The Davidian Raid 15 Years Later

April 19 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of one of America’s most shameful events; the murders of dozens of helpless victims, including two pregnant women and twenty-one children, at the Branch Davidian compound assault in 1993. While at the time the FBI repeatedly insisted, even under oath, that they used no incendiary devices nor fired any gunshots, overwhelming evidence since the raid has proven that the FBI and BATF were directly responsible not only for the destruction of the Davidian buildings, but also for shooting unarmed Davidians, then using their official positions to conceal and destroy evidence of the crimes. The evidence includes not only witness testimony and video coverage (including FLIR footage), but also casings at the scene and the admission in 1999 of the use of M651 CS canisters (after repeated denials under oath) “during the assault” (during which time loudspeakers attached to the tanks could be heard declaring “this is not an assault” as they ran into walls of bedrooms and tore out sections of the structure).

Forensic evidence was largely destroyed by the government immediately following the raid, including the bulldozing of the area to prevent recovery of ballistics and other objective data which could have supported key Davidian claims. Even so, autopsy evidence indicated that several Davidians were run over by armored vehicles, none of them found with any sort of weapon; the FLIR footage shown on the documentary provides compelling evidence that the FBI started the fires which destroyed the building, although this appears to have been unintentional; the video footage of the assault shows that federal agents surrounded the compound and fired into the building, preventing opportunity to flee the death trap (CS tear gas used in an enclosed space metabolizes to hydrogen cyanide), eventually firing CS gas into the kitchen storage area, which had no windows or exits, and where dozens of women and children fled; the FBI had no fire trucks on site during the raid; and despite agents’ insistence that saving children was their top priority, there is not even one case of an FBI agent saving a child from the building during the raid. Not one.

The FBI defended itself, basically, by lying about the facts and the evidence for years, destroying what it could, and then won in court because the Davidians could not produce exculpatory evidence the FBI had locked away or destroyed. The Branch Davidian raid became a touchstone for every conspiracy theory and worry of totalitarian government. I would go so far as to suggest that every major domestic uprising since 1993 has a connection to the Branch Davidian raid. Timothy McVeigh admitted that the Davidian raid strongly influenced his decision to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Even the April 19, 1995 attack date was chosen to recall the Davidian raid’s date. The Montana Freemen became much more militant and active following the Davidian raid, apparently in fear that the government would soon begin cracking down on anyone who got out of line. Politically, the raid was a disaster for the Clinton Administration. Attorney General Reno took full responsibility and offered her resignation, which President Clinton refused to accept. The Davidian raid and the deaths of 4 federal agents and 92 Branch Davidians gradually faded from the public eye, to be obscured by other media events and political scandals.

It would be easy to go overboard with this story, either as evidence for a conspiracy theory or to attack the Clinton Administration. There have even been attempts to connect Hillary Clinton to the deaths of the women and children at the compound, demonstrating just how rabid some of the claims have become. I even wrote the first part of this article with a lean towards the evil-government conspiracy angle. The matter takes on a different look when we step back a bit.

To be sure, the elements I cited are all true and have been painstakingly established over the last decade and a half. But there is more to the story, which needs to be considered.

First, the conflict began with an ATF raid on the Davidian compound on February 28, 1993. The raid was based on fears that the Branch Davidians were a “doomsday cult”, planning a violent attack on neighboring Mount Carmel or even Waco, Texas. While no evidence was ever produced to support the claim that the Branch Davidians intended to attack anyone, the group had come into possession of several hundred semi-automatic rifles, and while all of the known purchases were legal, there was an anonymous claim made that some of the rifles had been modified to fire as fully automatic weapons. Because of this claim (also never substantiated by evidence or any credible sitness), a search warrant was issued for the Mount Carmel compound, and because a large amount of firearms were involved, the ATF came armed to the teeth, with a lot of armed men and helicopters. The problem was, the ATF was sloppy in its surveillance and the Branch Davidians expected the raid, if not the specific tactics. What happened exactly, when the ATF tried to serve the warrant depends on who you ask, but there is no question that a lot of shooting happened, and a number of people were killed, including four federal agents and six Branch Davidians. The ATF set up a perimeter and a 51-day standoff began. The first salient factor to the tragedy, thus, was the assumption by each side that the other was violent and could not be trusted.

By the time of the April 19 raid, the authorities involved in the standoff included the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Guard, and an unspecified number of officials from the Treasury Department, Justice Department, the Attorney General’s office and the White House. This created the second salient factor to the disaster, a lack of clear command and simple communication.

The law enforcement and government agencies also had problems deciding media’s role in the crisis. The media by 1993 had exploded in capability and appetite, with 24-hour coverage and non-stop commentary. This exponentially increased pressure on law enforcement, as officials were badgered over and over for new updates and action. In addition, neither the ATF nor the FBI were equipped or trained for a prolonged siege on territory controlled by their adversary, and as the days turned to weeks, the authorities felt increasingly compelled to act, even without a clear and well-developed plan or worst-case analysis. This was the third salient factor in the crisis, an imperative to act whether or not the plan’s assumptions had been tested.

The combination of these three factors, in my opinion, led to the needless deaths of 76 people on April 19, 1993. They also helped to create a fear of discovery by the ATF and FBI, which led to destruction of evidence and a series of false accusations against Davidians to prevent a public outcry against the FBI and the ATF. That did not work out, however, as outrage from the raid’s casualties continued in the media, the Internet, and in virtually all public venues. This led to unexpected consequences for the authorities, the Clinton Administration in particular. It may be that seeing the results of the Davidian raid, the Clinton Administration decided to avoid any conflict where the outcome was not in firm control. It would explain Clinton’s sudden reticence to increase the U.S. military presence in Somalia, his delay in sending military aid to Rwanda, and the reason why Clinton was so late in keeping his promise to send troops to Bosnia. In the light of heavy casualties at Mount Carmel, where he had been given no reason to expect them, it is not at all surprising that President Clinton refused to take unilateral military action under any circumstances, and never again showed trust in his forward commanders. While the later military decisions may be criticized on their own merits, it should be noted that the Davidian raid was not the fault of the Clinton Administration. The available records show that AG Reno made clear that the children’s safety was the top priority, and when the April 19 raid was planned she asked for confirmation that the CS tear gas would not contribute to a possible fire. The Clinton Administration was in its early months and would not have yet become familiar with drill-down processes for checking claims by subordinates, especially in such an unanticipated domestic stand-off. It should also be noted that no appropriate agency existed to deal with a situation posed by the Branch Davidians, who represented no military threat yet refused to surrender, whose agricultural compound was well-suited for a prolonged siege while the FBI had to find ad-hoc accomodations. The records show that in addition to the ATF, the FBI and the National Guard, members of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and Delta Force were also present during the siege, showing that the government agents sensed that they were not in control of the situation, but unable to find a group trained and experienced in just this kind of situation. The Branch Davidians were not hostages, and interviews with Davidians and tapes of negotiations show that they were not intent on aggression, despite the media spin. The FBI was in charge but did not know what to do, and it appears the SAC was not at all willing to admit this to the Attorney General. It remains to be seen what will happen, the next time a large domestic group chooses to resist government attempts at mass arrest by force.

Sorry for the Silence

Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins observed some time ago that a successful blogger needs to blog steadily. Thus, I suppose, is one cause of my drib-drab numbers. Then again, I wouldn’t say I blog for popularity, and surely it does not pay the bills. I write when the Muse strikes me - which in my case may be described as an irresistible itch to post some of the stuff I write, because I write a great deal more than I post, in consideration that few enough people are really that interested in the political implications of Sox implementation protocols, or the cyclical nature of news themes. Anyway, I try to post what might have some interest for readers.

I have to admit that I also get distracted. Three classes again this spring means a lot of work in Finance and Economics, which I find interesting but not even many of my fellow students seem to do so, which is a warning against posting too much of my school work on the blog. Also, my mother’s breast cancer has recurred, and she will have to have a double masectomry next week. The situation seems to be relatively under control, but I have to admit I have spent some more time with family for obvious reasons.

Obama Swift-Boats Himself

In the late spring of 2004, things looked bright for the Democrats. Media spin was making Americans doubt the war in Iraq, ignore the war in Afghanistan, wrongly believe the economy was in trouble, and the Democrats had settled on Senator John Kerry for their presidential nominee, a decorated veteran who fought in Vietnam. Polls showed Kerry in good position and the Democrats were sure that they were about to regain the White House.

Then it all fell apart. The economy’s strength became impossible to deny, the successes in the Middle East wars reminded many Americans that the cause was worth its price, but even so the Kerry campaign felt it had a good chance. Then Kerry’s boastful war record finally came under serious scrutiny. While some Republicans tried to discredit everything Kerry did in uniform, and some Democrats tried to blame everything on a Conservative conspiracy, the facts revealed by other Swift-Boat veterans from the Vietnam conflict raised reasonable doubts about the veracity of Kerry’s hero claims, forced him to backtrack from a false claim to have fought in Cambodia in 1968, and reminded America of Kerry’s shameful hypocrisy as a war protestor, not because of his stance against the war, but such things as throwing “his” medals over a wall then somehow displaying the same medals in his office years later, or attending unsanctioned and illegal negotiations with the North Vietnamese government while still commissioned as a U.S. Navy officer. What did Kerry in, though, was not his position or actions in themselves, so much as it was his refusal to admit false claims or apologize for insults to the U.S. military and the nation. Democrats refused to accept the fact that Kerry had damaged his own campaign through his actions and behavior, and denounced the collapse of Kerry’s credibility as ‘swift-boating’, a term which has clearly different meanings to different audiences. The objective verdict for the Kerry campaign would have to say that the man shot himself down, in part because his character in fact was much different from the image he sold to voters.

