Election Cycle Number 8

One thing people do every so often, is to look for trends. One fave trend has been to look at elections ending in 0, but this is not one of those years. I found it interesting to consider some of the odd Presidential elections in years ending in 8:

1988: Governor Mike Dukakis is lionized in the press for his supposed economic prowess, the “Massachusetts Miracle”. In the fall, however, he is effectively trounced by the relative lightweight, Vice-President G.H.W. Bush, the first Bush to surprise and annoy the Democrats.

1968: The ugliest election of the generation. Unpopular President Lyndon Johnson decides not to run again, but will not do much to support a candidate. Charismatic candidate Bobby Kennedy is assassinated, VP Hubert Humphrey wins the nomination but not much support, Governor Wallace leads the South in revolt and splits the Democrat vote, handing the White House, incredibly, to Richard Nixon.

1948: Unpopular President Harry Truman is written off early as hopeless, but makes a bold comeback and wins an improbable victory. However, he never gains his party’s full support, and he spends much of his time fighting to get anything done.

1928: Charismatic and popular Herbert Hoover doesn’t have to do much to win the White House. Two years later, as the Great Depression takes the country by the throat, it appears Hoover is still not doing much.

1908: Honoring a promise not to run for re-election, Popular Teddy Roosevelt hands the reins over to William Howard Taft, a man so inept that four years later, Republicans and Democrats alike are screaming for change.

What can we expect in 2008? Whatever we get, don’t plan on the predictable!

The W Factor, Still Alive

Over on Wizbang, I put up an approval poll on Dubs. As expected, regular people think he’s doing a pretty good job. Not perfect of course, but a whole lot better than he gets credit for. I always thought so, not least because I have watched the guy since he was running for Texas governor when I didn’t know much about him and thought he was not all that big a deal. Funny thing about W, folks have been trashing him for years, and it never sticks, not where it matters, It’s not Teflon, because there are a lot of folks who get their jollies smearing the guy, wishing he were assassinated, comparing him to all sorts of brutal leaders (even as their own party coddles just such monsters, but that’s nothing new, either), insulting him and ignoring every accomplishment he does, even as empty suits like Barack Obama cruise to high popularity and fund-raising success precisely because he has nothing in his resume but boasts and ego. I think it’s because we recognize, at some deep level, the fact that there is always a guy we can depend on. He’s not the smartest, maybe, but he gets the job done. He’s not the smoothest talker, but he says what he means. He’s not a favorite with Hollywood or the media, but he sticks to his core principles and pays whatever it costs to stay true to the most critical missions. In any town, there are people who get their picture in the paper, and there are people you can call when your car breaks down in the pouring rain at 3 AM. There are people who have millions in the bank, and there are people who don’t have much but they will make sure you have what you need. There are people who can impress you with how smart they are, and there are people you can trust to keep their word. Folks like Bush, they’re not glamorous or slick or witty. But you can depend on them. This fall, both of the candidates might want to think about the fact that for millions of us voters, we may like a good show but we will only trust the nation’s leadership to a man we can trust to mean what he says, to do what he promises, and to carry on even when everyone – including some of his best former buddies –deserts him for a few bucks and the limelight. Bush is going home after this term, but that doesn’t mean the nation does not still need someone a lot like him.

Gun Morality

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an individual right, and as such the District of Columbia ban on handguns is unconstitutional. I agree strongly with this ruling, but the debate on that specific topic has been going on for a long time, but the best moral argument I have ever seen on the issue was printed in 2007 by Marko at the Munchkin Wrangler.

Marko put it plainly; “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.” Guns really are the great equalizer, allowing a 98-year-old widow protection from a 25-year-old burglar, for example, or a woman living alone at night to enjoy her rights as a citizen through her own ability to protect herself. I have never seen an effective argument which refutes that position.

The problem, however, comes down to individual cases. I can agree that individuals have a right to defend themselves, and firearms are the simplest, most effective and constitutionally-protected way for someone to do that. The problem comes down to where we draw the moral lines in specific. For example, the court was clear that some restraint is appropriate. Just as my right to Free Speech does not give me the right to file false reports with the police in order to disrupt their work, so too my right to keep and bear arms does not mean that I can have any sort of weapon I should like, nor does it bar me from responsibility for security of my weapons. I have a daughter, whose safety is paramount to me. Obviously, while it would be unconstitutional for the government to require things like keeping my guns in a locked vault at all times, or unloaded, or so on, it would be morally contemptible for me to leave a weapon anywhere my daughter could possibly get her hands on it. It would be wrong as well, for me to fail in any of the reasonable precautions in having a gun, such as keeping it clean and safely away from places where it could be stolen, where it could fall and discharge, or similar risky conditions.

