Why Christ Died for Us

Well, it’s Monday, so I guess that means it’s time to make some folks angry at me again. What I mean, is that I have to explain just why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die on the cross.

A lot of people come up with arguments that they think are clever, somehow ‘proving’ that God does not exist, or cannot exist as the Bible says He does. It’s a lot like the excuses we see in court, some crook trying to sell the jury on how he is innocent because of some loophole or dinky detail, that the jury and judge should – indeed must – ignore the fact that he quite deliberately did wrong and deserves punishment for it.

Let me step back for that. You see, whatever else we want to argue about, we can agree that you and I exist, right? Now, whatever I am may be in some dispute, since you only know me from your perception, just as I only know you by what I perceive. Similarly, we may each of us be wrong to some degree about the reality of our own existence. But, we can at least start with the premise that we exist.

From that, we should be able to agree that we exist and “live” in a world of some sort. Again, we may debate specifics on its form and so on, but we operate in an environment which allows us choice of actions, but which also acts upon us. From this, we see actions which we perceive to be desirable, and others which we perceive to be undesirable. Most of these are obvious in their worth to us; we enjoy pleasure and satisfaction, and dislike pain and discomfort. But even so, we at some point also decide that we dislike certain actions we perceive to be done to others, because we see them as “wrong”. Again, for now I won’t go into specifics, but I want to set our stage, which is that we inhabit a world of multiple beings whose interaction is a mix of chosen actions and imposed conditions, some of which lead to conditions we consider to be unjust. Further, we observe that some beings commit actions so unjust that we would apply the label “evil” to them, particularly when those actions are deliberate and cruel. We also observe that for all the desire of Mankind to establish Justice, there are many who not only commit unjust acts, but who seem to be rewarded for doing evil. We also see a world which seems to ignore the rights and needs of innocents, from children to the poor and weak, throughout History in every place and time.

It seems to many reasonable people, therefore, illogical to try to defend the existence of God or assert His goodness, in the light of the existence of Evil. Enough so, that many folks decide that God is evil, does not exist, or that Reality must be very much different from the way it is described in the Bible. Accordingly, people who trust and believe the Bible as true and trustworthy are often considered simple-minded and foolish. What I want to do here, is not to “prove” the existence of God or His qualities – I happen to believe that belief in God and His Holiness must be born of faith, another quality I shall try to address in a bit. I freely admit that I shall fail to some degree, not only because all humans are fallible, but because I am putting this together in less than a perfect structure, and with less time and consideration than something of this sort deserves. But I do mean to present something of an explanation as to how Christians can be intelligent and aware of the world in all its imperfections, yet believe in a good God and a Savior sent on our behalf, suffering through our fault and victorious for our benefit and hope.

It is my firm conviction that God exists, that He is utterly Good, and that He is Holy. I begin therefore with those assumptions, and apply them to the conditions set out at the start; a world of prosperous evil, where goodness seems naïve at times, and punished without consequence to many. We live in a world, as I said, which is a mix of our choices and outward conditions. In a sense, that is my explanation of Original Sin; not an attempt to make everyone feel guilty for things done long before they were born, but to remind us that what we do carries on long after we die, that the poison of evil must be dealt with or it will continue to cause pain and sorrow to future generations, and that we inherit a world which results from all done to it before. There are those who would like to claim that on the whole, Mankind has done more good than bad, but I hold the opposite opinion.

So, what does this have to do with the Goodness and Holiness of God, that he would allow evil to exist, or – knowing that we would commit evil – create a race of beings who would be allowed to do evil and prosper for it? To understand this, we must step back and look at the beginning conditions, and contemplate what God wanted for us in the first place. What I mean is, every contemplation of Satan sees him as a rebel against God, and there is a certain attractiveness in that rebellion, the ultimate underdog striking back against an ultimate power, hopeless yet courageous beyond anything else ever even imagined. Morally, how does God compete with such a notion? Indeed, many people ask whether Humanity really has a choice at all, since in the end God will surely prevail, and to exist requires submission to His will. Goodness seems immaterial, where God’s absolute power decides whether we shall even exist, let alone in what state. The answer comes down to the fact that God knew Satan would rebel, and prepared His defense by allowing for Satan’s small, temporary victory. It is the reason why we humans live on Earth at all, instead of being born in Heaven, why we are allowed to sin yet hope for a Glorious eternity, why the Angels themselves envy us. It shows up in the teachings of Jesus, the secret to God’s Might and Righteousness and Holiness – a truth utterly impossible for any human to accept on any basis but faith.

To exist as a specific person requires an identity of self. And that self exists apart from the Creator. This further requires allowing for independent action, even if the Creator intends for the created being to be like Him. The potential for rejection is automatic in the premise of freedom. So, if you are God and know that the freedom you intend to allow will corrupt the perfection of your creation? You make a separate Reality, a “Genesis” if you will, while protecting the greater Reality for the reconciliation you have planned.

Here’s the bad news – we all sin, every one of us. If we get a chance, we sin, and what’s more, we mean to do it. We hate people and we act on that hate. We put ourselves ahead of others, usually just strangers, but in some cases we don’t even care for family and those whom we know love and care for us. I’m not talking here about the ones who die very young or those who are unable to tell right from wrong; they are special cases and do not represent the main, and in any case do not represent a life of choices, which is the true human condition. Those who dwell on these rare occurrences ignore the issue, which is not surprising given the significance of our condition, but which does not help understanding. The fact of the matter is that we love our selves, but everything else tends to tie into that self-love. We like other people who make us feel good, we tend to prefer those who look, talk, and act the same way we do, who share similar beliefs, and we tend to resent and hate those who are different, and the more different the greater the hate. It’s a hard class, this Earth, and the reality of it is we made it the way it is. We have the means to end every evil that is, but we do not do that. There is collective guilt, but also individual guilt. Enough of it for each of us, that pointing fingers and blaming others is just another dishonest response, a desperate attempt to deny the truth we cannot bear to face.

OK, so some of you are rolling your eyes at this point, and waiting for the big hypocrite (that would be me) to start in on his demand that you all believe what I believe. Well, I’m not going to do that. I said at the start that I am explaining how I understand the situation, and this was necessary to set the stage. We live in a world where evil exists, not because God wanted evil to exist but because Man wanted evil to exist, because Man chose evil. It doesn’t matter if you do your best on your own strength to do good, you will still have to live in a world full of evil, where evil always has the advantage.