Back to 2008 and Barack Obama. Enjoying a commanding lead over rival Senator Clinton for the Democratic nomination race, wanted to close her campaign out in Pennsylvania. Most political race followers know what happened then: Playing the class envy card that has become the hallmark of the modern Democrats, Obama discussed why believed Pennsylvanians were unhappy with the present condition, saying that they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

That, folks, is a very, very stupid thing for any candidate to say. But in Obama’s case it’s much worse, because Senator Obama has run on a claim that he rises above the cheap rhetoric, that he stands for the ideals held by all Americans, that he wants to focus on what unifies and advances America. That statement, no matter how he tries to backtrack or rephrase it, effectively proved that Obama is by no means the man he claims to be, that his prime claim to credibility has been proven a lie in front of the whole nation. Obama’s “clarification” during this week has been received for what it is, a self-serving and dishonest attempt to duck what he really said, and denial about the damage he did to his own reputation and credentials.

With that said, no one should believe this seriously damages the Obama run to the Democratic party nomination; Obama’s numbers are still too much for Clinton to catch. And Obama’s base is going to stick with him all the way through the fall. This blunder won’t cause lifelong Democrats to back off their man. Where it hurts is where it happened – Pennsylvania and states just like it, where folks may be Democrat or Republican or whatever, but they hold hard and strong to certain values and rights, and a politician who does not support gun rights and freedom of expression and religion, a politician who does not respect the laws protecting our borders, while at the same time understanding that new citizens are welcome and valued, well, that politician is just not going to get support there. It’s not just what he said in Pennsylvania a week ago, but the whole message that is starting to come out about Obama, his hate-filled pastor of two decades, his class warfare rhetoric when he panders to areas with high unemployment, and Obama’s shocking inability to understand the values of small-town America. His behavior of the past month, coupled with lame excuses in place of squarely admitting his wrongs and asking for forgiveness, has demonstrated a callous character in Obama that will, in the general election, cost him three or four states that he would have won if he had spoken more as the man he claimed to be. And that kind of self-inflicted injury could easily prove the fatal cost to the fall election. But just like Senator Kerry before him, we can be sure that Senator Obama will simply pretend that he was a victim of conspiracy, never admitting that his own worst enemy looked back at him every time he saw a mirror.

Money Musing

You may have noticed that the media is making a big deal about the economy. If so, you are probably aware that, as usual, the guys on TV are not well educated about how the economy works. I guess High School for the Visual Arts and Morally Impaired never got around to adding Economics to the curriculum. But the economy is not really that hard to understand, provided you have the right foundation of knowledge. And when you understand the economy in context, all the whining and moaning becomes not merely annoying, but the signature of the idiot.

Let’s start with Free Trade. The middle class American lives pretty darn well, all things considered. In fact, no one on the planet a century ago had it as good as ordinary folks do today. The reason, putting it bluntly, is free trade. You see, ever since the first merchant figured that it was ridiculous to expect every single person to individually provide everything he needed for himself, and that with a little organization and a decent chance to let folks make their own deals, everyone could benefit and live better. Shoes, for example. Ever try to make your own shoes? I remember we did something like that in Indian Guides, making our own moccasins which hurt our feet because they were too loose and gave no support or traction. Turns out training a person to make and repair shoes for everyone else worked out much better. Same thing for iron smithing; not everyone is able to make their own nails and horseshoes and so on, so it makes sense for one or two guys to do it for the whole village. And so on, everyone learning to do what they were the best at, for which service and product they were rewarded in trade. Yeah, that’s where money comes in, because when everyone already has enough chickens and cheese, barter doesn’t work out. Anyway, the word “trade” comes from that, people learning to do specialized work. And that, folks, is all Free Trade is trying to do – carry on that same very good idea to its natural extension. Different parts of the world have different resources of material and labor, and everyone benefits by producing what gives them the best advantages. Everyone knew that a while back, and it was kind of obvious – during Reagan’s years, Free Trade was West Germany and no Free Trade was East Germany, but we can still see it today, this time South Korea is Free Trade and North Korea is no Free Trade. Simple when you pay attention.

I sense the Free Trade haters are not done, though. One imagines the harangue that we are sending all our jobs away. Bollocks, that. For as long as I can remember, the classic definition of Full Employment has been an Unemployment rate of 5% or less. This is because there is always a certain amount or churn going on, the dynamics of technological development, new businesses coming in while other businesses close. And we have essentially enjoyed full employment conditions for more than a decade now. I’m not praising either President Bush or President Clinton too much on that count, because while I commend them for basically letting business work, they really did not do much else that made a difference in growth. I do think the tax cuts helped us recover more quickly from the 2001 recession, but in the main the principle for solving Unemployment is don’t do anything to impede companies creating jobs. Of course, the haters will return with the claim that the ‘new’ jobs are all lousy ones. That brings up an interesting thing a lot of workers would do well to consider; just as businesses have to review their parctices and the products they offer every so often, to make sure they are relevant and providing what the market wants, so too do workers need to watch what happens in the working world. The guys who made horse and buggy equipment had to adapt to a changing world, same for retail distribution, manufacturing, you name it. Today’s business environment is faster, far more efficient, yet also safer and cleaner ecologically than ever before. One reason why the ecology special interest groups go on about carbon dioxide so much, is because for the most part American businesses have addressed every serious contaminant and pollutant; while individual companies break the law, it is hardly the pervasive industry problem it was 50 years ago. So yes, the modern worker not only has to have a college degree where half a century ago a high school diploma was acceptable, he had also plan on continuing his education throughout his career, with industry-specific certification and effectiveness programs. But if he does that, he will continue to see his life grow in comfort and security. The middle class world I knew as a kid was one where most folks had black-and-white TVs, one car, and no real luxuries. Today, even people we call “poor” live better than that. I don’t pretend it’s easy, but the business world rewards people who improve themselves, and not those who make excuses.

No matter what anyone tells you, there is no sure way to get rich quick. There is, however, a pretty fool-proof way to get rich over time. Do the best job you can for your employer, because even if your boss is a jerk, people tend to be aware of how someone works. Always keep an eye out for how you can improve your position, but only within ethical bounds and with respect for the company (it’s a small world, and people who step on others to get ahead are more and more getting caught). Enjoy your wages, but save at least 15% of it, more if you can. Stocks pay a higher return than CDs or bonds, but if you go that way you have to accept some risk, which is not dangerous as long as you always do your homework and know the company in which you invest. Buy what you need, not all of what you want, and plan financial goals.

People with common sense have probably shrugged by now – all of this should be obvious. I am writing partly just to vent, but also because somehow obvious truths get drowned out by Gorish malcontents, so repeating the obvious seems to be a necessary civic duty.

Writing Your Ticket

The Houston Chronicle had an article yesterday about an area high school student who was suing the University of Texas because they use race as a factor in their admissions processes.

The case may not be that strong, since the girl’s SAT scores were not particularly impressive. But what struck me as interesting, was that the story noted that she had been accepted at Baylor and Lousiana State Universities, both of them fine institutions with very good reputations. More than a few of readers commenting on the story, asked why the girl did not simply go where she had already been accepted? That question spurred this article.

Those who know me, know that I am pursuing my Master of Business Administration at the University of Houston at Victoria. I chose UHV for a number of reasons, including its AACSB accreditation, its low tuition, and the availability of online classes. I chose UHV over many other schools, schools which are worth consideration in their own right but who could not meet my needs the way UHV serves. I wonder how many people are aware of the significance of their school choice?

We live in an amazing age, not least because many of the old assumptions and stereotypes have been lifted from hindering individuals. So it is, that a 47-year-old like myself with a Bachelor’s degree in English Literature can rebuild himself as an accountant, on the strength of his resume and the acquired academic credentials. OK, sure, so I spent two decades doing accounting work so my resume wil lactually be applicable, but my point is that in the modern age, I can correct the mistake of a liberal arts degree by earning my MBA with a concentration in Accounting.

What I am saying by that, is that information is more important than ever, and we have actually passed from the Information Age to the age of Knowledge Management. Someone with the right education can effectively write their own ticket, certainly in comparison to folks who just ride along and hope things will bounce their way. But there’s more to it, than just getting a college education, or even an advanced degree. My wife’s sister earned a Master’s degree, but beyond hanging the diploma she has done nothing with it. The short answer there, is that she never considered why she was earning that Master’s degree, and so she had no plan for how it would help her achieve anything of substance. This happens a lot, though – a lot of students seem to just go from high school to college as if it were just grades 13 through 16, with everything planned out and the same for everyone. As a result, there is no greater plan in place, no strategy to use the degree as a tool for personal and career advancement. It does not help that we live in a world where success in business is wrongly considered a moral failing, that a man or woman who is financially successful must somehow be a bad person, unless of course they demonstrate the appropriate political opinions. The thing is, the old maxim started with the Bible verse that the love of money was evil, not the money itself. Many people who do not have money, are every bit as greedy and selfish as any miser from fairy tales and novels.