Now that the United States Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right of citizens to own guns, maybe it’s time for a mature debate on the boundaries of responsibiity for owners and governments alike.

Monday, Part II

The big TV started making a grinding noise last night, so it needs to be repaired.

I am also studying the FASB statements, pretty much all of them.

Neighbors had a ruckus, a can of varnish ended up spilled on the driveway.

The weeds in my side yard have launched a major offensive to take over the fenceline.

My two dogs are having a contest to see who can poop in a place that will most surprise me.

Mid-year company internal audits are going on.

And I just started a diet.

How’s your week going so far?

Unqualified Leadership

Ever wonder why Congress just cannot seem to grasp things which are obvious to you and me? I do not mean just one party or the other, but Congress’ long-standing tradition of being clueless about what America needs and wants. Every so often, folks get fed up and chuck out most of Congress – sorry Mister Obama, but “Change” was a campaign theme long before you ever started using the word – but the new crop never seems to be much better than the one they replace. I can try to explain that condition by noting a real-world case.

Without mentioning the specific company, because it’s actually a pretty common occurrence anyway, my wife works for a dishonest moron. I say this not only because I have a strong dislike for anyone who insults someone’s race on a regular basis, particularly when they are harassing my wife, but because those two characteristics, corruption and stupidity, are annoyingly common in some places. This branch manager is costing his company money, but they hired him because they wanted cheap, and so they are also too cheap to hire proper auditors to see who’s a top performer, and who’s trying to steal them blind. He’s good at selling a line to his own boss, so he manages to keep a job he could not do properly on his best day. Well folks, this guy will never be a winner in business, but he’s a good representation for the average Congressman.

Let’s have a look at the resumes of the top dogs in the House and Senate, shall we?

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi – born 1940, graduated Trinity College 1962. Intern to Senator Brewster, then moved to New York as a housewife, then to San Francisco, where she was elected to City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, in 1969. Won special election to Congress in 1987 (was protégé of outgoing Rep. Sala). Re-elected 10 times. House Minority Whip 2001, House Minority leader 2002, Speaker of the House 2007-date.

House Minority Leader, John Boehner - born 1949, graduated Xavier University 1977. Salesman, later President of Nucite Sales. Elected Union Township trustee 1982, Ohio State Legislature 1984. Elected to Congress, 1990. House Republican Conference Chairman, 1995. House Majority Leader, 2006. House Minority Leader, 2007-date.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid - born 1939, graduated Utah State, 1962. J.D. George Washington University, 1964. Elected Nevada State Assembly, 1967. Elected Lt. Governor, 1970. Chairman, Nevada Gaming Commission, 1977. Elected to Congress, 1982. Elected to the U.S. Senate, 1986. Senate Democratic Whip, 1999. Senate Minority Leader, 2005. Senate Majority Leader, 2007-date.

Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell - born 1942, graduated University of Louisville 1964, J.D. University of Kentucky 1967. Six months active service U.S. Army Reserve, 1967. Intern to Senator Cooper 1968. Assistant to Senator Cook, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General U.S. 1975. Elected Jefferson County Judge/Executive 1978. Elected to the U.S. Senate, 1984. Majority Whip, 2004. Senate Minority Leader, 2007-date.

There you go, folks, the top four people who make the laws governing more things in your life than even the President or the Supreme Court. How you get paid, how you pay taxes, how much of each, how you are protected (or not) from those forces and those people who would hurt you and your family, and so on. Only one of the four ever held a job in the real world, and that long ago and only for a short while. Is it really surprising, then, that the peope in the House and Senate are so incapable of comprehending what folks really need, much less care about making it a priority in their office? Sure, these people have aides and staff, most of whom are also political mandarins, hoping for their own eventual election to office on a resume which has no real work experience. I am sure they mean well, but they really have no skills relevant to making things work. They know how to take your money, they know how to make speeches, and they know how to point fingers. But they can only be counted to put their self-interest first, and to make mistakes as they blunder along. Just something to think about.

Obama is A Liar and a Fraud

March 1, 2007 – In response to an FEC ruling regarding contributions to a presdiential campaign, the Obama campaign said the following:
"Sen. Obama is pleased the FEC took this important step in preserving the public financing system. If Sen. Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."


