in English grammar the non-specific gender reference for any unknown human entity would be male. Thus, when a person’s gender is not know, by default that person would be referred to as ‘he’ or ‘him’.

It’s Not About Nice

The talk these days is about how Obama leads the ‘Nice’ race, and is therefore that much more formidable. Or to put it another way, now that we know he has no resume, no tools for foreign policy decisions or economic infrastructure, we are now told Obama will win anyway, because he’s just so lovable. Yeah, right, sure. Look, I believe Barack Obama is a nice enough guy, but we have not seen his temper very much, his people and the media working overtime to keep him from ever having to answer any really tough questions. There were flashes though, when his canned answers for why he stayed close to a country-hating racist of a pastor for twenty–plus years got challenged, albeit briefly. Obama is not as nice and fluffy as he pretends, and I can’t help but wonder if he won’t show a little ire along the way to November.

But aside from that, the old fable that the ‘nice’ candidate wins the White House is suspect at best. Sure, Eisenhower and Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all well known for their charm and high-watt smiles, but who can seriously claim the same for Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Was Bill Clinton really a nicer guy than George H.W. Bush? And what about the election in 2000? Clearly, George W. Bush was a nicer guy than Al Gore, even Mr. Gore admitted the same, but Gore actually received more votes in the Popular tally than did Bush. The theory just doesn’t hold up.

Hurting the Democratic Party?

One thing I have been hearing a lot these days and seeing a lot of articles, is how the prolonged race between Sentors Obama and Clinton for the party nomination is “hurting” the Democratic Party. OK, so maybe I’m the kindergarten scissors in a drawer full of power saws, but say what?

Shouldn’t Democrats be fully informed about the people who want to lead the nation under their banner? Shouldn’t the rules in place be followed for selecting their nominee?

But there, of course, is the rub. The Donks wanted to have their guy/girl/whatever in the spotlight early on, so they could build up their position. The favorite myth of the Left, that later means worse, is still big with these guys, proving once again that they learned pretty much zilch from 2004. If I were making the case for someone hurting the party. I’d say the people selling the theory that lessons from past elections should be ignored, that image is better than substance, that regular people should be lied to rather than listened to, those are the people who hurt whatever group they touch.

The Democrats used to be a potent force for political effectiveness and moral leadership. Not that I agreed with every decision they made, but men like John Kennedy and Harry Truman were good for the nation, and their character showed up in hard decisions and clear initiatives. Not that there are not good Democrats now, but they are much fewer than before, and they are not leading the party (is anyone?) This has happened before, of course, and in both major parties. The Democrats had Grover Cleveland at a high point, then fell back a bit through Woodrow Wilson and his era, and rallied back a bit under Truman and Kennedy, before falling into the mud for a long time after that. The problem the Democrats are starting to recognize now was a long time coming, but it was not caused by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Those two people are merely the sad consequence of a generation of shallow, manipulative scheming by so many politicians before them. And so the problem will not be resolved by one of the two dropping out of the race, but the Democrats having a hard look in the mirror and – finally – deciding to stand for something more than grabbing power by preaching envy and hate.

Economics is Not a Pure Science

On another blog, I had the pleasure to exchange opinions with a bloglodyte. What earned this fellow that sobriquet was not the fact that he and I disagreed, but that he pursued his argument without the use of reason or a single cogent fact. Vituperance and envy pretty much shut down all of the higher-cranial functions for this bitter young man. Along the course of his disjointed rants, he attempted to make some of his claims more credible by insisting that he held a master’s degree in Economics, a claim his own claims immediately dispelled. As a rule of thumb, one should have at least a passing familiarity with the major concepts and prevailing theories of a subject, before claiming expertise in the field. The fellow took umbrage at my observation that Economics is not really a science in the true sense, but rather a set of sociological behavior matrices, based on mathematic theories applied to conditional scenarios. This basic fact is essential to understanding how Economics works, and why it is so relevant to Politics.