Anyway, if a person knows what they want to do, the proper degree from the right school can make a real difference in their chance at success. And by ‘the right school’, I actually do not mean those schools with huge reputations and equally huge tuitions. While some schools can help a student get an interview with a large corporation, and maybe a tiebreaker in some early hiring decisions, what I am talking about are the skills and tools a student can use to make their career something special, and the selection of the school which best suits the student’s needs and opportunities. In my case, for example, I am 47 years old, with 24 years of work experience. That means that a big-name school will do less for me than it will for some 22-year-old with no work experience; my resume works both for and against me. Also, with my work well-documented, I do not need a school name so much as I just need to certify my credentials. An MBA from UHV is as useful to me as one from UT or HBU. The AACSB accreditation, along with my learned skills, means that I will be significantly more formidable in my next career move, even if it is to remain with my present employer. The Accounting concentration matters because of my work experience, my personality, and the type of work I am most likely to find available. That’s not going to be the case for everyone, but it amazes me to see how – even among my UHV classmates – how few of them are aware of their own skill set and career preferences, and so how few of them are really ready for what they will do once they have their MBA in hand.

Doctor Kissinger Is Wrong Again

When I was growing up, I was taught to respect the assumed intellect and genius of Henry Kissinger. It was only later that I began to see his limits and failings as a strategist. Granted, all humans make mistakes and we all have limits, and frankly the difference between a wise man and a foolish one, often comes down to the wise man knowing his limits. Which reminds me, I don’t see any evidence that Dr. Kissinger ever admitted making mistakes or failing as a strategist.

So anyway, time passes and Dr. Kissinger has decided to opine again on National Security. Considering his record on Vietnam and Détente, I am hardly surprised that he chose to lay low for so long, but here he is again, with a short article on what Dr. Kissinger calls “the three revolutions”. As always, Dr. Kissinger’s work reflects a sharp mind but also poor assumptions. He starts his article by claiming there are three simultaneous “revolutions” going on; Europe’s transformation into a single continental union, the Islamist international Jihad, and the “drift of the center of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans”. Ahem. The British have an apt phrasing for such hyperbole. The inane notion is dismissed as ‘balderdash’ and the person selling it is a ‘wanker’. While Dr. Kissinger may be offended by being dismissed in such a vulgar fashion, to my mind it is difficult enough getting folks to understand what is going on, without playing up the muddle of pretentious rhetoric and pompous egotism in its analysis. That is, these are not ‘revolutions’ at all, they are not even new in the way things go, and Dr. Kissinger’s assumptions are once again wrong and dangerous.

Before I go into those false assumptions, I would also like to comment on Dr. Kissinger’s observation that Americans are much more willing to sacrifice for a cause than Western Europeans. While this is true, Dr. Kissinger seems to believe this is something new, an error my father and grandfather could have corrected immediately. My father understood before the United States entered World War 2, that we would have to go in and win the damn thing, because while Europeans could be counted on to look after their own self-interests, only the British had a history of taking on the tough fights when it was someone else in danger. My grandfather would have said the same thing, noting that in World War 1 a major part of the conflict was both sides hoping to sway the United States. Even 90 years ago, the world knew that whatever side the United States was on, would win, and that the United States was the one nation which would help someone else for no reason beyond their conviction that it was right and necessary. Dr. Kissinger’s belief that this is some new trait, is well off the mark.

These sorts of errors also show in the “revolutions” Dr. Kissinger wants to sell in his article. You see, a revolution is not just some new event or behavior, but a substantial and radical shift in beliefs and culture. The American Revolution changed the world from monarchy to representative government, beginning in the American colonies. The Industrial Revolution changed how we live, work, and dream. While the conflicts are important, the changes in Europe are not revolutionary, but evolving commercial agreements. The Islamic Jihad is simply a new cycle of the same cult which provoked the Crusades and inspired piracy in the Mediterranean Sea for centuries. And the interest in the Pacific region is not new at all; trade with Asia was a priority at least as far back as Marco Polo, and the importance of democratizing the region goes at least as far back as the Spanish-American War. The situation is simply not what Dr. Kissinger claims.

Why is this important, and why is it relevant to the present condition? Because most people have a poor grasp of History these days, not only in the United States but around the globe. Europe has forgotten why Pontiers matters. They have forgotten why the Congress of Vienna was important. They have forgotten why the Council of Europe was formed after World War Two. So, the lessons will come slower and harder for Europe than they need to be, but History reminds us that Europe will learn what it knew before.

As for the Islamists, the threat is very real, but events do not occur in a vacuum. The modern Islamists lack the military power of the first Jihads, and they lack the moral force needed to sway opinion. It may be too much to hope for a Muslim version of the Reformation, but the movement can be stopped by a determined opposition, even in a unilateral action such as Dr. Kissinger disdains, should that defense be by a competent and motivated alliance or nation, such as already fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Kissinger himself admitted that no serious President of the United States would even contemplate abandoning Iraq or Afghanistan to the whims of the region’s aggressive powers. But he failed to properly count the historical record in addressing how the present Jihad’s mistakes and limits make it a serious threat, but not an unstoppable one.

As for the Pacific and Indian oceans and their influence, Dr. Kissinger seems unaware that population and GDP growth in the Asian continent and Indian subcontinent are by no means new, much less revolutionary, nor does simple catch-up through industrial progress mean that either region is poised to claim economic dominance, much less secure ownership of global influence beyond the scale of existing powers. Part of this is the continual liberal blunder of discounting military power (just as conservatives tend to overstate military power as an influence-builder), and the rather foolish presumption that recent history is the best indicator of long-range future developments. I do not mean to pretend that China, India, and the Pacific Rim will not play important roles in the 21st Century, but it seems strange to me how little Dr. Kissinger seems to have thought of their 20th Century history. To put it another way, China had a revolution which changed its government, but it is not a world revolution, nor should any one of the considered nations be judged without consideration of relevant events and actions with and by other nations, and of the known historical progression up to this point.

Dr. Kissinger asks what sort of goals can America “realistically” set for itself in the century to come, demonstrating his greatest failure. After all these years, Dr. Kissinger still does not understand that the United States does not set just ‘realistic’ goals, but unrealistic goals. Like a world where kings do not own serfs, a world where all people are free to live and work with the same rights as other people, a world where tyranny is disarmed and toppled from power, and one nation will change the world to establish Justice, even if it starts on its own to do so. After all these years, Dr. Kissinger still does not understand America, or her people.

Chicken Little Economics

I have learned a simple lesson in handling MSM news; don’t trust them. So I wondered a bit about the whole subprime mortgage mess and all the recession talk (by the way, I seem to recall recession being suggested by the media every election cycle since Clinton left office. Interesting coincidence, that). So I looked up the basic facts:

There were 2.2 million foreclosures in 2007, compared to 1.2 million in 2006, and 0.85 million in 2005.

So there has been a rise in foreclosures for some time now. But what does it mean on the strategic level? Not as much as you might think. 67.8% of American households owned their own home at the end of 2007, compared to 68.9% at the end of 2006. While news reporters get hysterical in front of the camera, the actual ratio of homes foreclosed is about 1 in 50. That is, 49 out of 50 homeowners, or more, will make their payments and pay off their mortgage.

Not to ignore the problems that some homeowners are facing, but it means that the housing crunch we are seeing just now is actually not much more than a correction, as overpriced homes drop in value and people who cannot afford their hoems lose them. I would say that whose fault it is, that a particular home is foreclosed upon, is a case-by-case matter, as has always been the case.

My point is that while foreclosures are up, as well as delinquencies in paying for them, it’s not as if the home mortgage industry is about to collapse or we are headed for a genuine crisis as a nation. That is, as long as we do not overreact. Some moves may be defended on the basis that they are meant to restore consumer confidence, which actually creates most recessions when it falls significantly, but to some degree it becomes circular logic, and in any case someone has to pay for the bailout. Guess who that would be?

God and The Choice

How to get into trouble, 101. In a lengthy post last week, I discussed the dilemma of Heaven and Hell. One section which caused trouble for me later was this one:

“…while we Christians all confess our sins, we often repeat some of them, either out of weakness, a bad habit we have trouble breaking, or worst, we like that sin and are reluctant to really give it up. From that perspective, it seems hypocritical indeed to suggest that just being Christian gets you into Heaven, while even a nearly perfect life of goodwill and compassion would not help you if you are not Christian. The Bible seems to say the same, reminding us of non-Jews who pleased God in various places, and non-Christians whose faith impressed Jesus.”

and this one:

“…on the day when we stand before God, all evil will be destroyed. All that is good will be taken into Heaven. Whether we go to Heaven or Hell, then, will depend on whether our heart and desire were with the good works or the bad, whether we are aligned with goodness or clung to a badness we enjoyed. If that is so, the proper role of the Christian is to help people see what they cling to, especially our fellow Christians, so that they do not suffer for the old ways, but pursue what is truly right and good, and so enter the Third Heaven with a joyful spirit and a full heart.”