April 27, 2008 – Barack Obama promises “I would be very interested in pursuing public financing, because I think not every candidate is going to be able to do what I've done in this campaign, and I think it's important to think about future campaigns.”


June 19, 2008 – the Mercury News reports “Sen. Barack Obama has become the first candidate in a general presidential election to reject public campaign financing, despite an earlier pledge to accept the limits and benefits of the system.”


There’s no way around it; Obama is a liar and a fraud.

Let Not Your Heart be Troubled – Or Fooled By Polls

I saw an article by The Anchoress (who apparently did not read my discussion of the Quinnipiac poll) regarding the apparent dominance by Democrats in polling. Her theory is that because voting by Democrats was so heavy in the Spring, this means that Democrats will dominate voting in the fall.

Mmmmmmmmmm ... no, that's not really a good description of the situation. Polls are not quite the magic ball they are hyped to be.

For example, take a look back in 2004. Kerry got a lot of excitement among Democrats because he had strong primary support, and a lot of pundits were saying this meant trouble for the fall. Then 62 million voters decided they preferred President Bush for another term, defying the media’s proclaimed scenario. And while I will grant that 2008 is different from 2004, human nature is notoriously hard to change. For this election, that means the following points will continue to matter:

[] Barack Obama, like John Kerry, built a lot of his support through young voters in the primaries. However, even young voters who vote in primaries are relatively unlikely to vote in the general election. Candidates have been trying to change that condition for decades without significant success.

[] John McCain’s core constituency appears to be senior voters, pro-military voters, and moderate Republicans. The first two of these groups have established a strong representation in votes.

[] Hillary Clinton’s 18 million supporters are not completely enthused by Obama’s campaign. While most of them will support Obama, fewer will actively work for his election (as in recruiting new voters and pursuing grass roots operations), and there have already been reports of Hillary supporters working to get McCain elected.

[] Voters’ opinions and mood can change quickly, but their core beliefs are slow to change, and will change only when confronted with strong evidence. The essential differences between Barack Obama and John McCain will resonate in the election results.

[] Every presidential election, there are states which appear early on to be ripe for a candidate to ‘steal’ from the other side’s roster, but in actual fact few states change philosophies, and the general election is seldom a great surprise to anyone familiar with History.

[] The essential strategic difference in mood between Senators Obama and McCain, is that Obama started with strong positive support and almost no negative reaction, but his attractiveness has steadily declined as the election season progressed, while in McCain’s case he began with strong opposition and little support, but his competence and consistency have strengthened his campaign as he progresses. The result of these trends will depend on the speed of their progress relative to the election date, and whether these trends are halted prior to the election.

[] Opinion polls are the product of polling groups, which are often reported as news, but that representation distinctly is not correct. An opinion poll is the result of a collection of interviews using a standardized set of questions and methodology. That poll is weighted to match a desired demographic profile, and any error in demographic assumptions, in party identification, or methodology as relevant to the real population pool will be reflected in erroneous conclusions. It is a salient fact that most opinion polls which attempt to reflect the specific voter results more than one day ahead of the election will be off by more than the statistical standard deviation, and therefore no opinion poll should ever be taken as a predictive indicator of voter intentions.

All in all, it’s June and that makes it the noise of spin, nothing more.

Poll Puddling and Quinnipiac

The new Quinnipiac poll has Obama leading McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. If those numbers are accurate and hold up, it would obviously indicate that Senator Obama is in great shape, picking up 47 electoral votes to add to his position. However, I noticed that Quinnipiac hid a bit of its methodology. In opinion polls, the demographc weighting is an important element in their accuracy. The gist of the Quinnipiac polls was not really anything new; young voters prefer Obama and older ones prefer McCain, women lean towards Obama while men lean towards McCain, and so on.

It’s also important to notice that Quinnipiac never defined what they mean by ”likely voter””. A respondent who voted in the primaries, for example, is far more significant as an indicator of true voter mood than someone who just says he thinks he will vote in the fall, still months away from the mid-June poll.

I also noticed clear discrepancies in the Quinnipiac poll. Quinnipiac, for example, says President Bush has a 22% Job Approval rating in Ohio, against 29 percent from a University of Cincinnati poll.