Some folks will stop me at this point and demand to know, ‘what about the good people?’ Good question. I’m an odd duck, because in addition to believing that Man is inherently sinful (and men moreso than women, by the way), I also believe that people are basically good. How is that possible? Well, like the old saying goes, we are all children of God, and God does not make trash. In our heart of hearts, we know good from evil, and we do not want to be evil, even though we choose it over and over again. The beginning of good for many people, I think, comes from the surprise of family. We are all pretty selfish while growing up, and part of that is a strong desire to get away from Mom and Dad as soon as we can live on our own. Yet, along the way as we meet and get to know people, we discover that we come to like people, some enough to become close friends, and one enough to marry; we learn to love someone besides ourselves, although that someone is usually a lot like ourselves. And then comes family, and the world changes for many of us. To be a parent is like nothing else in the world. A good parent would do whatever is necessary to look after their child. And we learn to care for someone we did not choose to have in our life; at least, we did not know the child before the birth and bring it into the family as a choice of keeping or not keeping the baby. Rejecting an infant for not being what you want, is to my mind among the worst of evils, but I must leave it at that for this discussion. As the child grows, the parent will be struck by the combination of ways in which the child is both like his/her parents, and yet very different. And yet, a good parent comes to love that child more and more. Even during their teenager years. This sort of selflessness is intentional, I think; we learn to love despite ourselves, the true kind I mean where we love without thinking about what we are getting back for it. The kind of love that demands sacrifice and a whole lot of patience, and which trusts that the child will someday understand, so that they can bring their own kids up the right way. Kind of the way God raises us up, and this is why God is depicted as the Holy Family.

So, all this talk and we finally get around to the Crucifixion. You see, Man has a great love of self-importance, and so he sets up laws as he sees the universe should be. Never mind that the lesson of Nature is imperfection. Everything dies, after all, and every perfect day still ends. We might hope, therefore, to maintain a level of perfection for a time, if we limit the definition to a few carefully chosen rules we can pay attention to for a time, but even then, we invariably fall from perfection after a time. The whole history of Mankind is a series of stumbles, and we rightly pay attention to the fact that we get back up again, yet we can not often admit that we fall again and again, and this is inevitably our way. We lie to ourselves, that this time we will be perfect. The problem is that we depend on our own strength. Man dreamed of flying, but as long as he believed that he could do so under his own power, he was doomed to failure. It was only in harnessing the powers of aviation and building a tool to reach the sky, that the dream came true. So much more, we cannot hope to be morally perfect in our own bodies and with our old selves. God makes the impossible available to us, however, and the whole of Man’s rise from its crude beginnings owes itself to God’s inspiration of Man. This is what the Bible teaches; not so much the specific laws in one place and time, but the constant availability of God to those who seek Him. You see, even though this world is evil and flawed and Man its regent has failed his charge, God watches and has made provision for our help. He has spoken throughout History to anyone and everyone who asks and listens. It requires that a man go outside his own interest, to do what is right rather than what is easy, that a man live by faith rather than the arrogance of human standards, and that a man stands for something greater than himself. Every great work has these characteristics. But it is also wrong to imagine that God takes no part in our course. There are certain times where He chooses to act, though these are necessarily rare, since we have this place to show the fruits of our own work and will. Even so, God came down to Earth as one of us, because of His love for us.

The paradox of Jesus Christ is the essential focus on the world’s religious identity. At some point, everyone is compelled to respond or react to him, who he was and is, and what he said, taught, and did. For here I simply claim that he is hat he said he is – the only-begotten Son of God, yet a brother to any of us who will accept him as our brother. By right King of all the world and everyone in it, he chose to live in poverty and claim no dominion of us. And this, in sum, is the command of Christ for all who would be like him – Serve, help, and above all, love everyone. It is a hard task, one we all fail at constantly, yet a worthy mission I would not trade for any other. This does not mean that only Christians are able to love, or that Christians somehow do it better than other people. We have been warned in Scripture that many who can say the words will not follow through in deeds, and those people shall have to answer for that.

But as for the debt of blood. We all must die, as I said. It is the curse of this world, and yet also the blessing, for when we die, we are brought out of this fallen world and into the greater Realm, where we become what we have chosen to be. It is where Justice comes into play, remorseless and yet compassionate, like a hot iron which cauterizes our wounds so we may heal, yet it is unbearable even in thought. And because it is unbearable, God Himself acted to save us from it. You see, it is Man’s sin which demands punishment, a wickedness based on a desire for destruction, the heart of Satan and the core of his nature, to seek human pain and the destruction of Humanity. He cannot touch God, so his fondest hope is the devastation of humans. Knowing this, God set a series of defenses for people, and His centerpiece was his Son, Jesus Christ.

The ultimate penalty in human justice is death. And in an unjust decision, a dead innocent man cannot be brought back, representing the ultimate injustice. So it is that God brought Himself through Christ to show His compassion for us by his Son’s bearing of the shame and punishment we ourselves demanded for our own sins. That is, the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was demanded by men and by Man, and the Lord Himself bore it for our behalf. Now, there can be no demand that anyone be destroyed to serve human Justice, for God Himself has rendered that a moot point by paying all. Further, the perfect life lived by Christ and his obedient death on the cross have completely derailed Satan’s plans to destroy Man; Jesus’ sacrifice was demanded by Man, but because of God’s love that death redeemed Man, if Man will take it. The difference is this – before, we feared the end of this life because it brought us to a terrible judgment on a standard we could not meet. Now, that requirement has been waived and we may choose, if we wish, to simply pursue good and do good. To do good, that is, not in hopes of scoring points to be used in our defense when we must face the consequences of the wrong we did, nor in some mercenary hop of sucking up to the ultimate Boss, but out of love itself, the desire to help others and to do good for its own sake. What’s more, because God is eternal, Jesus’ sacrifice not only reaches the people of his own time and afterwards, it also reaches back to all before him, so that the option of choosing love over evil is possible for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Not everyone believes what I do, of course. In fact, I am doubtless wrong on a number of points, and theologically my presentation is shakier than a big Jello mold at a family dinner, but on the main points I think I am secure. The point is not to sway anyone, not that I could do so, but to explain my understanding and try to show how the key elements of the faith fit together, and to explain just why it was that Man demanded Jesus did, and why Jesus agreed to do that for us all.