I did state at the time that all my words were a “poor attempt”, but I met up with some strong dispute and doubt about what I was trying to say. Mostly from fellow Christians. This article is a mix of trying to clarify what I was saying, why I said it the way I did, and to make a few observations about Christianity as it exists in the modern world.

First, to anyone unclear on the point: It is my unwavering conviction that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, the Messiah who redeemed Mankind from his sins, because of God’s love for us. It is not a quality we can earn or will ever deserve, but this does not matter because the Lord gives it freely to anyone who wants it. The reason I wrote what I did, though, was because I have met a great many non-Christians who see our evangelism as coercion and our God as a tyrant. Some of this is a matter of the devil’s lies, but it also comes from honest confusion to a degree. Since people are often curious about what happens after death, the qualities and nature of Heaven and Hell are vital parts of the discussion.

The plain fact is, that while the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are tremendously appealing to many people, the behavior and tone of many church leaders is offensive to non-Christians. Often, Christians come across as judgmental and angry, as looking down on other people who do not believe as they do. While I believe that this happens mostly with a minority of Christians, and that when it does it is the personality of the Christian rather than the will of God that creates the bristling antipathy. I had hoped to explain the faith in the light of reason, from the simple logic that if there is something after death, that we should seek and follow what we recognize and know to be good and right. To set aside the words when they get in the way, and to speak in terms which create common ground for a foundation of discussion. The purpose of that discussion would be to explore deeper questions, but without the sense of threats or compulsion. I believe that we still hold free will, even after we become believers. That’s part of what makes it hard to be a Christian, I think – we still live in the conditions created by the world and by our own past decisions, but we desire to serve the Lord and to do right. We will be imperfect, but because God’s definitions are based on His love and hope, rather than technicalities and traps, we work every day on drawing closer to Him, and we are able to accept our stumbles in the grace of knowing we will have help getting back up again. By my thinking, that blessing alone would make me glad to have a chance to know the Lord, but of course there is so much more. Oh, my.

Anyway, I have always taken the Bible seriously. Some folks may think I believe it too much, and others that I do not follow one passage closely enough to their liking. Ehhh, I pray about my walk and listen for the Lord’s will. That’s not to say that I think God tells me anything more than He tells other folks, but I would say that just maybe I listen to God and compare His word to what the Bible says. So far they always combine without conflict, and I don’t expect that to change. But anyway, the way I see it is that God is consistent, despite the jeers of some folks he does not forget or get confused. What He does, is stay true and straight, and wayward man gets angry because his own curving path takes him away from God, for which occasion he blames God. But there have always been people, in every nation and culture, who hear God and do what is right. If someone loves Justice, they love God, whether or not they ever voice the opinion. If someone cares for his fellow human bein, then they love God’s will, no matter whether their doctrine is perfectly aligned or not. If someone will accept loss rather than do what they know to be wrong, then that person pleases God, regardless of what they call Him, or even if they ignore Him. What’s more, a person can say all the right words, be called a leader of the church by thousands, yet remain an enemy of God – just look at Judas Iscariot.

So what’s the deal about choosing to enter Heaven? In my understanding, God makes Heaven possible for anyone, yet he compels no one. So even as C.S. Lewis observed that the gates of hell are locked from the inside, so too I think that the gates to Heaven are locked from the outside; first Jesus unlocked them as a man by the worth of His sacrifice on the cross, but also that any person who enters Heaven will choose to accept that gift. I never meant to imply that we deserve it or hold the power over its gates, but that no one will be dragged into Heaven against their will.

One thing which frankly bothers me about modern Christianity, is that it is rich and powerful. Here in Houston there is a huge church with thousands of members, and which pulls in millions of dollars a year in revenue. The pastor owns a lot of property, several fine cars, and his family lives like royalty. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, except that my company does work organizing charity work from churches, and this church stands out for its absence – it seems a lot of money goes in, but the poor and needy get no help from it. Other churches do a wonderful job of helping folks in need, of course, which is something I should emphasize – frankly the people in the most need often get the most help from churches and faith groups. But at the same time, churches often focus on money a lot, and more than a few seem intent on influencing politics. I realize this happens in other places, as well – every time a large group gets together, money and power are natural goals which always get emphasis. But that is just it, I think - Christians were originally the poorest and the weakest, and they held immense moral credibility because their faith was clearly not based on merely human priorities, but something greater than themselves. Again, such people exist today and are truly the saints who please God, but there are a lot of places where a well-dressed person who gives a nice ‘offering’ in the plate can get praised and assured of his eternal well-being, while his sin festers and his corroded heart waits in vain for repair. So, in these discussions I am not content to say that quoting the Bible or claiming membership in the right fellowship of believers is what impresses or pleases the Lord. The Lord chooses, and so do we. We can never trump Him, yet we must take care to understand – as well we may – the impact of our freedom.

Grand Theft Blog Article

More on this issue later, but for now you HAVE to read this account at Say Anything.

Short version of a classic:

Blogger writes article
Radio guy reads article, is impressed
Radio guy posts article without atribution
Blogger asks for attribution
Radio guy proves he is a thief and a jerk

Ending to be determined.

I don’t know exactly what I can do to help here, but heckling the radio yahoos is a start. They have their show here in Houston, so in addition to being thieves, idiots, and jerks, they are making H-town look bad.

Feces Wrapped Up As Wisdom

My step-daughter was gushing about a book when I last spoke with her. We were discussing her upcoming graduation from the University of Houston with a degree in Marketing. Because she was unsure about what she wanted to do next, I suggested some books that ideally she ought to have read before choosing her major, but she came back with two books she was very impressed with, books she said had opened her eyes on how to arrange venture capital for her business ideas. The one she gushed on the most about, was “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” by Richard Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter. The book boasts of it’s time as a “#1 Best Seller”, which apparently is the closest it ever came to establishing any sort of credentials. The cover reminded me of one of those vapid romance novels, and I was right – once I started reading the thing, it became very obvious that Mr. Kiyosaki is very enamoured of himself. The book is a poor primer on finance, but it does produce a strong chronicle of mercenary narcissism. I have since come to understand that Mr. Kiyosaki, hmm, embellished his biographical accounts with “fictionalized” citations in order to “educate” his readers. Kind of like Hillary’s mythical account of her trip to Bosnia, a lie and a stupid one. In Kiyosaki’s case, however, it seems there were many lies, repeated and underscored, and the man seems to care nothing for the truth – not a good quality at all in a financial advisor. It seems that writing a series of books (18 so far) for gullible readers who don’t think things through to any degree, is the path Mr. Kiyosaki chose for his financial success. Caveat Emptor and so on.

The reason I wrote about Mr. Kiyosaki’s Lies-For-Luxury, is because there is a lot of that out there. I mentioned Hillary’s pack-o-fibs from her failed attempt at establishing foreign policy credentials, there’s Obama’s ‘nothing unusual’ association for more than two decades with an anti-American racist, and of course there’s McCain’s war record, both for his steadfast love of his country and comrades in Vietnam, and his stubborn determination to cut off Free Speech in McCain-Feingold, and his expeditious attack against letting Judicial nominees be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. But what’s worse, is these largely self-infatuated politicians running for President are largely representative of the government we have today. You see, pretty much all of the problems Americans are worried about come into three classes:

1. Things the Government can address effectively
2. Things the Government cannot address, but individuals can
3. Things beyond human control

I won’t go into an exhaustive review here, but it should be obvious that the first class is the smallest group. And what’s strange, of those things that the government can address, very very few of them are the duty or within the scope of the President of the United States. Yet all the speeches from the candidates promise things that either would be addressed by Congress, or by the state or local governments, or else cannot be fixed by government at all. And speaking of non-federal government, don’t be too sure that your local government is going to be a big help. Here in Houston, for example, the District Attorney had to resign, in short because he was exposed as a conniving racist who saw nothing wrong with abusing his department’s budget and authority limits. The new candidates to replace him are all talking the shiny new ideal of accountability, none of them noting that such precautions were supposedly already in place. On a different level and in another place, it is both ironic and troubling that not even a week after the Governor of New York resigns because of in appropriate conduct, his replacement also admits that he had an extramarital affair, as well. Perhaps the most significant message from such stories, is that no one is really surprised anymore by them.