I was also preplexed by Quinnipac’s announcement that President Bush enjoys only 60% from Republicans, when the polls I have seen show around 80% from Republicans. The stated numbers demonstrate a lean to the Left, from what I see. How much of lean depends on how you account for the discrepancies. The problem is while the skewing is evident, it appears to be a result of the methodology rather than simply the weighting. Therefore, the numbers may be taken to reflect the situation only in a general manner and with the normal caveats that Quinnpiac is a good poll, but hardly the most reliable.

A poll which misses by an average of 7 points is not where I would look for an election barometer.

John McCain, Hero

Many on the Left have been attacking John McCain viciously. Not his Senate record or positions on the major issues so much, as they have been attacking him for his service in Vietnam. Given Barack Obama’s lack of significant accomplishment in anything other than selling books and making speeches, it is hardly surprising that he and his followers would regard McCain’s most distinctive service as a threat to Obama’s ambition. It is also apparent that most Obama supporters have no real idea of what McCain did as a Navy officer that sets him apart from so many of his fellow veterans. I have written before that I disagree with a number of McCain’s political positions, and I dislike the way he has treated fellow Republicans, especially President Bush. None of that, however, diminishes what John McCain accomplished as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

On October 26, 1967, Lieutenant Commander John McCain was shot down during his twenty-third mission in an A-4 Skyhawk bomber over Hanoi. Commander McCain was on that mission as part of his long service to the United States; he graduated from the US Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1958, and remained on active duty despite having his plane literally shot out from under him in an accidental missile discharge from another plane on the deck of the USS Forrestal earlier that year.

The destruction of his jet caused McCain serious injuries. He broke bones in both arms, one leg, and landed in a lake. Once he reached shore, the already injured McCain was attacked and beaten by North Vietnamese soldiers, one using a rifle butt to dislocate hs shoulder while another bayonetted him. He was denied medical treatment for four days, during which time he was beaten and interrogated using real torture methods, not the stuff liberals like to call ‘torture’ now. McCain refused to give information beyond his name, rank, and serial number. It was only when the North Vietnamese realized that McCain’s father was a senior Admiral that he received medical treatment, and it was not much even there. No anesthesia or antibiotics were used, and the bones were not even set for another half-week.

Up to this point, John McCain’s story is that of an honorable man who suffered from conditions of war and cruel abuse. What follows is where we see his heroism.

The North Vietnamese understood that Commander McCain’s father was Admiral McCain, and from the beginning tried to use this for propaganda purposes. While men like John Kerry played the system in order to go home early from the war, Commander McCain repeatedly refused special treatment and offers to be set free ahead of men he knew had been longer in captivity. He also refused attempts by the North Vietnamese to use him in propaganda films, and for this was designated for “special treatment”, a regimen of regular torture and deprivation that killed most men who suffered it. In the first six weeks of his imprisonment, McCain lost 50 pounds and temporarily the use of his arms and legs; when he was finally allowed to share a cell with two other officers, his condition was so grave that they did not expect him to survive for more than a week. His fellow officers nursed McCain to somewhat better health, and for this were assigned to different quarters. McCain again refused to cooperate with the North Vietnamese and he was locked in a muddy room with no windows, a tin roof and only two holes drilled in to keep him from suffocating, and McCain was kept there for two years.

Unknown to the Communists, McCain had already started his work from the inside. He had memorized the names of all 335 men he knew to be prisoners in North Vietnam, and when Major Norris Overly, USAF, was released he carried McCain’s information with him. Even in prison, John McCain continued to serve his country.

In mid-1968, the North Vietnamese decided that if they released McCain, it would not only show them as merciful but suggest that American ‘elites’ expected to be treated better than ordinary soldiers. But Commander McCain consistently refused to play along, refusing to be released unless every man who had served as long as him was also released, and refusing on all occasions to say a single bad thing about the United States or the war effort. Despite his solitary confinement, McCain used a tap code to make contact with Ernie Brace, a civilian pilot shot down over Laos. Brace had been badly abused by the Communists and was in bad shape emotionally. McCain worked to restore Brace’s spirit and confidence, and in so doing bolstered his own.

In June of 1968, the Communists again tried to talk McCain into accepting special treatment, and in return McCain said he’d be glad to go – after all the men he knew had been waiting longer. They tried again in July, after Mccain’s father became CINCPAC. McCain again refused, for which he was beaten, his ribs cracked and one of his arms rebroken, and after which he was left bound between beating sessions for another four days. To shame him, the Communists left McCain naked and unfed.