The Next Black Swan

Twenty years ago today, the New York Stock Exchange fell off a cliff, the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 22.9% of its value (508 points) in a single day. As a percentage of value, this was the greatest single-day market loss in U.S. history. The US crash was preceded and followed by crashed in other markets throughout the world. By the end of October 1987, the U.S. market had rallied a bit, climbing from 1739 to over 2000, but the Hong Kong market had lost 45.8% of its value, Australia 41.8%, and the UK 26.4%. To put this in modern context, if the DJIA had lost the same proportion today, it would have to lose 3,181 points. The modern market has grown 618% in the last 20 years, recovering – for some investors – everything they lost and providing a strong return for half a generation. Consequently, there is a certain sanguinity regarding the situation, which may or may not be a wise attitude. The reason I say this, is because the specific cause for the one-day crash has never been adequately explained. Assumptions were made and blame placed on a number of causes, largely focused on automatic trading programs which trigger actions on certain conditions – and yes, such programs are still in operation right now, although the companies running them promise there is no chance that 1987 will happen again, don’t you feel safe and secure now? But there was also concern about the effect of the U.S. dollar’s strength on market conditions, as well as the collateral effect of one market on other world markets Once again, officials rush to assure the public that there is no similar danger now, although the need for consumer confidence is so great that they would certainly say exactly the same thing if there were no protection at all.

The 10/19/87 crash is described by some analysts as a “Black Swan Event”, a term used to describe something utterly unexpected and impossible to predict. This provokes the obvious question; what will the next Black Swan look like, and when will it happen?

Race and Intelligence

Dr. James Watson has started up an old firestorm again. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Dr. Watson, whose work on the structure of DNA won a Nobel Prize back when it meant something, said that he believes Blacks are intellectually inferior. From CNN:

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

As you might expect, such a statement met immediate and extreme reaction from many sources, including the British government. I too am surprised that Dr. Watson would make such a statement, especially when Watson seems to base his opinion at least in part on personal experience with selected co-workers. Essentially, while I am no scientist, it appears to my unenlightened eyes that Watson saw certain data and read conclusions into them without considering all the relevant factors. At the very least, this should warn us against trusting too much the opinions of designated ‘experts’. It seems to me obvious, that anyone can make a great fool of himself, and we should keep that in mind when considering the weight of someone’s opinion.

Economic Suicide

BusinessWeek is a fine magazine, and many of its articles are useful discussions and analyses of significant business trends and issues. They do, however, sometimes play too much to one point of view, and this was the case in a recent book review. In their review of Iain Carson and Vijay Vaitheeswaran’s screeding “Zoom”, BW properly notes the stridently leftist tone of the book, but fails to challenge the over-riding assumptions of the Eco-Left. In so doing, BusinessWeek shows its own bias on the issue. What I found surprising, is that people so well-grounded in business should be so unrealistic about what causes the present condition, and what will be needed to resolve it.

Let’s start with one of the pet assumptions of the Eco-Left; that to improve things environmentally, it is necessary and overdue for the United States government to levy hefty taxes on oil products in the same way that Europe does. At this point I direct the reader to observe the names of Zoom’s authors; rather European, which is to say that they have the myopic focus of the European. If it makes sense to challenge American bias when addressing global issues, as I think is correct, then it just makes sense to be wary of assuming that the Euros have it right. I do not, in fact, see anything to indicate that high gas taxes have done anything – at all – to improve ecology or business conditions in Europe. And I see compelling reasons why such a move here in the United States would be catastrophic.

You see, the conventional wisdom for many years, was that Americans were in love with cheap gas and would not tolerate a rise in price above a certain level. For many years, it was assumed that if gas crossed a dollar a gallon, we would demand alternative sources. Then it was two dollars, then three … now gas goes as high as four bucks a gallon in certain places and times, and demand remains very high. Sales of SUVs and trucks remain strong, with no sign that anyone plans to give up their way of life in order to save a little bit. So, on the evidence from history, a tax on gas will not encourage people to support different energy sources. More on that in a bit, but for now it’s important to know that anyone pushing a tax is doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment or a responsible government. Next, it must be understood that whenever a tax is assessed and collected, the money from that tax goes into the general revenues, and will always be so. Therefore, any politician who tells you that a gas tax will be used to fund ecological programs or alternative energy sources is lying to you. Even if such programs are set up and funded by the government, they will be paid from general funds, and there is no direct connection between the tax collected on gasoline and the programs enacted by Congress. Again, history shows us that Congress spends money exactly as it pleases, and programs will be funded or neglected without regard to how much is being taken at the pump from the people.

It must also be understood, that if Congress sets up additional taxes on gasoline, that Congress will have no interest whatsoever on reducing demand on gasoline, because reducing demand would have the effect of reducing revenues, and if that happens you can be sure Congress’ appetite for that revenue would drive it to seek that money from somewhere else. Look at the taxes on cigarettes, as an example. The sole effect of an additional tax on gasoline that you can count on, is that this tax would become permanent, and if gasoline consumption were reduced, the tax would expand to collect money from some other activity, regardless of the nature of that activity. The reader will note that the United States government has never reduced, let alone abolished, the federal tax on gasoline that already exists, even in times of crisis, so there is no chance whatsoever that a higher tax would be temporary or limited to gasoline only.

It should embarrassing enough to BW that their staff ignored the evidence of History, but they even display an appalling ignorance of Economics. It is an inexorable law of Economics that a tax on a commodity makes that commodity more expensive, without adding anything to the value or supply of that commodity, which therefore increases costs across the spectrum, lowering productivity and economic strength in every sector of the nation’s economy. Given the ubiquitous presence of petroleum products in every industry and business type in the United States, a heightened national tax on gasoline would undeniably and immediately be inflationary, lower productivity and consumer confidence, and inevitably create recessionary conditions, as companies scaled back on expenditures to adjust for the increased costs of operations. This in turn slows down hiring and lowers expectations, as capital expenditures would drop precipitously and the sharp fall in consumer confidence would kill demand. How do I know this? Because this is exactly what happened during the Carter Administration, when similar efforts were undertaken; conditions came to exist which had never existed before or since, including double-digit Inflation rates at the same times as double-digit Unemployment. It would be, to put things bluntly, the worst possible economic decision the Congress could make, with utterly disastrous implications for future economic opportunities. It is a decision which no sane steward of the public trust could countenance.