Look at the stock market, for example. Every day, more than a thousand publicly traded stocks are bought and sold at bourses around the world and through online sales. The prices of these stocks are supposedly based on the best estimates of the companies’ fundamental performance indicators in terms of revenue, costs, debt, and other salient factors, yet minute by minute the price varies. Why? Because the price of the stock is determined by buy and sell decisions made throughout the business day, based not only on hard data and analysis, but on the emotional belief that a company is worth more or less than it’s stock price indicates, driving the price up or down. In fact, it is this emotional component which creates sales of stock in the main; if everyone agreed what the price of a stock should be, the stock price would quickly assume that value and no one would buy or sell from that point onward.

For that matter, look at oil. We’re not running out, in the short term at least. Drive to any station, and they will have all you want of all grades of gas, and even on the overall scale, stocks are not in any present danger. So, what drives gasoline prices up and up? The component costs of getting that gas to the station, that’s what, such as the petroleum. Why is oil more expensive? Because of the belief that events in the Middle East, concerns about environmental costs, and so on make the oil more expensive. That, and the fact that the eco-morons want cheap gas but won’t let anyone drill for oil close to home or build any more refineries, but again, that’s an emotional decision and supports what I am saying.

Another example is this whole sub-prime mortgage mess. Granted, it’s a real problem, but the problem affected a small percentage of mortgages and a minor sector of home building, not affecting the basic value of a home or the rates on exiting fixed-rate mortgages, as is held by most folks. What changed was brought about by a change in opinion about the stability of the industry, the trustworthiness of mortgage lenders, and the need for the government to act, which is almost always cumbersome, ineffective, and pricey in the long run. It simply needs to be understood, that we the people, to a great degree choose the economic conditions through our reaction to events which are for the most part transitory and minor. That is not to say that the effects are not real, or that people do not suffer tragically in some of these cases, but the humanistic component of all economic conditions must not be ignored.

Which brings us to politics. Obama’s faithful believe he will change things for the better, to my mind in spite of all the evidence. Hillary’s supporters believe that her time as First Lady and her short service as a Senator give her the qualifications not only to run the country, but also a far better grounding in the requisite capability than Senator Obama. And McCain’s team is confident in their belief that he is the best-qualified candidate to lead the country. Ultimately, all three of these candidates are in a race to get the most people to express belief in them, to emotionally invest in the candidate. I cannot recall a national election ever being won on the basis discourse, for good or ill. And because all of the candidates can be counted on to dwell on the U.S. economy and offer up their proposed solutions, what people believe about the economy is an important element to how the race will play out.

Why Real Men Don’t Care What Women Want

Cassy Fiano has written a piece about the need, in her opinion, for men to “MAN UP”.

I respectfully disagree. Enough so that I think a full rebuttal is needed. While some of Cassy’s points are valid, her article makes what I see as mistakes in several areas, and these need to be addressed, if the gender behavior question is to be better understood and resolved.

The first thing to say in any gender discussion, is the obvious fact that men and women are different. Physically, mentally, emotionally, and in how Society treats the gender. Look at crime, for instance. In my book, an adult teacher who molests a student is a particularly slimy felon, one who should be put away for a very, very long time. Yet over and over, we see that female teachers who have sex with their students do not receive even half the length of sentence commonly issued to male teachers who do the same thing. Sexual harassment is supposed to apply to equally to men and women, but here again we see that women suing for sexual harassment are far more successful in court than men who do the same thing, as a proportion of damages awarded to cases filed. Granted, this is an offense where male perpetrators far outnumber female offenders, yet this also is skewed, because even in today’s world, a male employee who complains of unwanted sexual advances by a female superior will be mocked and ridiculed in the public, in a way no female complaintant in the United States needs to fear.

A significant portion of the article addresses the decision by women either to work outside the home or to stay at home. The article never mentions that in many families, the man stays home while the woman works, not in some hillbilly paradise where the guy slacks around, but because the woman may be better suited to working in a corporation while the man has better domestic skills. It may come as a shock, but some men are better at cooking, cleaning, and child care, and some women are better in monetary skills. If a couple or family finds themselves in the fortunate situation where one paycheck is sufficient, it’s nobody else’s business how they decide to sort out the various responsibilities of the house.

