Eight Dollar Gas

One of the recent proposals put forth to address the condition of four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline, was to find a way to make it cost more. Some folks seem to think, if I understand the strategy, that making gasoline more expensive will force folks to stop using it. That is a singularly poor notion, however.

Gasoline is principally used to power motor vehicles, but there is also the secondary effect that gas prices affect freight and shipping costs, so inflation is also affected. With very few exceptions, people need motor vehicles to get to work and to do their jobs. It is true that people who can do so will be more inclined to take public transportation, but there are problems with the assumption that the majority of people will do so. In the first place, public transportation does not generally have the infrastructure to accommodate the majority of the population. This is why there are a limited number of bus and train routes and a limited number of transportation options. For example, a few years ago my company had an office near north I-45, while I lived in Southwest Houston. When we were moved to that office, I had to stop riding the bus to downtown and drive myself to the new office, because there was no bus route that would get me to and from work. This was deliberate by the county, because the county managed a network of toll roads which most drivers going that way used, and letting buses carry folks would cut into toll road revenue. As a result, the Harris County Toll Road Authority and the Metropolitan Transit Authority worked together for their maximum financial gain, rather than to meet the needs of Harris County and Houston’s working population. No one should expect future considerations and plans to be any different.

But, just for the argument, let’s say METRO wants to do the right thing and set up a comprehensive network for travel. What will doubling the price of gas do? Raise bus fares, of course, and so will opening up all those new routes and buying the new buses to serve them, and building all the stations and depots needed to service and maintain the buses, plus hiring and training all the additional employees to maintain and drive those buses, and to handle all the traffic. Fares will double or triple, count on it. This is because historically, public transit systems have lost money and cities and counties will not be willing to accept the size of deficit the larger fleet will promise. What will happen, in a practical perspective, is that growth of the bus fleet and route numbers will not rise to the level where the majority of the public can make effective use of buses; just as has always been the case, most working people drive themselves to work because the politically correct solutions are not practical. In many cases they are not even practicable.

Public transport having been shown to have no more substance than an Obama resume, I now address the suggestions that drivers would shift to smaller, more efficient cars, or invest in hybrids, electric cars, or the like. The problem there is that such suggestions ignore the reasons for the popularity of SUVs in the first place. I, for example, do not trust the durability of the smaller cars, nor do I intend to risk my wife in a vehicle which cannot protect her from serious injury in an accident. That is not to say that we drive the biggest cars. I drive an Accord, my wife a CR-V. In both cases the cars are strong enough to protect us from serious injury in the event we have an accident, they are solid enough to avoid damage from the rough Houston roads, and they have suitable visibility, horsepower, and maneuverability to avoid accidents and dangerous situations in the first place. On the other side of things, I have seen the Prius, for example, and no sane driver would use one in traffic, let alone buy one and chance putting his family in it. No one would drive a Fit, a Scion or a Versa. The scooters, electric cars, and the like are even more risky and dangerous, and it is a poor mind which considers economy ahead of safety.

The considerations also fail to consider the force of habit. During the 1970s, a lot of folks changed their ways when the first Oil Crisis hit, and that crisis was a lot tougher than what we face now. But things work in cycles, and if 50-cents-a-gallon gas was no more, the prices did go down for a while and the supply became easy again. That will happen here; no one should expect 2-dollar-a-gallon gas again, but prices will go down and when they do, opinion will shift from the panic being sold by extremists. Conservation and sensible engineering will always be good ideas, but folks just will not agree to be held hostage by an economic condition, at least not in America. No one will like higher prices, but folks will weigh the price against their options, and a lot of them will pay more because the alternative is still not acceptable.