I have seen this all before, and I guess the bad news is that corruption and unaccountable government is common, indeed endemic throughout the world, even here in the United States. There is some good news, in the fact that for all its flaws the United States has a better system of government (even at the federal level) than most countries, and that government in the United States is more responsive now than it used to be, especially in the age of blogs and YouTube. But mostly, the good news is that for all its power and noise, the government is no substitute for the invidual’s ability to take care of his own affairs. Most Americans seem unaware that the Great Depression of the 1930s was not the first one in our history – the others were weathered largely through the strength and perseverence of ordinary people. That is not to say that government should not consider acting when and how it is able, but it is to say that a lot of the credit government takes for fixing a situation is actually due the individuals who put things back together on their own. In that light, recovery from Hurricane Katrina should be credited to the hard-working people along the Gulf Coast who rebuilt their lives on their own efforts, for example., rather than the self-praising mandarins of either FEMA or the local and state governments. And in that light, recovery from the sub-prime mortgage will basically happen because regular people work to fix the problem, from the market correcting rates and prices, to banks and financial firms taking steps to protect against unexpected volatility and debt. I am not naïve about human nature and the desire for people to hide risky ventures inside double-talk and new hybrid financial instruments – it really should have been obvious early on, that ‘Collateralized Debt Obligation’ was a sneak phrase for ‘Junk Bond with Makeup’. But the inevitable lawsuits over this problem will likely once again teach banks and finance companies that judges and juries are not impressed with anything that won’t pass the smell test. So on this point I disagree with President Bush; a radical overhaul of the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission will not improve consumer confidence or make the system run any better; when the problem is due to monkeys in the works, the answer is not to add more monkeys.

In conclusion, to all those people looking for a simple eay to get rich I will admit that there is one solid way to make money. There are many formulas and practices which can help build wealth, and there are any number of tactics applicable to help set financial goals, but the core principle is really very simple:

Spend less than you earn. Repeat until you are satisfied with the amount of money you have saved.

Sadly, that is a lesson no government ever seems willing to learn.

Heaven and Hell Revisited

Over the years, I have many times tried to discuss my faith with non-Christians. That is not to say that I try to compel anyone to believe; to my mind and heart there is no good purpose to trying to force someone to believe as you do; it is going to fail most of the time and only breed resentment, and if by some chance you do compel someone to accept your beliefs, that only means that someone stronger and meaner can and will convert them, which sort of explains militant Islam. But anyway, my point there is that while we Christians are commissioned to spread the Gospel and bear witness to Christ’s authority, we must do so in the same way He taught; through love and work and no end of patience. That includes interaction and debate with non-Christians. Frankly, a lot of people get offended very easily and the discussion quickly becomes a bitter argument. I have had trouble letting go of such conflicts, but in the main I think we must let go of anyone who is not willing to have a civil discussion. I hasten to note that Christians are just as prone to show offense and bitterness as non-Christians in these exchanges, so it’s not as if being a believer makes us more persuasive, or even more open-minded. Just something we all, I included, should think about.

But when a discussion does get going, one thing which commonly comes up is the question of Heaven and Hell. Aside from whether God exists and what He is up to should He be real, non-Christians are frequently upset by the notion that some people go to Heaven while others go to Hell. Two alternative suggestions are frequently offered; that everyone meets the same fate, or that everyone should be judged solely on the work they did – that everyone gets what they deserve, no more and no less. For some time I had trouble answering why those alternatives would not work, but I had a strong sense that they were false possibilities. This post addresses those contentions, and tries to explain why the Christian Heaven is the best hope for us all.

I begin with a quick overview of how God has made things. I do not presume to state this as an absolute fact, but rather as my comprehension of things, and so any flaw in the reasoning does not disqualify God, but would be only my own embarrassment. I have always accepted the existence of Good and Evil in the world, as I think nearly all people do. So far as I can see, Evil is a natural condition, in that a person who is strong may come to do as he pleases because no one can stop him, or a person who finds an advantage may use it for his own benefit without a thought about who that action harms. Goodness, on the other hand, is an unnatural condition, as it often directs a person to act in a way which helps others and costs him; it is inconvenient, personally difficult, and frankly not very common in human behavior. Poverty, for example – it seems that there are plenty of resources for food, shelter, and clothing to help those who do not have enough, were everyone to pitch in. Yet throughout History there has never yet been a time where everyone, or even the majority, did so. Some people are clearly good, more seem to be bad, and the majority just goes along without being really very good or very bad. Judge it as you will, that’s been the way of things for all of human record. So why do some people choose to be good, and why do we all profess to love goodness? I believe that is the reflection of God, His love for us showing through that goodness which is done, against all self-interest and the nature of the world. The bad things are a combination of the world we know, the environment in which we are taught, and our own personal choices. While many people mock the idea, it is apparent to me that God allows us free will in our lives. Some mock that idea because they have to face limits at all, but the fact remains that we all have a range of choice in how we face things. And choices have consequences.

So, with that in mind, we look at the first contention, that everyone gets the same thing. For the annihilationists, we die and that’s all. For others, we all go to Heaven, no matter who we are or what we did. And there are a great many beliefs in between, but the point is there are many groups which believe that – in the end – nothing matters. To me, that is a horrible thought! The idea that the generous man does no better than the greedy man, that the rapist or murderer who is clever enough to never get caught will not pay for his crimes, that in the end we might as well do as we like in this world because there is no real distinction between the good man and the evil one, is to me a truly abominable idea. And I think at the heart of us all, we do not accept such a contention as valid.

The second contention initially appears to be just and fair; everyone gets what they deserve. The problems there, however, come from the fact that everyone fails in some way and at some time; such a system would lock out virtually everyone from the best rewards, and no matter how just it may appear at first glance, it does not accept that people can and do change, and so a person who does well early in life but turns to evil, may be rewarded while a man who regrets the wrongs he has done and tries to make amends, may be punished for it. And even where the consequences of works are fair and just, a system which relentlessly counts every act, word and thought will inevitably separate people from each other – when every moment of a lifetime is chalked into a column, no one is truly the same as anyone else anymore, instead the world devolves into the chaos of absolute disparity, and on the eternal level a system of unleavened justice would mean a universe barren of compassion and mercy, and ultimately banning hope. It is a system which inevitably consigns everyone to hell.

So what to do? The maltheists contend that God hates us, the atheists contend that such a possibility precludes His existence, and even the most devout Christian must wonder what purpose there is, that evil is allowed to exist and indeed flourish. And that brings me to the third heaven. I use that phrase because I have sneaking suspicion that this is what the Apostle Paul meant when he referred to the “third heaven”. Heaven ultimately belongs to God its maker, and for all the arrogance of Man that God must give up His realm because we say so, it is God who designed, built, and maintains the sovereign realm of eternal joy. While the Lord created both good and evil, He made good for a good purpose and evil to allow us our choice. No one is compelled to sin, because sin always requires the choice to act against the right. And the notion that evil may be tolerated on the eternal scale, much less rewarded, is dispelled even before a man enters the Courts of God’s Judgment. There are indeed consequences to every choice, and God is not poor in memory on that day. Yet it must also be understood that the Lord is merciful as well as just, compassionate as well as holy, and He knows our hearts better than we do ourselves. In the end, the choice everyone makes is simple – they are either reconciled with God or choose eternal enmity. Heaven is not the same for everyone, yet neither is it closed to all but an exclusive few. The aspects of Heaven are the same as every good aspect of the world we know, save those which are holy to the Lord. What I mean, is that there is no good thing in this world which will not be found in Heaven, but in Heaven even the good is perfected, and that includes people.

This brings up the prospect of Hell. A lot of people dismiss Hell as a fairy tale used to scare folks into behaving or staying with the church, and to be sure some folks have done that kind of thing. But Jesus warned people about Hell more often than He made promises about Heaven, and He was clear about its danger and the need to make every effort to avoid Hell. Some folks dismiss Hell as a temporary condition, until our sins are – I suppose – burned out of us or we have otherwise satisfied the debt. The problem there, is that I never saw a mention in Scripture about people finishing their punishment in Hell and then going to Heaven; the decision was always final one way or the other. That makes a kind of sense, since it would be inconsistent to say that one choice has eternal consequences and another does not. But people also argue at length that a system which produces eternal punishment for even a momentary offense cannot be just. I don’t really buy that argument too far, because there are acts a person can commit in a very short time which permanently change other people’s lives or end them. But I am concerned, because as I mentioned earlier everyone I know has sinned one place or another, and it seems difficult to comprehend anyone going to Heaven on the basis of what they deserve, which in turn makes it difficult to imagine a human deserving Hell. And what’s more, while we Christians all confess our sins, we often repeat some of them, either out of weakness, a bad habit we have trouble breaking, or worst, we like that sin and are reluctant to really give it up. From that perspective, it seems hypocritical indeed to suggest that just being Christian gets you into Heaven, while even a nearly perfect life of goodwill and compassion would not help you if you are not Christian. The Bible seems to say the same, reminding us of non-Jews who pleased God in various places, and non-Christians whose faith impressed Jesus.

That jumbled paragraph before was my poor attempt to consider a possibility I think may happen – on the day when we stand before God, all evil will be destroyed. All that is good will be taken into Heaven. Whether we go to Heaven or Hell, then, will depend on whether our heart and desire were with the good works or the bad, whether we are aligned with goodness or clung to a badness we enjoyed. If that is so, the proper role of the Christian is to help people see what they cling to, especially our fellow Christians, so that they do not suffer for the old ways, but pursue what is truly right and good, and so enter the Third Heaven with a joyful spirit and a full heart.