The article also appears to take a swipe at two-career parents, quoting Mellisa Clothier’s rather stupid asssertion that many men “no longer work as hard because they just don't have to. On the one hand, they don't have the financial pressure of their father's generation, but they also don't have the self-respect, work-ethic and noble purpose of their father's generation either.”

What utter bilge! No serious thought could possibly have produced that statement, which reflects some long-disproven assumptions about the modern generation and a more than slightly elitist arrogance. I will use my own experience to illustrate:

My father worked as the sole breadwinner for his family when he was young. This is because at 8 years old during the Depression, he still had an easier time finding a job than his mother or sister could, and so even before Middle School, my father was helping support his family. That mindset, to do what the family needed at any cost, became something of a lifelong mission for my father. In the performance of that mission, he worked long hours, took countless assignments in other countries because they paid more, and sacrificed an untold number of personal luxuries and goals for his wife and kids. He spent what little “free time” he had with us kids and with the church as a Bible Study teacher. The ‘payoff’ for his work? Four heart attacks, a stroke, he was laid off seven times during his career, his commitment to the job hurt his marriage, we had to move four times to find work that met the family’s needs, and the stress and wear from so much travel and effort left him a physical wreck, so that the last nine years of his life he could barely walk, leaving his bed only for minutes at a time. This was not doctor Clouthier’s mythical “self-respect”, “work-ethic”, or “noble purpose” – such terms lose their meaning when the man is destroyed just trying to take care of his family, and people like Clouthier do not begin to understand the forces at work which challenge a family to survive, let alone succeed.

Then there is my wife, Mikki. Her first husband was a big believer in the stay-at-home wife, he would have applauded Ms. Clouthier. He treated his wife like a possession, like a prize to be kept under lock and key and always under his control. Of course, his freedom to work while she stayed home also helped him have an affair, which destroyed the marriage as such things often do. Mikki was left alone to fend for herself, and she was grimly pleased to do see she could manage her affairs without some husband to do it for her. When she and I married, we both understood that she intended to work full time, for several reasons but which included the fact that she would never allow herself to be kept in a box, whether it be a house or apartment or assumption. If Ms. Clouthier and Ms. Fiano wish to stay at home and have the means to do so, good for them, but that in no way means anyone else is obliged to do the same, nor are they irresponsible if they choose that path. Further, I am no less a man for respecting my wife’s wishes and being aware of her history and needs, and if Ms. Clouthier and company cannot fathom that, it is their flaw, and not my own.

I also have to speak up about this “man up” command from on High. In the comments to Cassy’s article, reader Aries said ”Men have seen women in action. Whiners, complainers, misandric and endlessly focused on themselves only. Women threw men away.” Blunt but true, that. Many men are just sick and tired of women telling us half a hundred different things they expect us to do. Nothing is ever good enough, and while I agree with equality, my definition of that word never included my surrender to women and their countless chaos of neurotic demands. Women chase after drunks and liars, ignore and mock the nice guys, then complain because they can’t find a good man. Women demand equal pay and opportunity in the workplace, but also want special rules and preferential treatment from HR and the business practices. Women demand to be treated as equals and receive respect, but as a rule treat men either as the enemy or simply as not worthy of their regard, much less respect. Women despise being treated as sexual objects – rightfully – but see no hypocrisy in ranking men according to their physical attributes. I have personally known hundreds of men who put their wives first, who constantly try to find ways to show they love and appreciate their wives, but I have only found a handful of women who do the same for their husbands (Mikki is one). Oh, I am sure there are more out there, but the overwhelming fact is that men are dogs and women are cats. Men, like dogs, are sloppy and careless and spill and break things, but most are utterly dependable and full of love and fun. They are heroic and serious about family. Women, like cats, are full of themselves and tend to hate dogs as a group. If you take loving care of a dog for even a few minutes, you will have a friend for life, and a lot of men are the same way. If you take loving care of a cat for years, catering to its every need and whim, you will be rewarded with the privilege of cleaning out its litterbox, and the presentation of an occasional hairball or shredded shirt, and a lot of women are the same way.