You see, gasoline replaced coal and other options all those years ago, because it was cheaper, cleaner, and more convenient. For a new paradigm to replace the gasoline-driven engine, it will be necessary for the new product to be clearly superior – the notion that political pressure will be sufficient to change transportation modes across the demographic is patently absurd, and fails from the beginning presumption. Effectively doubling the pump price of gasoline through artificial attempts to affect demand for gasoline without providing an effective and attractive alternative fuel source, cannot fail to produce disastrous results. As has been discussed above, artificial manipulation of fuel prices would be incendiary in terms of inflation, would increase unemployment and slow construction and commercial growth, would make American exports more expensive and so increase the trade deficit, and provide a valid source of intense resentment against the political agents who introduced and supported the plan. There would be grounds for legal action against Congress, the reason being that government manipulation of the market for the express purpose of harming the interests of the general population would be patently unconstitutional. The only means by which the leaders of the price fixing could avoid legal consequences for their actions, would be to make gasoline a substance illegal to have in personal possession and use for personal reasons.

Given these rather obvious reasons why doubling the price of gasoline cannot possibly help the nation, one may wonder why anyone would still advocate such actions. The answer to that lies in one simple question – doubling the price of gasoline would produce huge amounts of additional revenue, but who gets all that money? The answer, plainly, is the government, playing a Robin Hood but in real life an agent of its own greed and hypocrisy. After all, given recent behavior by Congress, does anyone believe that they would allow Oil companies to keep the profits they earn? Does anyone think that Congress, having refused to cut its already swollen taxes on gasoline, would hesitate to seize the additional funds from forcing higher prices? And the only way to do that, would be for Congress to effectively nationalize the oil industry, everything from car gasoline to heating oil, to plastics to … you get the idea. Congress making sure it gets the first slice of the pie … and the second … and the third. This plan, at its heart, is poorly-disguised Socialism, lies and hypocrisy painted over with a scheme to blame working people for the greed of a politically correct Nomenklatura.

Government Work

I hate the United States Postal Service. I needed to get another textbook for an Auditing class, and was smart enough to shop around for it, and so I got a good deal at half.com. The problem is, the seller insisted on sending the book by ‘Media Mail’, not allowing an option to use FedEx or another service. I bought the book and paid for it June 18, and since then have been waiting for my book.

Except for using the USPS, the seller made no mistake. He sent the book in a timely way, he used the correct address, all the details. What annoys me about the USPS is not just that a month later they have not delivered my package, or that they still have no idea where it is or when/if it will be delivered. It is the attitude of the people who work there. I looked up and called the Track & Confirm desk and got a recording which gave no information, then the national line for complaints and inquiries, got another recording but eventually navigated to someone who opened a ticket. That led to a phone call telling me what I already knew, that the book had not been delivered. I called again this morning, both the Houston main office and the national number. The Houston office only takes messages; you are not allowed to actually talk to an employee. The national office had a guy named Justin who got angry when I asked him to explain why the USPS would not even call the shipping location to find out why the book had not shipped, then hung up on me. I called back and learned that there is no way to complain about someone hanging up on you – customers are not allowed to use the complaint line to complain about unprofessional behavior by USPS employees. The whole place is loaded with lazy, incompetent and dishonest employees whose only motive is to get paid.

Compare that with FedEx. I am not saying the USPS is totally incapable of doing their basic job – they do a bang-up job of getting junk mail in my box every day but Sunday. And I am not saying that FedEx never screws the pooch. But in my experience, the two are worlds apart, so much so that it’s sometimes hard to remember they compete for the same business. FedEx, for example, has not only never failed to deliver a package I sent or ordered within the time frame promised, their GPS positioning is so exact that sometimes I can find out within a city block where that package is. What’s more, FedEx goes out of its way to be user-friendly, and to over-deliver - that is, to do a better job than they promise. A lot of 2-day deliveries get done the next day, they always answer with a live person, and in my experience they have yet to lose a package.

The difference between the US Postal Service and FedEx is huge, but it reminds me of what will happen if other things get run by the government. You want your doctor, your employer, and your bank to be controlled even more tightly by the government? If you do, stop and think about the government’s track record. With the exception of the military, it is near impossible to think of one product or service where the federal government is as professional and effective as the private sector. And therefore, anyone who wants more government as a solution to the pressing needs of the country is either disingenuous, or just out of his freaking mind.