McCain knew what could happen in the prisons, like Dick Stratton’s being burned with cigarettes and his fingernails being pulled out. He knew men who had been beaten to death, like Ed Atterberry. Punishment in a Communist prison was brutal and swift, yet even so McCain continued to resist his captors, tapping out communication and encouragement to other prisoners, as a true officer leads his men. Commander McCain was beaten for refusing to lie about conditions in the prison, for resisting the Communists’ propaganda programs, for communicating with other prisoners, and often for no reason other than he was a man they could not defeat, could never own. McCain refused to meet with antiwar delegations, refused to cooperate with nations like France who supported the Communists, and always - always - refused to accept anything that was not provided for all his fellow prisoners. McCain was tortured for holding church services, for praying, for singing the National Anthem, for refusing to admit “war crimes”, and for cheering when Nixon ordered the bombing of Hanoi. McCain was no Superman, he felt every burn and cut and bruise and scrape of bone and tearing of ligament. Yet over and over and over again, he chose to accept torture rather than put himself ahead of his fellow prisoners, or his country.

On March 14, 1973, John McCain was finally released by North Vietnam, as one of the final prisoners to return home. He faced months of surgery and physical therapy to rebuild his body, but his spirit was unbroken and his mission fulflled. Whatever one thinks of John McCain’s politics, he was and is a hero, and anyone who cannot admit that is a poor shell of a human being, too dismal to count as a true person, let alone an American.

Sources: Wikipedia, “John McCain: An American Odyssey” by Robert Timburg, US News & World Report (May 14 1973 issue)

Obama’s Delusion Continues

Some time back, I promised that a Republican would win the White House in 2008. Good job I didn’t promise a Conservative, but then again, the closest thing the GOP has put up to copy Reagan was George W. Bush. No, I am not saying W is a pure Reaganite, but look at our nominees and major candidates since Ronnie left office, and you will see what I mean. It’s not as if the RNC has been looking hard for The Next Gipper. As a result, there has not really been an opportunity since 1984 for Americans to say whether they want another Reagan. Given that fact, winning three of the last five gives an indication of just poor the Democrats’ selections have been. And that tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of opportunity is one which Barack Obama seems determined to continue. This morning, CNN posted an article wherein Senator Obama boasted that he does not need either Ohio or Florida to win, trusting instead that he will claim victories in Virginia, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, Iowa and North Dakota.

Obviously, if Obama can claim all those states and hold the ‘blue’ states from the 2004 election, he would be correct, but the problem is that this assumption by Obama displays some very foolish mistakes:

[] Michigan and Florida are bitter about the way their primary results were handled by the DNC and Obama’s camp. Making a public statement that reinforces the idea that Florida does not matter, is an incredibly stupid blunder, especially given the historical importance of that state. Obama hastened to say he will work hard to win Florida, but the insult was already delivered, and made the headline.

[] In every election, there are states which appear to be in play, but which revert to historical norms in the actual election. This is a critical flaw in opinion polling, which sometimes represents false trends in elections. In 2004, for example, the Democrats wrongly believed they were stronger in Southern states than they actually were, and Republicans wrongly believed they were stronger along the Pacific coast than they were. Demographic analysis is a critical component in any allocation of resources, and several of the states targeted by Obama are extremely poor investments in allocation of resources.

[] In my analysis of the states’ historical performance and likely returns this fall, one of the most important indicators is the behavior not only of the candidate, but his supporters. To that end, consider the comments made by Obama supporters in the CNN article I noted. Many of them seem unaware that George W. Bush is not running again, many seem to think that independents are already on board and do not need to be convinced, many resort to quick insults and personal hostility when challenged to defend their candidate’s record and statements. Acting like a spoiled middle-schooler is not the best strategy to convince undecided voters, and since Obama has shown no effort to restrain his troops from personal attacks, he has tied his image to their invective.

Obama is in a strong strategic position, but he cannot afford to keep repeating these blunders of assumption and judgment.

The Tone of the Election

The thing I like the very least about this year’s Presidential election, is the way the major candidates have campaigned; largely on the claim that the other guy is not only worse, but a catastrophe waiting to happen. I certainly agree that there are strong differences between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, but the “Bush’s Third Term” and “Carter’s Second Term” snipes are far below the level I would expect of men who want our trust in their leadership.

It really comes down to who can make a reasonable claim for their ability to lead the nation, and who can point to a track record that shows accomplishment. I am dismayed a little to see both major parties relying so heavily on negative tactics, especially this early.

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.