In closing, I admit my posted opinions are a broad brush posting, and there are many good women out there, just as there are some men who are utterly useless. But the stereotypes presented by Ms. Fiano needed a counterweight. There is hope for gender relationships, if only for one great truth: Men love and need women, and women also love and need men.

Soul School

There is a debate going on which takes many forms, but is based on the same old questions:

Why do we suffer?

Why does evil exist?

Why are we here?

… and the like. These questions are of a kind, and near as I can tell no answer yet has ever been perfect, nor do I think ever will be so. This is because God made billions of individual people, one by one. It seems to me that we each have an answer that is right for us, one which is unique because we are unique.

The people on one side of this debate seem to be very bitter and prone to blame God for whatever they don’t like. They blame God for the existence of evil, basically saying that they are not responsible for any wrong they do, because they believe that God set them up for a fall. This is not merely erroneous, but quite arrogant and a very dangerous attitude to hold in practice; it is in the same catageory as the man who knows he is drunk but figures if he has a problem driving, he can blame it on the bar, on the road, on the other driver, anyone but himself. Such people also fail to consider the purpose of asking the basic questions – presuming God exists, it is quite foolish to imagine that we can come up with a better defense for our behavior than he can for His position, or that we hold any standing wherein he is compelled to accept us as moral equals. The proper purpose of such questions, then, is not to try to catch God out as some kind of criminal, but to gain understanding and perspective. This, I think, was one of the key lessons of the book of Job.

Another contention that has become popular, is the notion that this life is a test. Pass it and you get great rewards, but fail it and you are in for a bad eternity. This claim and the many variations on it are quite common, but even a casual inspection shows flaws in the premise. After all, there are different kinds of tests, but generally from my experience there are two varieties. First is the type of test to determine the quality or nature of something, like a blood test for various diseases or to check blood cell counts. This kind of test results is a prescribed regimen for the subject. . The other type of test is certification. It can be initial certification, like NASA testing prospective astronauts to make sure they can withstand the rigors of training, or the aptitude tests given to high school students to determine whether they can handle the material of a college curriculum, or it can be confirmation of successful completion of a mission, like a home inspection to be sure a house is ready for move-in, or final examinations in a course. What both varieties of test have in common, is the course of action which precedes or follows the testing. Therefore, it seems to me reasonable to say not that we are going through a long test in this life on Earth, but we are in a kind of school. And that changes a lot of the rules and presumptions, once you think about it.

The starting point is God. Like it or not, the most essential reality in the universe is its Creator and Master. Not merely ‘master’ as in the guy with the keys or the most powerful being, but ‘master’ in the true sense, a being so perfect in power, authority, and essence that he rules by right. And everything besides God was made by God, and owes all to Him. It all starts there. Obviously, there are certain people who cannot accept this, and so they rebel. So, even before we get into our own condition and needs, there is rebellion against the Sovereign Lord. This is important to the resolution prepared for us by God.

Perspective is a critical factor to judgment. People see from a limited viewpoint, and for humans omniscience is never possible, although we fool ourselves many times into thinking we have the full picture. The only entity who truly enjoys omniscience is God, and that is worth thinking about. How can a being know more than one perspective? One possibility is if that being can be more than one person, so that perspectives may be tested against other perspectives, not only in time (God being eternal) but in simultaneous persons experiencing the same event from differing contexts, so that Reality exists fro God in a higher order than a human can know. That is worth its own discussion, but for here it seemed to me worth its mention as part of the framework.