Barium for Breakfast

I was in MD Anderson this morning for another look-see into the bad little cells which have been going after me for a few years now. As before, things went well and the little monsters – rather literally – are not growing in size or number, so all is well. I have to admit that in the past year, I have been feeling a bit guilty when I come in for these examinations, because things for me are going well. It is unsettling to see so many people who are not getting good news, including children. Too damned many children get cancer, and I do not much like seeing children forced to undergo the nasty symptoms I have been blessed to avoid – not only from the cancer, but many of the side effects of the treatments. Then again, having seen – and seen up close – what Cancer does to people – I will say again that no one deserves it. It’s an evil, foul thing, and anyone who could be trivial about someone dying from it is a soulless ghoul, so far as I am concerned.

Sorry if the tone’s a little rough. I am still radiating from the barium, I think, but for all of that I am awfully lucky, and feeling a bit depressed that I can’t do more to help others who have not dodged that particular bullet.

May the Lord have mercy on all His children.

I Almost Expect This To Really Happen

(CNN) – The Democratic National Committee resolved the nagging question of who should be the Democrats’ nominee for the White House, as well as ensuring the continued presence of their favorite target, by nominating President George W. Bush as the Democratic nominee for President.

The compromise came as democrats wrestled with the clear fact that Senator Hillary Clinton possessed formidable ability but an uncharismatic image, while Senator Barack Obama possessed tremendous charisma but absolutely no relevant experience. Partisans of each candidate had become impossible to reconcile, despite Clinton’s endorsement of Obama. Rumors that the Illinois Senator would receive an “experience transplant” from Senator Clinton in exchange for the resolution of Clinton’s 80 million dollar campaign debt could not be confirmed at this time. A DNC spokesman, however, was overheard suggesting that a ‘Howard Dean Mind-Meld’ had been considered, a technique which would likely be both safer and more effective if delayed until 2012.

The decision to nominate President Bush was explained by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Speaking through spokespersons, the Speaker and Majority Leader released the following statement:

“Americans have come to understand that everything wrong with America is the fault of President Bush. Unfortunately, if Bush is allowed to simply go home next year, the shock of having to find a new cause for everything which goes wrong would make it difficult for the Democratic Party to properly govern this great nation. Accordingly, the Democratic Party of the United States will serve the people to its utmost ability, by making sure this most invaluable of targets remains in range for the next four years, ready to be blamed for anything for which we decide he should be blamed.”

Pelosi and Reid explained away the restrictions of the Twenty-Second Amendment, by saying “everyone knows Bush was not really elected in 2000. He’s only been elected once. So, no problem!”

In order to avoid the President declining the nomination, the Congress has passed bills in both chambers of Congress designating George W. Bush as the National Target for Recrimination. The title includes prohibitions against declining nominations for re-election, even if he has no intention of running. It also blames Bush for tooth decay, bad hair days, and Senator Obama’s inability to remember his own past political policies.

HR: Waste of Time or Plague on Modern Business?

I was watching Miami:CSI earlier this week (it just wouldn't be Monday w/o Caruso quipping bad one-liners and striking a profile pose), and it was an episode dealing with IAD - the scourge of many a good cop show. Know about IAD; all the cops hate it, good cops as well as bad ones. IAD never really does anything useful, it just gets in the way, sucks resources that could be much better used somewhere else, and it harasses honest folk to no end. Which made me think about Human Resources.

I have been in business for a quarter-century, and while I have great respect for administrators who handle records, enforce policy, and can point out the most intricate points of the law on employment matters, especially as I have done a lot of such work myself, as a unit I can find no justification for the existence of a Human Resource department. They do not hire anyone, they do not develop employees, they do not fire or discipline anyone. They do not produce revenue, they do not recognize achievements of an employee or group, they do not develop solutions for problems and constraints. What's worse, they uniformly hinder those who actually do those things. The real business people do that. Asking around, I have never found any experienced businessperson who thinks an HR department makes his company more effective, or a better place to work.

How about you? What's your HR experience?