There may yet be a few naïve EcoLeftists crying in favor of these draconian measures, crying out like Chicken Little that the sky is falling, that we must abandon oil even at these horrendous costs in order to save our future. But such claims, once again, fail to stand up to scrutiny. In the first place, those critics of American policy often complain that Americans fail to think about the rest of the world, but the notion that an American gas tax will do anything for the world at large shows an even more U.S.-centric fallacy. There is no chance, at all, that any industrial nation will lower its own consumption in response to a U.S. tax on gasoline. If such a tax were actually to lower U.S. consumption, there would be an inevitable rise in consumption by India, China, and even some of those much-idolized European nations, as the thirst for Oil is in no way abated by a tax. Second, just as the Kyoto accords were in reality nothing more than an extortion attempt, to cripple the United States’ economy so rival nations could gain on them, so too a higher U.S. gas tax would only benefit foreign rivals, many of whom have far lower standards on emissions and fuel economy than does the United States.

But in the end, the Eco-Left simply does not understand what is necessary for Progress to occur. It is unfashionable these days to ever say anything good about Oil, but if you go back far enough, you will find that Oil was the solution once to a serious global problem. That problem was a world which ran on coal. Coal was inexpensive, easy to use, and everywhere. Trouble is, coal was dirty, and many cities found their buildings coated in soot and their people choking on coal dust. Oil was the solution, because engineers found a way to make petroleum cheap for consumers, easier to use in engines and machinery, and it burned cleaner than coal. That’s right, there was a time when Oil was the ecological choice!

My point is simple. Oil will remain the fuel of choice, not until someone makes people feel guilty enough about using it, or punishes folks for using it, but until something is made which is cheaper, easier, and cleaner. Possibilities are under development and some of them are exciting, but lies and threats from the Eco-Left are part of the problem, not the solution.

Listening – We Should All Try It

Thanks for your patience. I have not blogged all that much recently, for several reasons. On the one hand, I have been busy getting my car repaired and handling work, family, and school, all of which have been demanding of late. A small medical issue also came up, but nothing worth mentioning now. But along the way, I spent some time listening to people, and I was disappointed to realize that I had been out of practice on that count. Two ears, one mouth and all that, yet I kept forgetting that the ability to say something did not mean I necessarily had anything worthwhile to say. But it also occurs to me that this is the primary problem of all our self-obsessed elected officials in D.C.; they are great at communicating, in so far as that means making sure we hear what they are saying, but there’s not many at all in that fine city that remember they might want to listen to us common folk. We are, after all, ‘common’, which is a detriment in the mind of the professional canardist, and so disqualifies us from any right to be heard, much less the consideration that we might have some perspective of worth. Not a single one of our elite field of Presidential candidates in either party strikes me as interested in the slightest about what the majority of Americans think. Not one.

Well, that’s it for now. Right now, I’m interested in what you think, so I’m listening. It’s something we could all do to practice.

Unintended Lessons

There is a new show on one of the MSM channels, called “Cavemen”. I have no intention of watching it, since the commercials have courteously advised me that the show is apparently based on a character from a car insurance advertisement series. Think about that; a show about a demographic class which does not actually exist, where the actors are so heavily made up that the viewer has no idea what they are really like under all that stuff, and the point of which seems to be to promote a banal fiction to no purpose other than spending money and wasting time.

For some reason, the whole idea reminds me of the field of contenders running for President of the United States …

Death, Too Close An Acquaintance

A week ago today I had an automobile accident, which happened in a split second of distraction and peculiar circumstances. Since that event, I have found myself considering the events of Life and the attendant minister of Fate, Death. In the case of my accident, it was not really so bad, just a couple of banged-up cars and my air bag went off, but it shakes you up to go from normal to crisis in an instant. It reminds you that you never really know when it is your time, and it makes you sensitive to the loss of others.

This brings me to the topic. In my PMP cancer support group, two more of our members passed away this week, after long and difficult fights. We know a lot more about PMP and other rare cancers than we did just a year ago, but even so it is sometimes not enough, not in time, and all we can do is pray for solace for the families. In my office, one of my employees had a death in the family from a car accident, and another employee’s mother had a heart attack last night. Out of nowhere comes the grief.

The news is full of similar stories. A child drowns in a swimming pool because a mother gets distracted for a couple minutes. A deputy constable writing a ticket gets hit by a man driving an SUV while talking on his cell phone and he never sees him. Sometimes we know the ones who leave; Lois Maxwell, “Miss Moneypenny” in so many of the James Bond movies, dies Sunday in London. Marcel Marceau, perhaps the most famous mime of all time, died Saturday in Paris. Dr. James Keegan, who founded the “End Hunger Network” in Houston, also died recently. But the roll call, even for a single day, is long with people who died too soon or too suddenly, or whose loved ones wish they still had them home with them.

I guess there’s no profound point to this article, except maybe this one thing. Lately, I have seen a lot of anger and resentment, some very nasty sentiments and words used to convey disrespect and antipathy. I am by no means innocent of that conduct myself, and for that I apologize. I wonder, how many of us would choose such sharp words to throw at someone, if we somehow knew they would leave us soon and suddenly? Sure, in most cases we can say what we please and that person will be back tomorrow for more of the same and to give back as they get. But not always, and I wonder if we consider how little we really know, about what is to come, and those things which we really do not control at all.

Just something to think about, is all.

The God Who Votes

Let me begin this article by saying straight out that no one, no one, has sanctioned what I am about to say. So before someone comes back later and claims this represents an organized effort to tie Religion to Politics, let me be clear that this article is my own, unimportant, overly wordy half-processed idea. Your mileage may differ, as the commercial disclaimers say. But to the point, I have found it fascinating and a bit dishonest, how many people whose policies they know are amoral at best, demand that God stay out of things, that His opinion cannot be considered in electing those leaders who will direct the nation’s decisions on moral issues. Abortion, war, coercive redistribution of wealth, and the limits on personal freedoms are all expected to be addressed without considering of the simple question about whether the proposed action is the right thing to do. To that, I think it is well past time to voice dissent, indeed to oppose and suppress those who think that Freedom of Religion still disallows a person from voting their conscience by listening to the voice and will of God. It is time for us all to exercise our rights, not lay them down because someone is a boor about how we voice our opinion.

Let me be clear; God is not a Republican, any more than He is a Democrat. Any human political platform is a human construction, and it is sheerest arrogance to presume that we can in any way come close to the Divine Standard in any construction of our own making. That does not, however, deny God’s interest in the welfare and behavior of His children on Earth; indeed our leaders should properly consider themselves the stewards of the power temporarily allowed them by the Almighty Hand, and merely Regents of their office, rather than moral authorities in their own right. God has made His will and preferences clear on many occasions, and we would do well to take that into account. While much derided by the Left, the Bible is a true and priceless book for consideration into human nature, as well as the fate of nations which obey or rebel against the Holy Will. Immoral nations fall and fail, of that there is no doubt. And God takes an active and direct interest in His people. Like it or not, if a national leader wants his country to prosper, he must uphold the laws of God and protect those who serve God.