Sad Injustice

I begin this post with an admission that I am tired and somewhat depressed. Some of this can be attributed to my fatigue from trying to get the court to process my lawyer’s letter of representation, some due to worry about my wife’s job situation, some of it due to worries about my dogs’ health, my taxes, my medical treatments, my school work, my car and house and yard and all the other flotsam of life. I have not slept well, the dreams lately are not cheerful. But more, I have come to learn that I am not the man I wanted to be by now. In some ways that is not my fault, as none of us gets to control the world in which we live, yet as I consider the dreams and ideals of my youth, I see how far short of the mark my efforts have landed. And nowhere is that measure more bitter than in my pursuit of Justice.

A long time ago, I reasoned that there were seven chief virtues, upon which every good thing depended. It started with Honor, a sense of the Right Thing and a determination to do it. Yet, Honor is not possible except through Peace, which is not non-violence necessarily, but all things being as they ought to be. That makes Peace less worthy than Freedom, and all of these are less important than Justice. The other three virtues are not of earth but of Heaven, being Faith, Hope, and Charity. These indeed are precious things, but may be discussed better at another time. Because for all their worth, Faith Hope and Charity all exist to establish and maintain the four mortal virtues, and chief among these is Justice.

I worry that most people have given up on Justice; it seems too unreal, too much to hope for. We are trampled by a government which all too often prefers the expedient to the right, and that has nothing to do with which party has the majority. We have rights as employees and citizens, but it is all to hard to exercise them sometimes. I have found that while discrimination by age or gender or race is illegal, it continues unabated in many places. I have found that politicians regularly lie to get elected, and forget their promises as soon as they have taken office. I have found that the police cannot and generally will not try to prevent crime, and after the fact do little more than take reports, yet heavy priority is given to collecting fines for trivial offenses. I have found that more and more people will deride and mock those who protect our country from its enemies, and the overwhelming majority of the entertainment and news industry does its utmost to tear down long-established moral values and pursue radicalism.

But for all I complain, my own case does not show me as a clean man. I have too often walked past homeless people to and from my office, and if I give a couple bucks I imagine I have done some noble thing. I have noted the grievances of afflicted people without stopping to consider whether I can be of help, and what I can do. Too often I go on with my life and never even see where I am needed. To be sure, I have a sense of duty, but usually it considers my wife and daughter, my dogs and a few people I call family and friends. A poor life and scope of honor, that.

It’s not that I don’t want and try to do the right thing, but it is wearing to stop and check the map and see how far I am from the goal. Just something I have to think about from time to time.

The Lawyer Factor

Well, he did it after all. John McCain has my full and unqualified support for President of the United States, even with his weaselly treatment of conservatives, all because of one word: LAWYER.

Back in February, I got a speeding ticket, and because I did not agree with the ticket, I retained a lawyer to fight it. So began a course in how the courts and lawyers behave. Over the weeks between getting the ticket, hiring the lawyer and my court date, I asked my lawyer several times about what needed to be done, His staff assured me repeatedly that all I needed to do, was wait. Monday was my court date, a date where – according to my lawyer – I did not need to appear, since he would be there as my representative. The court agreed there, saying that either I or my lawyer needed to be there, but not both.

So I was more than a little unhappy to be contacted by the court Tuesday and told that I was now cited for “failure to appear”. When a court representative uses the phrase “warrant for your arrest”, it really grabs your attention and ratchets up the blood pressure. I called my lawyer’s office right away, and the staff assured me that the lawyer had been there, and that the court was wrong. So I called the court back and they reasserted their claim that no one had shown up.

I did not sleep very much last night, and this morning took time off from work to try to see what was going on. It took some digging and talks with several people who seem to be adamantly opposed to voluntarily helping a fellow human being, but what happened was this – the lawyer prepared a Letter of Representation, and he delivered it to the court last Friday. Short version of the story, the court has not yet processed that letter and so was unaware of its filing when Monday rolled around. Since the letter was date-and-time-stamped, I should be OK. Of course, until it’s entered into the system and the warrant rescinded, I still have to wonder what I would say if I should get stopped by a police officer in the next couple days. Not that I plan to do anything to get pulled over for, but since the one who stopped in February was not at all interested in conversation, I don’t trust my luck. What I am dealing with is that always charming combination of slow-moving bureaucracy and lawyers whose ‘Job One’ is getting paid. Yes, there are good lawyers out there and I hope mine is one of them, but as a group I can’t help but think that Lawyers are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It then occurred to me to consider lawyers as politicians. Frankly, that combination seems to me likely to produce the worst of both worlds, especially when we are talking about the Presidency. Just consider these lists of recent Presidents:

Lawyer Presidents
Bill Clinton
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
Harry Truman


Non-Lawyer Presidents
George W. Bush
G.H.W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
John Kennedy
Dwight Eisenhower


There are outliers in each group, but I’d say it looks like the non-lawyers did a better job as President than the lawyers did.

Apply that to the field, and what do we see?


Candidate and Work Experience Prior to Political Office

Barack Obama: Harvard Law School, civil rights and local political action work.
Hillary Clinton: Yale Law School, partner Rose Law firm, liberal activist work.
John McCain: U.S. Naval Academy, naval aviator


Apply what that tells us to how each of these candidates would likely address the responsibilities of the President, and the choice becomes crystal clear.

If you love America, support John McCain for President.

No One and Done

The news shows were predictable this Easter Sunday. Unable to find any newsmakers to interview, the press returned to norm and interviewed talking heads like themselves. On “Meet the Press”, Tim Russert probed the minds and opinions of Eugene Robinson, Peggy Noonan, Jon Meacham, and Chuck Todd on Iraq and the election. Over on “Face the Nation”, Bob Schieffer found some lightweight politicos, interviewing Lindsey Graham and Jack Reed, but he filled in the rest of his time with the political stylings of Ana Marie Cox, Doyle McManus, and Roger Simon. Not Hall of Fame material, but I guess holiday weekends can be tough to work.

Anyway, one thing which came up a lot of all the shows, was the continuing response to Senator Barack Obama’s long and deep association with race-hate monger Jeremiah Wright. I was particularly amused by the apologists who claimed that Wright’s rants were fine if you heard the whole thing or took them in context. Lying about the causes of HIV and 9/11, and repeatedly calling out “God Damn America” is really hard to put in any context which would justify the visceral racism and hate of such speech, but life as a flunky is not a proud one. The other thing I found interesting, were the set of assumptions made about Obama’s speech last week, the one he hoped would settle the matter. Panelists on the weekend shows had a lot of praise for Obama, for ‘starting a much-needed dialogue on race’. Yeah, right. As if a politician with an agenda is what we need for leadership on that issue. Look, I don’t agree with Hillary Clinton on much of anything, but I will give her props for not trying to start a “dialogue” on gender role in America; she understands better than Obama just how fake she would look if she tried to play that game. And John McCain has never once played his generation against the younger Clinton and Obama, despite the fact that seniors are a fast-growing demographic, and McCain could claim some ground by playing the Grey Card.

The next assumption to heckle, is this notion that there has not been discussion on race. There has, actually has been for a generation or more, but the problem is that a lot of folks just don’t listen to anything which might oppose what they want to hear. I’m old school on that point, I figure if you want to talk to someone, find them and start talking. If they answer, you just might have a conversation and get somewhere from it. What I mean is, the real change always comes at the individual level, real people sorting things out. The only “leadership” in this issue comes from people who motivate folks to talk, to seek out resolution, and who then get out of the way, which pretty much rules out politicians ever being part of the solution.

But another thing I noticed, is this idea that one speech or answer should be enough to settle the matter. Senator Obama is seriously in error, if he thinks that more than two decades of close association with Jeremiah Wright can be explained away in one speech or press conference. In this assumption, Obama displays a weakness which all three of the major candidates exhibit.

Barack Obama is no paladin, no moral leader qualified to announce our course in righting old wrongs and addressing grievances. Neither is Hillary Clinton, nor John McCain. That does not make these people unqualified to run, but it does mean that each of them has to face up to the problems in their resume. Obama, like it or not, has a racism problem to address, and he’d better get started on addressing it in depth. Clinton has her actions as First Lady to explain (not hide), and pretending to have done more than she did is already coming back to haunt her. John McCain’s dislike of conservatives continues to put his fall campaign in serious doubt, as McCain has chosen to depend on support from groups more likely to consider supporting the Democratic nominee. McCain very much appears to have made the same mistake as John Kerry in 2004 and Bob Dole in 1996, believing that early success in-party would insure similar results in the general campaign. As a result, the effort to mobilize the GOP has stalled, McCain continues to ignore the most significant demographic for a Republican candidate in any of the last eight Presidential elections, and critical problems in McCain’s record as a Senator remain unaddressed, which create the potential for major problems when the Democratic nominee brings them up.

This past weekend, the NCAA Basketball Tournament saw a number of upsets. In several cases, it came down to who was able to play for the whole game, to make great plays not just once or twice but as often as necessary. To play tired but without mistakes, to show heart when it cost the most. The three remaining candidates for President are, no doubt, tired of all the travel, all the interviews and conferences and debates which must seem endless and never satisfied. But the candidate who will win in November will be the one who understands that one answer or comment or gesture will not even be close to being enough, that it will take hard work each and every day, with complete answers and detailed discussion of all the issues, that earns the winner the privilege of being harassed and second-guessed for the next four-to-eight years in office.