Moral Authority

President George W. Bush is a good man, and has been a very good President for America. I wrote that not only because I believe it to be a true statement (and one too often drowned out by the Bush-hate in the media and current political climate), but also because such a statement is likely to provoke a strong emotional reaction. Those who agree with the statement are likely to resent all the unwarranted attacks on the man, and those who disagree with the statement are likely to disagree strongly, given past such occasions where someone dared to support Bush. The reason, I think, for the force of such emotions is that people feel a strong moral conviction in support of or in anger against the man. Bush is one of those rare individuals who acts in accordance with his beliefs, which cannot fail to produce a reaction. Another example would be Mother Teresa or Pope John Paul, whose convictions have done more in the last generation to raise the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church around the globe than all the circulars and reasoned doctrines. Or consider Mahatma Ghandi’s political crusade in India, or the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights campaigns in America. The significance I see in these people, is that when you look closely, you see that each of them is imperfect, flawed in this point or that, but it does not diminish their integrity one bit, because their core mission carries a level of moral authority which makes the flaws inconsequential. Authority, in this sense, is a force which compels obedience to varying degrees, through the absolute admission of moral sovereignty. To wit, the object of attention complies through akcnowledgement that the person in authority holds indisputable right. Resistance may – often does – occur, but ultimately fails. It is the sovereign right of parents, teachers, mentors, and of just governors.

I will take up this discussion later on, but must stop at this point while I figure out the implications of this fact.

The Fear Of The Good

Terrorism is essentially stupid. While I can understand the emotional desperation that leads a losing cause to consider radical action in hopes of destabilizing the government they oppose, it’s a losing game. Every terrorist group meets one three fates – they are destroyed, the disband, or they reform into a legitimate political group which renounces the tools of terrorism. There is no terrorist organization in history which has avoided that resolution. The most successful examples of terrorist groups today, are those which have become tools of governments and those which have co-opted governments. The basic premise of terrorism, deliberately targeting known innocents, makes such groups unpalatable as legitimate authority, regardless of how much power the group may hold at one time.

This is no grand revelation, of course. It’s simple common sense, but it reminds us that those who belong to such groups think in a way very different from the common consensus, those who would make use of such groups are fundamentally corrupt, and those who would excuse or ignore such groups are foolish to an extreme degree. For example, while the losses in those countries were due to a number of causes in total, the corruption of the South Vietnamese government worked against building popular support for it, corruption which made tolerance for the Viet Cong a genuine demographic condition. Shah Rezi Pahlavi made late efforts to reform Iran, but the behavior of the Savak helped build support for the insurrection of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Ironically, both Vietnam and Iran later suffered from the same sort of terroristic behavior. Vietnam has only been able to emerge as a functional nation, by repudiating the violence and terrorist behavior of its own revolutionary guard, while in Iran the government lacks support from many Iranians, precisely because it rules through fear rather than political consensus.

With that said, I now bring up the title of this article. As a Christian, one of the stranger images from Scripture which I have trying to sort out, is the Army of God discussed in the book of the Revelation to John. Basically, the Lord Christ saddles up in heaven with an army of angels and every one of His believers. This army then descends to the earth and removes Satan and his angels form all remaining power, and all Mankind is forthwith submitted into judgment. Strange, that image. Some folks have made a great deal of noise, by saying that this shows Christ as no more than another man-made idol, a god who would destroy all who do not surrender to him. But I think that is incorrect; there is something more to the image than such a mundane explanation. After all, the Army of God includes every single one of Christ’s disciples, apostles, followers, and believers. People like Mother Teresa and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. Like Saint Francis of Assisi, and John the Baptist. There were warriors in Christ’s service to be sure, but most are lambs in spirit and children at heart. More, this is how God wants us to be. Consider Simon Peter, once a zealot but who served Christ as a man of peace, an exemplar in love and humility. This transformation would not be meant to be undone for the sake of destroying evil. A different sort of weapon would necessarily exist for that mission.

When I became a sports official, I was impressed with how much authority is assigned to such people. Athletes hold themselves to a high standard of conduct for the most part, and they accept the jurisdiction of officials as a requirement of the contest. The ones who would try to break rules, to ignore the spirit of fair play and an even playing field, soon find themselves outcasts in the society of sport, with only few exceptions. Those who are malicious and foul fear the good. This is obvious even from the fact that the rule breakers try hard to present the image of compliance and support for the integrity of the game. The same thing happens in business. Most people I know work hard at their job, and try to be honest and follow the law. The ones who do not are the exception, and in the end will be found out and ostracized, in addition to the penalties of law and professional governance. Evil fears good, because there is an innate quality to goodness which cannot be portrayed convincingly for very long, and which quality is essential to the human condition.