Essentially, God gives His children a lot of freedom, individually and as nations. But certain actions are always out of bounds, and in to commit those acts are to invite disaster. I would suggest the following list of national commandments:

Thy nation shall promote Justice above all else.

Thy nation shall not suppress those who believe in God and live in faith.

Thy nation shall promote Freedom for all people as individuals, except that Justice must always come first.

Thy nation shall not murder babies.

Thy nation shall deal fairly with other nations in commerce, respecting other nations while protecting thine own providers and resources.

Thy nation shall not mock marriage.

Thy nation shall honor thy history and its lessons

Thy nation shall not deny individual rights in order to increase the government.

Thy nation shall respect, supply, honor, fund, and listen to thy soldiers

Thy nation shall not create elite classes with special privileges.


Do not ever forget that God does indeed vote. And in the end, His verdict is the only one which counts.

My Apologies for the Delay

Last Thursday, one of my fellow drivers thought it would be a nice change of pace to stop his vehicle in the middle of an intersection. Unfortunately, I was distracted by a burnt-out signal light and did not receive the memo about his impromptu repose, and so I drove into the back of his car, receiving an air bag in the face and a ticket from a police officer. For some reason, that event has added to my load of responsibilities, and as a result I have not blogged for nearly a week. I apologize for the delay.

Freedom Is Evil When Used to Promote Evil

Iran’s Hitler-esque President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressed the faculty and students of Columbia University yesterday, accorded more respect and honor than many worthier alternatives, such as a certain former President of Harvard. President Ahmadinejad’s surreal portrayal of Iran as a sublime paradise of Justice and Peace, where no one is homosexual or sexist or hateful in any way, combined with his sneering derision of the ideals and practices of the country hosting his visit, is reasonably reminiscent of Adolf Hitler, who also assured his neighbors that he was a peaceful man who merely wanted ’lebensraum’, and who simply asserted his country’s natural desire for Justice. Ahmadinejad presides over a government which murders people for having sex out of wedlock, which includes any homosexual act, and ruthlessly suppresses criticism and free speech in Iran, yet he has no shortage of supporters and allies demanding he be allowed a stage and a live microphone anywhere and anytime he desires, all in the name of Free Speech. Few people seem to have considered the validity of that claim.

The odd thing, President Ahmadinejad has never faced the same sort of censorship his own regime employs. His opinion and statements have a large and ready audience, and there is no need – whatsoever – for a prestigious university to grant him prominence so that he can express his views. Therefore, the only logical reason for Columbia University to have agreed to host this monster from Teheran, was either out of a perverse thirst for publicity, or else agreement in general of his statements and motives. Given the high level of education of its alumni and regents, and the long-established procedures for inviting their selected guest speakers, it is implausible beyond possibility for this to have been an honest error, or merely exercise of a noble ideal. Make no mistake, Columbia’s masters wanted the damnable man standing at a lectern under their banner, as some proud accomplishment of Columbia and all it stands for.

But it needs addressing, this peculiar notion that monsters have a moral right to be allowed to say whatever they like. I find it strange, that the mandarins at Columbia did not consider that they had a greater moral responsibility to present the opinions of the oppressed in Iran, say those Iranian students willing to defy the mullahs, or young Iranian women told that unless they obey the strict misogynist laws from a 7th-Century madman, they will be hanged. Perhaps a few of those homosexuals Mr. Ahmadinejad says do not exist in Iran, might be allowed their opportunity to rebut that claim? But no, doing the right thing, the just thing, that is not the ‘Columbia Way’, it appears. But we must wonder why only a tyrant deserves a stage?

But there is more. Voltaire defended the right to even that speech he despised, but even Voltaire did not suggest that speech he despised should be elevated and repeated well ahead of the words of wise and righteous men. It is well enough to know what a monster is about; it is quite beyond the pale to grant advantage and prominence to the thug in that exposition. Some defenders of the monster in question have suggested that allowing Ahmadinejad to speak will reveal him in all his absurdity, and somehow this may dissuade him from advancing his mania into action. But anyone who has read ’Mein Kampf’ should be aware that evil men often grow in their arrogance from such attention; Hitler said what he meant to do, was allowed to talk at length and on countless occasions during the 1930s, and then he simply did what he had said he would do. With nuclear weapons under development, construction of submarines and military aircraft underway, sponsorship of dozens of terrorist groups and an army training incessantly for something, just how ‘astonishingly uneducated’ – to coin a phrase – would someone have to be to recognize that granting Ahmadinejad yet another big stage to feel important, is only going to increase the cost when his confidence finally crosses that point where he feels ready to launch the overt phase of Jihad against the Western world? Allowing Ahmadinejad the façade of eminence and respectability, is no more sane than trusting Charles Manson to raise your kids; he is quite simply that mad, that evil.

BDS – The Obsession and the LefTrolls

Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney are running for any office next fall; indeed no one in the Bush White House has expressed a desire to be the nation’s next President or a Senator or Congressman. Yet the leading Democrats are all running against President Bush, as if he were the GOP’s nominee. Hillary Clinton leads the pack, and acts as if it were the 2004 election again, not 2008.

And the Left’s mob of frenzied trolls shows the same confused devotion to the President. One recent example is the protest against the tasering of a Leftist student who disrupted an appearance by Senator Kerry. A student newspaper, after weighing all the evidence and considering the circumstances, chose to reference the event with a profane insult directed at President Bush.

Should we even mention the continued 24/7 obsession with President Bush at the Daily Kos (literally millions of references and counting) and MoveOn.org (will they get mad if I say ‘ditto’ to the previous mention about millions of references? Probably, they get mad a lot these days)? Somewhere, even Alex Forrest is thinking these people are a bit over the top.

Back in 2003, Dr, Charles Krauthammer, a psychologist and graduate of the Harvard Medical School, came up with the term, 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'. Dr. Krauthammer’s name for the disorder is much more clinical than the one I proposed a little later, the Aluminati, and addresses the demographic as a whole while I referenced the political aspects alone, but you get the idea, I think. What I referenced as a “cottage industry” for the Left, though, has now become mainstream and a full-blown compulsion.