Reverend Wright Is Wrong On Race

I honestly do not know whether Senator Barack Obama agrees with the opinions on Race held by his long-time friend and “mentor”, Jeremiah Wright. On the one hand, he might not agree with the Reverend, in which case he played along for two decades while the pretense bought him street credibility. On the other, Obama may be playing down Wright’s hate speech while he chases votes from moderates and white voters. Neither possibility makes Barack Obama look all that mature or honorable, but for here I leave it at that.

Reverend Wright offends me not merely because he is a black racist, a man who sees all Caucasians as evil people. It does not seem to occur to him, that his sentiments mirror those of any slave trader of two centuries ago, the sort of people who figured that blacks were inferior and therefore did not deserve to be treated as humans. That’s what racism really comes down to, in the end – hating someone because of their race, and desiring evil on them solely because of their race. Reverend Wright is an obstacle, a parasite, and a blight on the reconciliation between blacks and other races in America.

I am not saying there is no racial tension, nor am I denying that the crimes against blacks in the past do not go away just because they are not perpetrated anymore. I even agree that there are people and places where the old bad days never seem to have ended. These are real problems that should not be ignored, but must be faced and resolved. But with that said, the progress over the years is real and substantial, and the good people far outnumber the bad. More, people like Reverend Wright are guilty of three kinds of sins which make race relations worse rather than better.

First, as I said many things have gotten much better, and while that does not mean that we should pretend the work is done it does mean that there needs to be recognition of the good. Even if people in general are as selfish and crass as Reverend Wright claims, it is understood that reward of a thing makes more of it. Ignoring progress is therefore the worst way to continue it, besides the dishonorable treatment of people whose work brought us where we are. For example, my family came to America as Anabaptists and determined abolitionists. The men in my family therefore considered Slavery a horrid abomination, and they fought in the Civil War specifically to abolish it and establish equal treatment of all men. Two sorts of fortunes came back to them for this; some died in the war while others merely lost their property, health and fortune. There was no Veterans Administration to care for them, no help from banks or churches to rebuild their farms or help their families. Yet even 140 years later, men like Jeremiah Wright can’t be bothered to respect their sacrifice, simply because they were white. I could also point out that the Civil Rights Act passed a Congress which was overwhelmingly white, because of overwhelming support among white voters. Wright focuses on the minority who resisted the reform, but will not commend those who fought to end that injustice, were they white.

The second sin is fomenting hate through false witness. Whites wanted to kill all the blacks? The United States is fighting in the Middle East because white people hate arabs? AIDs and crack cocaine were white strategies to hurt black people? As absurd as these charges are, when repeatedly over and over they begin to have the same effect as the Klan’s claims that blacks were conspiring to overthrow the United States. It’s the same sick strategy and way of thinking, a conspiracy mindet that locks out any chance of rational discussion and collaborative problem solving. People like Wright start with reasonable grievances, but instead of seeking solutions they use those initial causes as basis for clearly evil actions, killing discourse and civility and driving out solutions in favor of a chosen bloodfeud.

The third sin is what happens to real outrages. Blacks like Wright show rage at imagined offenses as quickly as real ones, blurring the distinction between true injustice and fodder for publicity. Real injustice should not be hidden in a pack of false allegations, which by the way racists can use to defend their rhetoric. Hysterical blacks like Wright undermine the effectiveness of valid protests, because Wright’s sort is too common and gets more media. An industry of fake rage has sprung up, dulling the public from seeing true wrongs when they happen. He will never admit it, but Jeremiah Wright has done as much to hurt blacks as any KKK Grand Dragon, and if he cares at all about his race at all, Senator Obama should be sorely ashamed for his association with Wright.

I am not God - Neither are You

There are two points I want to make, and I have to begin by emphasizing that analogies are not perfect, but they can be valid without being perfect. When we humans discuss the affairs of God, it should not surprise us that we do not understand everything. Despite all the recent hype, we are NOT gods, much less God. Expecting a human being to not only comprehend the thoughts and will of God, but to be competent to judge Him on His work and behavior, is far more absurd than expecting a 1st-grader to correct Stephen Hawking’s calculations. Yet that human arrogance is quite common. How many times do we hear some snot-nosed slacker voice an opinion about his boss which comes from no experience, training, or relevent data, yet he feels his professional opinion is superior to the man who does have the data, training, and experience? Many students imagine they are smarter than their teachers and professors, again even though they have never collected the knowledge and experience their teacher possesses. And many children imagine they are wiser and smarter than their parents. And on and on and on.

When I was very young, I mentally criticized my parents for various things, but as I grew older and saw something of Life I began to realize that they were right, and in those cases where they were wrong in the facts, they were nonetheless right in the practice. The advantage I have in that perception, is that I was able to grow to a point where I reached where my parents had been before. It is, again, a very false presumption for any human to imagine he or she has learned and experienced enough, to speak as an equal to God. I know that moves against the popular philosophy these days, of doing as you please and blaming whatever happens on God, but there it is.

The second point involves the Bible. I don’t just mean the New Testament, though as you may expect I do believe it is true. I mean the Old Testament, which the Jews call the Tanakh. One thing which always impressed me about the ancient writings, is that they had no sugar-coating. Even the good people made mistakes, sometimes said and did bad things. And even the bad people often had some worthy traits. And many things happened, bad and good, when seemed to make no sense. Which brings me to the Book of ‘Job’. Job was decribed as a very good man, almost perfect, so good that when Satan came around God’s court for whatever reason he did that, God bragged on Job to Satan. Well, you know the rest. Scholars have been trying to answer ever since, why God would let Satan do what he did to Job. The answer, I think, whether or not you think Job was a real person or not, is because we know these things really do happen. Evil men prosper while the good and innocent suffer. A lot of petty and bitter people just unload on God and never ask why he might have done that. That is, if God is who we always heard He is, the source of all goodness and hope, then why would He let these sorts of things happen? Instead, they default to the small-minded assumption that God does not exist, or if he does exist then He’s either an incompetent liar who can’t do the job, or a cruel monster who tortures his kids. None of those descriptions, however, makes sense when you think them through, at least I don’t see it that way.

What I mean is, if everything has a source and I believe that is so, then Goodness and Evil have a source. SOMETHING brought goodness into being, and to do so that SOMETHING must have been perfect in its goodness, because otherwise perfection could not exist. If we accept that, then there must of right be some entity who is wholly good, and it makes sense that this source would be God. You see, everything has a source, and we know that good and evil oppose each other. We can also see by examination, that goodness matters more than evil, if only because we encourage goodness; it is in our nature to seek out goodness. That being so, our Creator must also be good, since good and evil oppose, and therefore our Lord is the Good Lord. The whole defense takes muchg longer but would convince no one anyway whose heart was evil and dark, so I simply put it there for this point; God of right is good and loves us. Therefore there must be a purpose to allowing evil and suffering, which is beyond our comprehension.

Going back to my analogy, there are many things we experience as children and young people, which makes little sense until we are grown enough. The first step to comprehension is acceptance of a fact we do not like, but recognize as a fact. And here the first step is accepting that while God does allow bad to happen, it is somehow because He is good that this is so, and in the end it will prove wise, even necessary so we will become full in our promise.

Senescent Campaigns

There is much ado to be heard, about Senator Obama’s long-delayed and half-hearted admission yesterday that he had indeed heard “controversial” statements from his “mentor” and advisor Jeremiah Wright. Clinton supporters hoped the scandal would derail his nomination run, while McCain supporters hoped it would improve McCain’s chances in the fall. Obama and his team, once able to sell Barack as a man above the vulgar manipulation of race in his campaign, are now forced to deal with the revelation to the nation that Obama’s hands are as dirty as anyone else’s and quite possibly worse, and that his connection to Reverend Wright implies a crass racism in his own history which belies his oft-professed ideals. At best a hypocrite, Senator Obama is still exhibiting a clear stage of denial in the process, unaware that excuses and evasion will only make things worse.

With that said, however, no one should assume Wright’s racism, no matter how heinous, will permanently or seriously affect Obama’s candidacy. There was an immediate cost, and it will hurt Obama to some extent, but in the end it is a scandal about the words and behavior of one of Obama’s friends, not the Senator himself. True, Obama’s long friendship with Wright would devastate his career if Obama were white and a Republican, but as he is neither, History shows the cost will be transitory. As long as he does not make things worse, Obama can ride out this storm. Now he is proven no different from so many politicians before him, Barack Obama can relax and follow the script, dropping the pretense that he really represents anything innovative.

So whither Hillary? This time last year, Senator Clinton cast the image of the ‘inevitable’ next President of the United States. Since then, the ‘Smarter Clinton’ has been Clintanic in her campaign, as in a ship that aims for icebergs. The advantage for Clinton is that hitting nearly every possible obstacle during the primary run has helped her map them out for the fall campaign, should she gain the nomination. And no one should count Clinton out of the race, even should it seem impossible for her to come back. If Hillary share’s Bill’s penchant for saying and doing extremely unwise things as political strategy, she also shares his stamina and perseverence, even if those qualities are born of a voracious and ruthless lust for power. Hillary simply never gives up. While I can’t see how Hillary would be able to win the nomination in any normal fashion, I do not doubt she will contend all the way to the convention. Those Super-Delegates should expect a lot of pressure between now and the convention.