In my next article, I will examine this quality in some greater depth.

A Few Thoughts On The Current Oil Crisis

Every so often, someone comes up with a new crisis to scare us. A lot of the time, it’s some con artist who has figured out that scared folks may be more willing to spend money without making sure they are not getting fleeced. Al Gore’s carbon tax and credits scam comes to mind, for example. Anyway, the most current fright ride is the oil crisis. All sorts of crazy and – frankly – dishonest screams are going on out there, demonstrating how little the general public understand how oil is produced and used, and how we can resolve our energy needs in a functional and realistic manner.

Oil is useless to Nature, first of all. Finding a way to use petroleum does not take it away from animals’ food supply, nor does it necessarily endanger the habitats in which they live. What causes problems are spills, and the pollution caused by burning it, especially in inefficient engines and furnaces. That is, as nations become more advanced, the less likely they are to contribute to pollution, even though most advocates never admit that fact. The Exxon Valdez spill, after all, is notable for the unheralded fact that Exxon has not had a repeat of it in decades, a claim many other companies – notably Chinese companies – cannot make.

Oil is also a popular fuel, because it has generally been cheaper and cleaner than the available choices before it. If you have ever seen one of those quaint coal-burning train engines, you may wonder about the black smoke belching into the sky. Oil-burning engines may be less romantic, but they were worlds better for the environment. Oil also replaced burning wood, because oil burned more cleanly, was less expensive, and because a tank of oil was far easier to acquire than cutting down a grove of trees. This is important, because the transition from oil to something else depends on the usefulness of the substitute. Simply demanding that we stop using oil is stupid; people will use whatever fuel best meets their needs, and that’s simply not going to change.

To the present problem, though, just why is gas $4 a gallon? There’s plenty of blame to go around, largely based on three key facts:

Nations like China and India are using a lot more petroleum than they ever did before, as their economies rapidly industrialize. This means that significant pressure upwards , permanent pressure, is being exerted on the demand curve;

Domestic oil options are not allowed to be used. At least by American companies. Chinese companies are known, for example, to be drilling 75 miles of the US coast, where US companies are prohibited from drilling. There is no acceptable honest answer as to why Congress deliberately works against American interests. And that includes Republicans.

And for more than a generation, there has been massive resistance to building any new petroleum refineries in the United States. Environmentalists lie about the effects of building refineries. Oil companies have seen their needs ignored in lean years, and punished in good times, so that they have no stomach for building expensive and capital intensive refineries that will not bring in profits but will bring tons of headaches. Governments have ignored the need to think in terms of long-time infrastructure, and to put American needs first. No one is willing to tolerate the risk and expense of building the refineries which would immediately and significantly improve supply of gasoline to Americans, let alone encourage it.

Many argue that we are running out of oil. That is both true and untrue. Certainly, the amount of new oil deposits being found each year is less than the oil being used. However, the technology exists to make use of a number of types of oil not considered economically viable before, such as shale oil. Many argue that oil is ecologically bad, but this is generally true in emerging nations, which would use the oil for their needs no matter what other nations said; Oil is essentially a strategic commodity. Developed nations, however, have developed many ways to reduce oil consumption and to operate oil engines more and more cleanly.

What is certain, is that oil will continue to be relatively expensive. I think the price at the pump will go down a bit, but in general the trend will continue to be rising prices. This will force a change in both short-term tactics and long-term strategy. Historically, when such things happen some very good ideas have been provided. But just as good medical ideas come from doctors, and good military ideas come from soldiers, the solution to how to address the changing needs and use of oil will come from the people who work with oil, who find it and make it useful. Looking to Washington is looking the wrong way.