So, for humans the goal seems to be for us to learn to love and do goodness. Yet we already know that freedom to choose means that some will choose to rebel. And that rebellion leads to great evil and suffering, indeed no better than that can come of it where God is rejected, as all goodness comes from Him. How then, some ask, can God allow suffering in this way? Why is evil allowed to happen, and why is its punishment deferred and the good allowed to be harmed? One way to consider this, is the fact that humans often learn through comparison. We know good music because we hear sounds we do not like, we know good health because we know illness, and so on. Consequently, we learn to appreciate good in part because we see what evil is and does, and good people do not wish to advance evil. Also, it is important to learn another key truth, one which many people do not want to be so – we all do evil, to some degree. Evil is that quality which not only wants to harm someone, but it can also be that selfishness that treats another person as a thing. Jesus taught about a rich man who went to hell. What is interesting is, we never heard that this rich man was dishonest or violent or failed to go to temple, or any of those things. The sole offense of this man, was that he saw someone in need and chose not to help. The sin was in choosing to make that beggar an object rather than a person, and in so doing rebel against God’s command that we love one another, which shows up over and over again in the Bible and in every true faith. By ‘true faith’, I mean to say that although I am a Christian and believe Christ’s Gospel is the true gift of God and the Salvation of the World, I agree with C.S. Lewis that myths are often echoes of God’s truth, so that what is true in Christianity may also show up in different places – God is not silent about hope and mercy, so we should not be surprised if there is truth in surprising places.

Doing good is hard. Not sinning is hard. Focusing on God’s will instead of my own is hard. I don’t know that I can do any of the three for more than a few minutes, and if I think I have, I have just committed the sin of pride, don’t you know! It is extraordinarily easy to sin, to do what we know is wrong, even when we very much want to do the right thing. Keep that in mind, it’s important. We all sin, even when we try hard to be good. We all love goodness and we al teach goodness to our children, yet it remains a hard thing to do. I don’t mean the easy business of being nice to folks and showing them respect, though enough people have a hard time with that, I mean going out of our way to help someone, doing the right thing when it costs us something.

Life is a university, and we are each on our own schedule. What’s right for one person may be very different from what is right for someone else in terms of goals and specific skills, but we all live by a code which commands us to think, speak, and act by a standard we cannot meet all the time. Before you claim that such a regimen is cruel, consider that any skill is always taught as never-ending improvement. Artists always seek something better, engineers people seek more efficiency, business people seek ever-more effective solutions, scientists always seek deeper comprehension, and so on. We all pursue prefection, even if we touch it so rarely. Should we be so surprised to learn, that God wants us to learn to be more and more perfect? Yet as I said, we all fail the mark, and there are three reasons for that. First, if you have ever known someone who seemed perfect, you may notice that they are very different from regular people. If you like golfing with the guys, you enjoy the sense that you are all peers. One guy may be a great driver but his putting is off, while each of the others has his own strengths and flaws. But if one of the guys in your foursome is Tiger Woods, then as good as he is, he may have a hard time fitting in. The idea is not that God holds us down to keep us from getting where we want to be, but knowing that we will fail, God helps us remember that we are all human, none of us is Superman. Second, we all need God. Just as we all must die one day, we all sin and cannot be everything all in ourselves. Even Jesus took care to have His disciples take part in some of His miracles (like the feeding of the 5,000, and even Peter was able to walk on water when Jesus did it); we are family, one with each other, and no man can truly say he needs no one else. Third, it is not right to say that knowing we would do evil, God created evil in order to make men sin. Rather, it is true to say that God chose to make men free, and knowing that men would use that freedom to choose evil in various times and places, God not only chose to forgive men their sins, but also to use that evil for good purposes. We do not always see this, but it is true nevertheless. When we see someone suffer, for instance, it moves our heart to act in compassion, which is good. When we see injustice, we are moved to create justice. When we see sickness, we are moved to help healing. In our arrogance, some blame God for the evil done, not realizing that evil is temporary, and one day will be destroyed. Even death is only real for a little while, measured against the eternal life God grants us. But because God is eterrnal, the things of God are also eternal, and no good thing is ever lost forever, but only set aside until its time. So it is eventually a different reality which comes to be; one where every bad and foul thing is undone, but only every good thing remains. Then we are able to appreciate all good things without cost or compromise, and all that is right will be full advanced. Our lives seek that goal.