All this, we are told, delights the people at McCain 2008. The mental image of Obama having to address the public discovery that he is imperfect, while Hillary boils with the potential end of her rise to Oval Office Omnivoration, creates no end of amusement for the presumptive GOP nominee. But McCain has his own issues, not least the fracture in the Republican Party which McCain has done nothing to heal. Putting it bluntly, McCain has made it clear he neither respects Conservatives, nor intends to work for their support. McCain hopes to win the General Election with the same plan he used in the primaries, to attract self-proclaimed moderates and independent voters, as well as to depend on his reputation as a war hero. He is more than willing to forfeit Conservative support in that exchange, especially as he hopes – somewhat vainly – that they will vote for him anyway in the fall, for fear of Obama or Clinton taking office through their neglect. Which decision brings up an intriguing point which I have not seen addressed anywhere else, yet: The question of grass-roots infrastructure.

The 2004 Presidential Election was noteworthy for its high voter turnout. While this was attrbuted to many causes, one of the most important in my opinion was the intense effort made by Democrats and Republicans during the spring and summer, from building enthusiasm to registering new voters to making sure they got to the polls. The logic is obvious – Democrats heavily vote for the Democrat while Republicans heavily vote for the Republican. So if the candidate consolidates their base and gets a higher turnout from their party at the polls, they are more likely to win. 2004 bore that out, as both Bush and Kerry enjoyed tremendous vote tallies. Therefore, the present situation should concern both Democrats and Republicans. The energy in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns has been strong, but the emotion also threatens party unity when one of the two must give up the fight; there is a lot of bad feeling already present, and while it is a stretch to imagine Clinton or Obama supporters crossing over to actually vote for McCain, the question of how many will stay at home is a very real factor in the race. Not that McCain can relax on that count. Conservatives are traditionally some of the most energetic campaigners, and without their support McCain will find the fall much harder going than he seems to expect. And frankly, Senator McCain has burned too many bridges with Conservatives to think that he can win them over now with a few half-sincere gestures. But again, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are not at all likely to join forces after the nominee is selected; the bad blood is too deep now for that, especially as it has become quite clear that the Junior Senator from Illinois and the Junior Senator from New York do not like or respect each other.

This fall, then, will be turbulent and full of noise. Which, when you think on it, is always the case these days in Presidential Elections. The only chance of a real ‘October Surprise’, would be if this time we were treated to a pair of qualified, mature candidates who respected the voters enough to trust their intelligence and judgment. But since we know the potential candidates, we already know that possibility is not at all realistic. The senescent practice is once again the norm.

Iraq

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the resumption of the Iraq War. While many folks find it convenient to try changing the facts, it should be remembered at the start that this war did not start with President George W. Bush, nor indeed any American, but by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, for which the cease-fire provisioned clear conditions. In short, Saddam broke those conditions seriously, deliberately, repeatedly and beyond any doubt, so that the war was joined again through his malfeasance and no other.

The United States has suffered almost four thousand combat deaths in the war. While painful and a sad cost which no nation wishes upon its soldiers, in any historical context this cost is light compared to the accomplishments. Indeed, it is the historical context which matters in judging the war. While connections to Al Qaeda were lacking, there is no question that Saddam’s Iraq was friendly to Middle East terrorists of many factions.

This means that a serious war against the infrastructure of Global Terrorism required military action against Iraq. This was indeed one of the conclusions made by the Congress when it approved the use of force against Saddam’s regime, and indeed the basis for the Clinton Administration’s 1998 signature of the act making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States.

There are essentially only three paths to consider regarding Iraq’s relationship with the Middle East. If Saddam had not been removed from power and he was as capable as he claimed, Saddam’s support for terrorist groups would have insured another major attack upon Americans and the soil of the United States. If he was as weak as some suppose, not removing Saddam would have left Iraq open to invasion from Iran, who indeed was raising troops in apparent plan to do just that thing; the prospect of a Greater Persia in command of the territories of Iraq in addition to itself would have crippled the world economy in short order, and brought on untold horrors to the people of the Middle East as the vision of such men as Ahmadinejad would have been unrestrained, with bloody Jihad the pitiless assailant of every moderate Arab nation. Nuclear war with Israel would almost surely have occurred. The third road is the one we took, removing Saddam in hopes of creating a stable and more democratic form of government. When the shouting settles down and wiser heads speak, it turns out that while imperfect, the Iraq now in place is a better, safer alternative to what we faced half a decade ago.

The Recession Test for Leaders

It looks like we are headed for a recession, might already be in one. OK, so technically a recession is a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters, but all the media seems to be saying we are in a recession, so let’s say we are in one.

This election has many issues, but the Economy is the big one so far. That being the case, it seems reasonable to ask how Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain would suggest we address this recession. So, let’s see what a Google search with the candidate name and the word ‘recession’ brings up:

Barack Obama – Google News did not have much, except to say that Obama believes we are in a recession; no comment on what he would do as President to deal with that. So, on to Obama’s website, barackobama.com. Under his ‘Economy’ section, Barack tells us

“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world”.

Well, no one would argue with that, but it’s, well, kind of vague. I clicked on a promising tab, titled “Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief”. Obama plans to give a tax credit of $500 a person or $1,000 a family to about the lowest half of taxable income. Obama also likes the idea of having the IRS create “pre-filled” forms for us to sign and return. Of course, that ignores that most savings real people get from filing their taxes intelligently involves declaring deductions, and that small businesses would not benefit from this plan.

Not much there that addresses the macro economy, though. Looking through the rest of his economic proposals, Obama wants federal regulation of energy providers, internet service, and mortgage companies, preferential treatment of unions, indexing the minimum wage to inflation and to set collection limits on medical bills and mortgages. Heh, there goes that “free market” he said was so great, hmm?

In the end, I can’t say I saw much that would help end a recession. And several things that could precipitate or aggravate one.

On now to Hillary Clinton. Like Obama, Clinton does not say much about recessions, except that she is sure we are in one. At her site, hillaryclinton.com, I found even more vague platitudes than at Obama’s site. For example, Hillary wants us to know that

“Hillary has a plan to restore America's middle class”

Uh huh. I think the problem there, is that a lawyer who can turn $1,000 of someone else’s loaned money into a hundred thousand dollars in a few months, who can 'donate' book revenue to charity and yet somehow become a multi-millionaire on the salary of a public servant, probably lost sight of us in the middle class a long time ago, and is just assuming we disappeared. Anyway, Hillary promises to “lower taxes for the Middle Class”. Hey, waddaya know, she found us! So, clicking on that link to find out how she plans to lower taxes, I found 2,523 words to describe how unfair things are for Americans, but the only specific mentions of taxes were how Bush is about “tax cuts for the rich”, how the national debt amounts to a “birth tax” (not that Hillary voted against spending while she was a Senator, I note), tax credits for Gore-friendly energy practices, health tax credits for individuals to be funded by new taxes on employers, and higher taxes on “the rich”. Turns out Hillary has no real plans to lower taxes for regular people after all. Can’t say that sounds like a smart way to address a recession. Like Obama, Hillary sounds like she would make things worse, not better.

On to McCain. Well, McCain stubbed his toe this week, admitting the country is “very likely in a recession” after repeatedly saying he did not think one was on the way. Oops. Then again, we are not technically in a recession – yet – so perhaps Senator McCain was transiting between the formal definition and the subjective opinion. But it does not help for a leader to look confused about the situation. At his site, johnmccain.com, there is nothing specific about recessions, so I clicked on ‘taxes and economics”. Well, there is another plan for middle class tax cuts. Seems to be de riguer to promise to watch out for the middle class, hmm? Let’s see, McCain’s tax cut would come from eliminating the AMT. Ah, so it’s not really a tax cut, but something else. McCain wants to make it harder for Congress to raise taxes, but last I heard that was up to Congress, not the President. McCain does want to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but again that would be something Congress does, and while President could propose it I don’t see John McCain getting that one to fly. I like McCain’s plans better than Obama’s or Clinton’s, but then I would say that as a Republican. I have to say that I don’t see any specific plan to addressing a recession. Seems as though McCain, just like Obama and Clinton, has not given that question a lot of thought, which bothers me considering how important everyone says the Economy is to this election.

It’s not as though fighting a recession is all that complicated. The Economy basically runs on one prime fuel: Confidence. If folks have faith in the Economy, they buy things and that drives production and revenue, which gets companies to hire folks and spend money on materials and investment, which in turn gives folks the money to buy things. All a recession really is, is confidence stumbling for a bit of time. No surprise these things happen a lot around election seasons. And no surprise that every President in a recession talks up confidence, tries to get folks to feel good about the Economy. And when you get into it, most of the time the President can’t really prevent a recession, unless he’s Jimmy Carter. All he can do is react when it hits and try to lessen its duration and depth. It’s not easy, not at all easy for a President to admit something that important could be out of his hands. I’m not sure a President ever really does admit that, even to himself. Then again, I want a President who knows what he means to do about the situation, and so it’s a problem that we’re not hearing it from the three people closest to the office.