Fools and Our Money

It never gets mentioned much in the dramas about our founding fathers, but one of the big reasons for the American Revolution, was money. You see, the British Empire was about two goals; power and wealth. The American colonies represented quite a bit of each, and while the phrase ‘cash cow’ did not come into use until much later, it’s a apt phrase to describe how the King and Parliament saw them. This, in short, meant that whenever the British government decided it needed to raise funds, an early and popular plan was to raise taxes in the American colonies. This reached a point where the colonists were angry enough to protest, and when complaints were ignored, to resist. I mention this, because our Federal government seems very much inclined to go down the same road.

A good example is the price of gasoline. There is a great deal of talk about concern for the consumer, but no serious action. Indeed, despite promising to lower gas prices to below $2 a gallon, the present Congress has sat idly by while prices instead doubled. Plans have been suggested which could address the problem, both in the short and long term, yet the government stubbornly clings to unproven hysteric theories rather than act in prudent fashion. Neither party is really addressing the problem from the perspective of the average citizen. As usual.

The federal government gets more than two trillion dollars of our money every year, yet they manage to run a deficit and to waste a lot of it on garbage projects to please their own egos. Two trillion dollars is about fifteen thousand dollars a taxpayer, every single year, not including the taxes you pay to a city, county, state or other tax authority. Leaving statistics aside, you have to pay when you get your wages, you pay every time you buy something, you pay for where you live, any nearby schools, a lot of your roads and bridges, and all sorts of fees even when you don’t use what they’re paying for. You get taxed on your phone – if I recall correctly, we are somehow still paying for the Spanish-American War, you get to pay taxes everytime the US government decides it wants to help someone else. That’s one thing when we are helping disaster relief, but something else when we are paying folks for not working, for a politically motivated cause, or for their personal campaigns. And then, after all this paying without our consent or in many cases much informing, we get to file income tax returns, which if done wrongly will lead to threats and penalties by the government.

As we celebrate the anniversary of our independence from Britain, it might be time to notice that someone else wants to make us their colony, their cash cow for whatever they please. And perhaps it is once again time to make clear that we are the nation, not those mandarins – Republican or Democrat – who claim ‘public service’ but only serve their own.

Americans Do Not Retreat

Over at Wizbang, Jay Tea and I have been bantering the 'Joe Horn' case, discussing various aspects of it and what it means to the greater society. Along the way, Jay mentioned the concept of 'duty to retreat'. The concept is based on the idea that when faced with an aggressor, a person has a moral duty to avoid confrontation, to give up ground and back away. That when a criminal gets it in his head that he wants to take something, we should just let him do so. That if he hurts someone, we should not try to prevent it. That the most we are allowed to do, is to stay out of the way, and if we feel guilty about doing nothing we can call the police later on and they will file a report about it.

This concept frankly strikes me as obscene, but more to the point, it is un-American. Concepts like duty to retreat seem to be very much how Liberals see the world. Such a concept explains how they can see Iraq's freedom from Saddam Hussein as a bad thing - we should not have taken him down, you see, it was somehow "wrong" to free millions of innocent Iraqis from a mad dictator. Same thing in Afghanistan; the Left would argue that even an evil usurping group like the Taliban somehow constituted a 'sovereign government', which we were wrong to confront and remove, even though they protected and supported Al Qaeda and the monsters who committed 9/11's horrors (for which the Left also blames America - we should not have gone outside our borders, you see, should not have promoted business anywhere in foreign lands, even where we were invited, should not have raised living standards and therefore expectations in third world countries, etc.). We see it in Europe now, where governments facing seditious thugs trying to tear apart their societies, actually apologize to the monsters and tell the victims not to make trouble. The established traditions and cultures of more than a thousand years are being dismantled, by the very governments which shuold be defending them, because those governments fear confrontation. It is a worse offense than cowardice, because a coward only shames his own name; the proponents of this concept would coerce a general condition of fear and self-loathing, all in the name of appeasement.