But the clock is running, and surely even the tightest strait-coat Liberal has realized that he will have to get used to a world without Dubya to hate? Well, maybe not. I can just see these chuckleheads trying to impeach President Bush retroactively, or else demanding we dig up Saddam’s rotted corpse and apologize to it for deposing the dictator. Or maybe this is some weird plan to run against a man who is not even running, so that when the Republican wins the White House again the Donk candidate can scream ‘Not fair! I was campaigning against Bush, so you have to run him!’ Shewt, they’re so detached from Reality, I wouldn’t be surprised if Shrewery and Obambi were counting on winning all the Electoral Votes from “Second Life”. But I do wonder about what will happen, when all these trolls suddenly find themselves without a target for their venom and spittle? Will they then look in the mirror, realize that the opposite sex has a thing for hygiene and people whose education reached a double-digit grade level, and that the key to financial success is hard work and personal diligence? No, that seems to be largely a Conservative epiphany, more’s the pity. The worst of them will probably prove short-lived contestants in the Darwin Awards competition, but while we can hope that some of the rest may finally follow through on old promises and clear out, I am afraid that the majority will simply find new mischief. Anyone named “Bush” is likely to be stalked and verbally molested, and Rudy or Romney may well find media types referring to them as “Mister Bush” for a while. A certain amount of demented gibbering must also be expected, but as all communications from the LefTrolls have been like that, only normal precautions need to be taken; hand sanitizers in case of physical contact and the exclusion of CNN or CBS news from available television channels; let the V-Chip protect the kids. In the event that – as they often do – the LefTrolls take their cue from Hollywood and the video games, uninfected people should be safe as long as they stay away from the West Coast and areas known to be frequented by Al Sharpton and/or John Kerry.

No one knows for sure what the exit of President Bush will do to the LefTrolls, but it is clear that as he is their reason for being, their focus of identity, the chaos which ensues after his departure back to private life will be devastating.

Just Say No to the National Intelligence Academy

Hugh Hewitt has suggested that the United States Government establish a ‘National Intelligence Academy’. I do not doubt that the idea will have a number of supporters, including some in Congress, because at first glance it seems to make sense. Unfortunately, I strongly doubt the practical efficacy of such an institution, for reasons I shall submit here.

Let’s start with why we have Intelligence services in the first place. The United States government admits to fifteen official agencies and offices whose primary role is Intelligence; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which used to be the overseer of Intelligence for the President of the United States (that role has been assumed by the office of National Director of Intelligence (NDI); the National Security Agency (NSA), who handle electronic intercepts and codes; the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which handles satellite imagery for the most part; the National Geo-Spatial-Intelligence Agency, which handles high-altitude activity and analysis; the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR); Intelligence organizations controlled by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have been around for more than a century, and even the Coast Guard has an Intelligence arm. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a Counter-Intelligence unit, as do the Departments of Energy and the Treasury. And finally, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has an Intelligence office.

But we’re just warming up, because there are some other agencies and offices which do not officially exist, but are quite real, for all of that. For example, remember the Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) from the 1980s, which existence was denied by the government, then admitted but later retracted as a mistake, then officially was said to have been shut down? There is also the Diplomatic Security Group (DSG), the State Department commando force which was – supposedly – absorbed into the INR, although a bunch of the DSG’s best simply vanished from sight; and Delta Force of course, which is alleged to have its own Intelligence resources, having a strong distrust of any Intel weenies who have been in contact with Congress. Or what about the National Infrastructure Defense Office set up during the Clinton years to guard against things like Cyberwarfare? Come to that, ever wonder what old ex-spooks do in their ‘golden years’? Spooks are not like most veterans, because while their bodies age, in many cases their minds remain very sharp and they know things, valuable things, which their nation may call upon at need.

What I am saying with all that, is that it’s a tall order to imagine creating a single place to teach men and women what they need to become effective Intelligence agents. For a long time, we had to send people behind the Iron Curtain, so whites who could pass as Slavic folks were in high demand. Nowadays, we need folks who can pass as militant Muslims, not only by race and language, but who know the ins and outs of the “Death to America” crowd. And it’s pretty obvious that we need a cadre of Asians, able to blend in at Pyongyang, or at Beijing, or in Manila. And by the way, if you think the agent who fits in Com-China can also be equally accepted in NorKorea, you need some remedial World Culture, buddy. We also need experts in South American culture and practices, and just because we always seem to get into wars there, we can’t forget about Europe. So, right from the get-go, our campus is going to need six departments just to handle continental distribution. From there, we need to figure out what sort of Intelligence work our agent will handle. In the bad old days it was all about the military plans, baby, specifically weapons and intentions. Not so simple, now. There are still tactical and strategic weapons to chase, as well as operational and contingency plans, but just as vital now are financial strategies and political operations; for some reason, people don’t realize that our enemies would – very much – like to influence the outcome of our elections, and indeed have been working hard to that end. Ahhh, ahh, ahhh Hsu!! Sorry about that, darn allergies, where was I? Oh yes, categories of Intelligence operations. The reason we have so many different Intelligence agencies, after all, is because there are so many areas where we need diligence and attention. We have to watch skies and e-mails, we have to consider money and material and weapons and speeches, we have to track cultural and political and religious climate changes, and we have to do it all in a way that keeps us from being set up for a sucker punch. It is all but impossible for one school to do all it is needed, and that does not consider the fact that as the world changes, our Intelligence agencies need to keep up with technology and capabilities.

And then there is that little matter of Congress. A National Intelligence Academy would have to be set up and have funds allocated for it by Congress. Anybody want to guess how long it would take for the NIA to become a political football, subject to the Macchiavellian maneuvers of the personalities in vogue at a given moment? Or how long the headmaster at that academy would enjoy anything like autonomy, with a sub-committee holding the final vote on funds each year? It’s hard enough as it is for Intelligence professionals to make the hard call without playing up to a political patron, and that’s with the budgets for each agency set up on a much more pragmatic approach. I mean really, in the end a National Intelligence Academy would be little more than a marketing tool for whichever party controls the Hill, because with Congress voting into existence, there is no chance they would ever hand over control to the President, the Military, or the people who actually know what to do to train agents.