Is there a test? Yes, there are many of them, as is always the case in school. But just as a good school can be a wonderful place for a child, so too the education of a soul does not need to be hard or cold, and the purpose of these tests is not to frighten us or browbeat us, but to help us see how far we have come, and to choose our next stage. And this, if I may be so bold, is where the Commission of Christ comes into the matter.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came to earth as a man, to live among us as one of us. This already sets Christ apart from so many religions based on a distant and impersonal god. Yet Jesus did more; he was entitled to wealth, influence, and power, yet He lived as a poor itinerant preacher, who died after being wrongfully accused of sedition by men who knew He was innocent. Jesus could have escaped this fate, but accepted it in order to do the will of God, that He should die for the sins of the world. This claim is admittedly controversial, but in this place I will not elaborate; I simply state what I know to be absolute truth. As a result, God acted as a human in order to save humans from their chosen path of evil, and knowing this salvation has been made for us is essential to understanding our identity and purpose. For someone living in this world, knowing that God loved us enough to live as one of us and die for what we did in hatred of Him is powerful, radical information. If life is a school, well, Christians are kind of the Student Council. We are charged with reporting who God is, what He wants for us, and why. And like any Student Council, we are a mix of people who do a good job, people who get a big head about the title, and all kinds of others. We are learning just like anyone else, in fact we may not be the best students and we are not really the teachers, unless in some rare case God so uses us, which He does with anyone whose work pleases Him.

Decisioning

Believe it or not, I’m still around. Frankly after the delay since my last post, I’m surprised anyone still stops by, thanks. OK a few personal remarks, to try to explain for the absence and sort out where to go from here. Mom’s breast cancer returned, and it came back mean, which – well, I will leave off the details and just say she went in for surgery last Tuesday, and she’s home now recuperating, which is another way of saying she feels tired and woozy and has noticed that there is absolutely nothing on TV she wants to see. But, all things considered not a bad situation. The family came together for obvious reasons, and everyone has packed up and gone back home except for my brother who lives there anyway.

The other thing which ate up so much time, besides my job and trying to be a good husband and father that is, is that I am finishing up the Spring semester at UHV. I turned in a final case for Managerial Economics, a term paper for Information Systems, a Powerpoint presentation for the IS paper, and I took my Economics final, which was pretty heavy in Quant. material, being a hands-on course in things like determining optimal production and pricing for a company or deriving an appropriate costing solution for product development, real micro-economics stuff. I got lucky though; I was nowhere near done with my Finance term paper this week past because of spending so much time at the hospital, but apparently everyone else had the same problem, so the professor of my Finance class pushed back both the Final exam and the term paper due date to this coming weekend instead. The IS course has a take-home final, which makes it sound easier than it is, but at least I can work at my own pace. That is, of course, providing I keep a diligent pace. This also means that my posting is likely to be sporadic this week, as well, but I will try to improve on last week.

That brings me, roundabout, to today’s topic. For all the hoo-dah about how important it is to elect the right leader who will somehow make all the right moves and make everything as it should be (lemme give you a hint – that’s not going to happen, even if [x] your favorite candidate [x] were to win in every election) Real Life makes you do a lot things yourself. It’s up to you who you choose to be, how you live your life and with whom, what you let bother you and what you make sure you always do, and what you never do. It’s up to you what kind of credibility you establish, what kind of work ethic you use to kick yourself out of bed and into gear every day, what you do about pain and loss, what you do about ego and hypocrisy, all of that. I see the news try to tell folks it’s not their fault they bought a house they knew they couldn’t afford, that if someone else gets rich that must somehow mean you got cheated, that Society – especially Hollywood – knows better than your family about honor and morality. Whether you believe that or not is your lookout, but in the end you make the decisions, and whatever comes of it is your baggage. You won’t get “fair”, that does not exist and it won’t do you any good to whine about it. We live in a world with better civil rights, a cleaner environment, more responsible government, and higher living standards than ever before in History. Someone will always be better off than you, but that does not make them wrong for doing well, and there will always be someone worse off than you, but that is no cause for you to feel guilty about it, unless you personally and deliberately caused their loss. In any case, it’s not a race, we all die sooner or later and if you think it’s about class justice or righting some perceived slight, you’re on your way to filling up your plate with spite and bitterness when you could have joy and hope.

Make good decisions. From where I sit, those are the ones which care about people and don’t aim to bring someone, anyone, down out of envy or pique. Instead, learn, think, then build on those things that you will always be glad you did.

[steps down from soapbox]