But I said this concept is un-American. Some who hate President Bush for protecting the nation, have claimed that his decisions and directives have hurt our standing in the world. I say rather the opposite, that the iron in his spine makes us taller in the view of everyone else. More and more nations copy the American model, in government, in business, and in culture. And what's more, President Bush is well in line with American tradition on that point. It is important to note that our nation was born in blood, though not a fight we wanted to have. When the British took to not only occupying major American towns in order to enforce its tax decrees, but quartering troops in American homes, they sparked a general rebellion which grew to drive a new nation into being. When the Barbary pirates raided our vessels and demanded tribute, we did not answer long with money, but soon replied with naval gunnery. The War of 1812 may well have been foolish, but by the time it was over, Europe knew better than to dictate terms to us. When we went to war with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines, we did not settle for a diplomatic victory, but removed Spain from those countries. And to address our attitude in World War 2 towards our enemies, one need only consider any of the public statements made by General Patton or Admiral Halsey. Only when we let ourselves get talked into considering our missions to have limits, do we lose wars. When we do whatever is necessary to win, we win easily.

This does not mean that war without restraint is always the most desirable, but it does mean that when we are attacked, we are right to answer in full force. When our objective protects our homeland, we are right to put our goals ahead of other nations'. Our friends must ever be aware that we will accomplish our missions, and our enemies must be made to know that there is no greater foolishness than to provoke our wrath. Mister Obama is very much wrong on that point - there must indeed be preconditions to any meeting with an adversary, the chief being that our enemies must know that they cannot hope to defeat us, that any attack against us will be answered, fully but in such time and manner as suits our plans, no one else.

Americans do not retreat.

Joe Horn, The Fourth of July, and Forgotten Duties

On November 14 of 2007, Pasadena resident Joe Horn called 911 because two men were breaking into his neighbor’s house. As time progressed and the police had not arrived, Horn became increasingly angry and worried as time progressed and the police did not arrive, angry that the burglars would get away and worried that just sitting in his house doing nothing might make him a target. Finally, against repeated urging from the 911 operator (who is not, just to be clear, a police officer or authorized to issue commands to the public) to stay in his home, Horn left his house, got his shotgun from his car, and when the two burglars, Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus, emerged from the neighbor’s house, Horn accosted them, they entered his yard, and Horn shot both men to death. This past week, a grand jury declined to press charges against Mr. Horn.

I was uncomfortable with the story initially, because a number of points were unclear. Horn had threatened to kill the burglars while on the phone with the 911 operator, yet he had also expressed fear for his own safety. Which one was the larger motive in getting his gun? One of the men he shot was shot in the back and the other in the side, yet a police officer who witnessed the shooting testified the two men came from the neighbor’s yard onto Mr. Horn’s yard. I am a strong proponent of defending your home and family, but a bit less sure about shooting someone just because you think they will get away with a crime.

But as I thought about it, I began to recognize significant points, the first of which is that I was not there. That is, the facts are relayed from Mr. Horn, the police, any witnesses, and the forensic data, and worse, they are filtered through a biased media. More than one media company chose to presented only edited versions of Horn’s 911 communication, even though full unedited versions were released by the police. Almost any position taken by someone hearing the story will be biased by his or her preconceived opinion.

I also realized that the people attacking Mister Horn were, unintentionally, explaining why he had every right to do as he did. A lot of folks were saying that everything would have been just fine if Mr. Horn had just stayed in his house and not confronted the burglars. Think about that. A homeowner who has the right to go where he wants on his property is being told to ignore a crime going on right next to him, to not look at the criminals so he can report to the authorities, to not try to stop the crooks who are committing a crime right there, to basically just sit there and hide like a trapped animal.

There is something fundamentally wrong, something clearly evil, about suggesting that criminals should not be hindered, while honest folk should be told to hide out of the way and do nothing. That attitude can explain a lot of why crime is so bad in places; if crooks have the run of things and the honest folk run away and do not confront them, do not witness their crimes and report detailed descriptions, and the rights of citizens are degraded while thugs are emboldened, then no good can possibly come of it.