By the way, where do you suppose they’d build the thing? The East Coast already has West Point, Annapolis, and the Coast Guard Academy and the Air Force Academy is in Colorado. Since the logical place to train agents in secret operations and handling classified information would be a remote and well-guarded place, we can expect such an academy would most likely be built in California or somewhere on the West Coast, instead. With the present Blue majority and spineless character of the Right in Congress just now, that goes almost without saying. And with the high-profile image the place has, how long do you figure before someone sues the Academy for discrimination? After all, Sandy Berger will eventually be allowed to apply for a security clearance again, so who’s to say that someone can’t be a secret agent, even if they hate the United States?

As bad as things are now in trying to recruit, train, and equip agents and Intelligence operations, the only sure results from a National Intelligence Academy, is that it would make things worse for National Security, that it would be expensive and wasteful, and that it would be spun like a top on an almost daily basis.

Customer Disservice

An article in BusinessWeek this week discusses what people do in response to poor Customer Service. It moved me to consider a recent experience I had in that venue, and to remark on a truly inspired approach to the problem.

My daughter Jagan is beginning Ballet lessons, and of course for that she needed a certain leotard outfit, black with a ruffled skirt. Turns out it is pretty hard to find stores which carry that kind of thing, or at least the ones who advertise it. I finally learned that Target carries such leotards, and so last week I took Jagan over to Target to get the leotard and some tights, and to search for ballet slippers. I went to the Target store at 10801 Westheimer. I was fascinated by what I found.

The store was clean and well-stocked, to its credit. However, the signs were not clear and it was difficult to figure out where leotards could be found. I looked for a store employee to help me, but I them realized that all of the employees were either working at the registers, or else were sitting behind the Returns/Special Order counter. I noticed a sign pointing to a red phone, advising customers to call if they needed help, so I picked up the phone, and after a couple seconds it began to ring.

After eight rings, the phone was answered by a woman with a sullen voice, who told me leotards would be in “Girls”. I looked over and saw that the store was 45% “Women”, and 45% “Girls” in sections, so I asked her to be more specific, and she just sighed in exasperation at having to actually provide information to a customer, and said “just look for the sign”. I asked her what sign, and she said “Dance”, and when I asked where that section was, I was treated to another long sigh, then a silence, then she finally grumbled that it was in the back of the store, against the wall. Then she hung up before I could ask or say anything else.

Well, it turns out the ‘Dance’ section was in the front and middle of the store. But at least we finally found the tights and the leotards. I found one which looked like it would fit Jagan, so I told her to try it on in a dressing room and see how it fit. That was when we discovered, after some searching, that Target has done away with dressing rooms. Completely.

As part of her company’s ongoing training and motivation process, my wife had to read the book “Raving Fans” by Sheldon Bowles and Ken Blanchard. One part of that book addressed the insult to honest customers by the policy limiting them to three items in a dressing room. The insult was that the majority of honest people were being told they could not be trusted more than the small minority of dishonest people. Well, Target took care of that problem by just denying anyone the use of a dressing room at all. And that was when the light came on for me.

Most companies try to serve their customers. Some of them excel at it, and stand as models for the rest to imitate. Most try to be responsive and considerate of their customers, but fail to some degree and show obvious limits to how far they can go. But Target takes a fresh, if hostile, approach – they simply do as they please and if the customer doesn’t like it, nuts to them. No dressing rooms, no floor help, no trained and courteous operator on the help phone to assist with questions or concerns. No, they just put out the product and it’s take it or leave it. Fascinating, in its own way. I noticed that the commercials for Target are the same way. They show models who ignore everyone and everything but themselves; none of the commercials ever shows a customer at all, much less pretend to help them. Near as I can tell, Target does not like customers, and wants to do without them as much as possible.

So we went to check-out, and just to test a theory in my head, I asked the cashier who her manager was. She answered that she did not know where the shift manager was just then. I explained that no, I did not want to see a manager right now, I wanted to know who was the store manager. She did not know. So, I had her ask the cashier at the next register, who also did not know. And the game began. After four people were asked, they got together in a huddle, looked up something in a book, and came back with a name – a Mister “Canada”. Yeah, like the country. Well, Mister Canada, I once ran a business with 60 employees, and everyone in the place knew my name and would give to the customer who wanted to know. I have to admit though, that not knowing who is running the store is truly consistent with the performance of the staff and your customer-resistant policies, so kudos for that, I guess. I can’t imagine why a store would want to drive away customers and lower service even more than we see now, but you do seem to have it down to a science. And in deference to your preference, I will be happy to give Target a miss and take my business to those stores which make some effort to serve the customer. Well, I will be going to Target one more time – that leotard did not fit, so I will be returning it. Turns out that dressing room would have been useful. And no, I will not be buying the same leotard in another size – your store does not have the size I need, and in any case I don’t think that I want to give my money to a store which hates its own customers.

Two Packs of Yammering Canardists, Heavy on the Ego

I still remember my first elected office. I was out sick from Junior High, and when I returned to school the next day I discovered that I had been elected to Student Council, without my knowledge and against my will. In those days and at Lake Highlands Junior High, Student Council meant having to come early to school and do extra work for no visible benefit or reward. Consequently, Council members were usually elected against their will. It had, if nothing else, a certain honesty to it – none of the members really wanted to be there, and so elections were pretty straightforward affairs. Not so the White House, a difficult and draining post for anyone who wins the office, and yet there is no shortage of incompetents who believe they are a perfect fit for the job. Worse, there are many people running in any given year, whose performance would be damaging to the country and so they should be quickly dissuaded from chasing the nomination. The primaries, ideally, should be a place to separate the wheat from the chaff, but recent history suggests we should not count on that happening within the machines of the Demopublican nomenklatura, whose habit of sniffing at the common people with disdain has been all too evident of late. Both parties have their share of dishonest contenders, and those whose ideals are clearly at odds with the party as a whole. It does not serve the nation well, to dilute the quality of the primaries with such malingerers and malcontents.

Let’s start with an easy pack of targets, the Democrats. Really now, among the eight contenders, is there even one you’d trust as President? Joe Biden, Bill “LA Raza” Richardson, and Chris Dodd, who think the terrorists are the good guys and the Marines are the bad guys, and who prefer the advice of Al Qaeda to the advice of General David Petraeus?

Hillary, whose criminal contacts look like John Gotti’s rolodex, and whose plan for “fixing” healthcare reminds so many of a new edition of Orwell’s ‘1984’?

John “Pony” Edwards, who thinks $400 of campaign money for a haircut is reasonable and by the way considers himself qualified to handle the U.S. economy?

Mike Gravel, who is so much an unknown that his own site lacks any specific policies or positions?