The next claim was that the police can handle crime, and doing anything to confront a criminal would just get in their way. That’s wrong on at least two levels. First, while I have great respect and appreciation for police officers in general and for many specific individuals I know, it has to be said that the pathetic track record of the police in solving - let alone preventing crime should be considered in this incident. Not to be cynical, but the police – at their best – react to events and may catch criminals at some point in the future, In the mean time, criminals continue to plague innocent victims, and have learned that the police are no real threat unless they are caught in the act. In my own experience, I have been robbed three times at gunpoint, my wheels were stolen off my car in 2003, my whole car was stolen in 2005, and an angry neighbor once smashed a side window of my car. In none of those cases did the police ever catch the crooks. In the case of the angry neighbor, the guy left a note explaining why he smashed my window – he said I was parked ‘in his space’ (in a lot with no assigned spaces), yet the police refused to arrest him, saying they ‘had no real evidence’. In the case of my stolen car, the car turned up three weeks later shot full of bullet holes – it had apparently been used in a robbery attempt, yet the police made no attempt to collect evidence from it, such as fingerprints or pieces of bullet, etc. The simple fact is that very few crimes matter to police the way they do to the victim. The second point, is that legal experts will tell you that in terms of the law, the police are not actually required to protect you. They work for the government, and have no specific directive whatsoever to protect you. Not that they could, though – even if you were on the phone to 911 when someone breaks into your house, the police could not possibly get to your house before the criminals could kill you. The operative lesson here, is that the only real defense is self-defense. And that, speaking bluntly, means having access to deadly force and the will to use it, if necessary.

Some folks will get mad at that. Such people were quick to blame Mr. Horn for, in their opinion, acting as judge, jury, and executioner. But they are wrong in such claims. Folks need to understand that an ordinary citizen is not a law officer or a court. That puts limits on what they may do, but it also means they are not limited in the way a court is. If I have a gun and am attacked, I do not have to do anything about the 'rights' of the criminal, I do not have to consider legal procedures when dealing with a crime happening right in front of me. Criminals deserve no advantage or privilege, and if a homeowner shoots a burglar, only the most perverse interpretation of law or civil rights could pretend that the homeowner is culpable.

This all started because two criminals forgot that a homeowner with a gun is not held to the same conditions as a man with a badge, that a neighbor is not required to just hide in his home while crooks do as they please - some might even argue that a good neighbor has the moral responsibility to get involved.

Some folks have, rather hysterically, called Mr. Horn a racist, simply because the men he killed were Hispanic while he was white. But that is an absurd notion on its face. The 911 call made no reference to race whatsoever; Mr. Horn was reacting to a break-in of his neighbor’s house, not the appearance of the criminals. The tape gives no reason to think that Mr. Horn knew what race the men were until he confronted them. Also, the tape shows that three seconds elapsed from when Horn warned “move and you’re dead” to when he first fired. An undercover police officer who witnessed the shootings told the grand jury that the men approached Horn, entering his yard in the process. That they turned when he started shooting does not in any way change the character of their behavior or Horn’s right to use force.

I should also note the character of the decedents. Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus were illegal aliens from Colombia, and suspected in a number of burglaries. De Jesus was on parole when he died while attempting another burglary. These were not upstanding citizens, and while the death of anyone is a serious concern, it is impossible for any rational person to consider either of the two to be innocent victims in this matter.

So what does all this have to do with the Fourth of July? What do I mean by saying there are forgotten duties? It comes down to the character of our nation, even our identity. Time was, that Americans understood that we cannot depend on others for our own safety, that sometimes we have to do something difficult, even unpleasant, in order to protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. We carry rights and with them comes responsibility. Those rights in the first Ten Amendments, they are meant to be used, and for the welfare of our nation. It’s not about just your own house and your own interests, but your neighor’s place and your community. It’s about standing for more than just a slogan, being willing to do the heavy lifting, to take on the inconvenient chores to make things better for everyone. We all know this at some level, we all teach our kids to be responsible and to think of others. We teach our children to learn and use good judgment, and exercising that judgment shows in a lifetime of decisions and consequences. Sometimes those consequences are hard, as Mr. Horn has learned. And sometimes we have to stand against a tide of slackers, of the lazy or even the thuggish, to protect everything we know to be good against its dissolution. Fortunately, violence is rarely necessary to address this duty. We serve it in many ways, from work to civic responsibility, to community activity and faith life. But we all have work to do. Our country needs us, and no excuse will do.

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.