Dennis “Spaceman” Kucinich, whose views are so far from reality that even Kos has been known to back slowly away from him?

Or Barack “Bambi” Obama, whose foreign policy wisdom includes spilling our strategic secrets to our enemies, promising in public we would not use strategic weapons “under any circumstances”, while at the same time publicly threatening to invade allies?

Is there even one in that bunch you could trust in facing down Ahmadinejad? Is there even one you would feel comfortable teaching your kids? Is there even one in that group you think would be good for the economy?

The problem is, the GOP pack has its own stinkers.

John McCain is an undisputed hero from the Vietnam War, and a strong voice of reason and courage regarding the Middle East. But McCain has a track record of intolerance for free speech, especially where campaigning is concerned. He’s about as open as a brick wall where negotiating is concerned, even with his own party. And he’s a real Senator, having often put his friendship with people like John Kerry ahead of the nation’s needs.

Fred Thompson talks the talk, but only in video clips. He has yet to show he is ready for serious debates and extended analysis of his political positions. He also voted to acquit Bill Clinton at the Impeachment trial when he was a Senator for Tennessee, and has said that he was not sure Clinton actually lied under oath, even though Bubba himself admitted that fact. That’s a big mark against Fred.

Mitt Romney ran on the image of the cleanest of the candidates, but one of his close supporters and campaign supporters was Larry Craig. If Larry was as bad as the media plays it, why was Romney cool with having him as a close supporter? Was Romney someone who didn’t check out his team? And if Craig was not guilty, as he claims, what does it say about Romney that he threw Craig overboard so quickly? Either way, it does not speak well of Romney’s integrity. Not at all.

There's Rudy Giuliani, whose candor about his positions is very refreshing, but whose refusal to consider the opinions of the majority of Republicans smells decidedly rank.

Sam Brownback is a back-stabbing Senator who betrayed President Bush and the GOP on many critical votes over the past two years, and so is not worth spit in my opinion.

Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are vulgar narcissists whose idea of team play is getting what they want and claiming all the credit no matter who does the real work, or destroying their own party from within in their spite. They are vicious little caricatures of leaders, in the same way that Chihuahuas imagine they are the equals of working dogs.

Ron Paul is a psychotic communist amusing himself by running as a Republican.

Mike Huckabee is an intelligent and well-spoken candidate, But he also strongly embraces the Fair Tax, which may be a good solution for replacing the IRS, except that politically it is nearly impossible to get voters to support it, and so he has tied a millstone around his neck.

And that’s your field, folks. Anyone excited yet?

Pweh.

Why The Left Fears Petraeus

I do not know if there is really a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy or not, despite the constant admonitions from people connected with the Clintons. But this past week has certainly verified that the Left has such a machine. The New York Times breaks the law and its own policies in order to run a full-page character assassination on General Petraeus by a group known for its strong and increasing influence in Democrat affairs, and no leading Democrat is willing to denounce it for the vicious smear it so obviously is. Indeed, Schumer goes so far as to claim we must thank terrorist warlords for the decrease in violence, and Hillary Clinton states that it would take a “willing suspension of disbelief” (a phrase commonly associated with fiction) to accept the sworn testimony of a career military officer and combat veteran, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in his role. A certain duck colleague of Bugs Bunny will need a new stage name, because the Left has laid a firm claim on “Daffy”!

But aside from pointing out the obvious, what is the deal with the Left’s hysteria? Although it’s well known that they have a psychotic reaction to the President and anything he says or does, the Left usually lets the President speak before they blow up. Shoot, they hate Rove but don’t go out and campaign in the media against him, so there’s a special emotion going on in the hard little rocks which serve as hearts in the Left, where General David Petraeus is concerned.

That emotion is fear. Raw, powerful, growing fear.

Recognizing this fact, we would reasonably next wonder why the Left fears Petraeus so much. And I have an idea.

California.

It all comes back to the 2008 elections. The Democrats have done very well for themselves over the years in politics. They are the acknowledged masters in most local and Congressional races, especially in major cities and the large states. But they have never been able to lock up the White House. Oh sure, they win every so often, but not as often as they expect, and never in the kind of numbers they think should happen. And rather than examine the problem critically, with an eye to root causality and a logical response, the Left takes a very emotional perspective, and demands that the world act on the orders from Never-Never-Land. Or DNC headquarters, which tries hard to play the role of Tinkerbell. While Bill Clinton won 2 times in 1992 and 96, he never got a majority. Only two of the last seven Presidents have been Democrats. And the Donks have not out and out stomped the GOP candidate since 1964. So the White House race is always dicey for the Left, and this time is no exception.

So what’s the deal with California? History, for one. Cali is worth 55 Electoral Votes, more than 20 percent of the tally needed to be elected President. So that’s big right there. But what’s even more important is that the GOP does not need California, but the Democrats do. Dubya won twice without California, but in the last 9 times that the Democrats lost California, they only won the White House twice.

Also, California is on the move. W. took 44.4% of the Cali vote in 2004, 41.7% in 2000, Dole took 38.2% in 1996, and Bush I took 32.6% in 1992. See the trend?

Sure, it would be a real surprise if California got into play for 2008 but if it does, the Democrats are done. Period. End of story. So the Donks cannot afford to lose Cali. The problem is, Cali is not all Democrat, not by a long shot, and the trend is to close the gap.

There’s a lot of military people from California. Catch a Padres game on an afternoon in San Diego, and you will see a sea of Navy in the bleachers. The Army still has the Presidio in San Francisco, and the Marines come from all over Cali. And besides the bases, there’s the military families. The Democrats played a gamble, when they decided to oppose the War. They figured the GOP owned the pro-war side, so they could try to neutralize it by flashing patriotism of their own or else they could try to play against the war, and from 2002 on that was their game. They’re one-for-three in elections on that strategy. But that election gave them both Houses of Congress and they felt strong for 2008, so they doubled-down on the Anti-War effort, with all the major Donk candidates shoving each other to prove themselves the biggest opponent to the war. When General Petraeus came up for a vote, it seemed a sure thing that extra troops would mean higher casualties, more to use against President Bush, and when General Petraeus came back to report, he’d be admitting disaster and thus serve the Democrats well.

The reality was a bit different. The surge is working, so well in fact that the Democrats are desperately worried that it looks like we are winning. And winning not only would take away the ‘War-Monger’ card to play on the public All those Democrats who were on the record as saying we could not win, well they’d look weak and spineless at best. And every single Democrat running for the Oval Office could and would be painted as a defeatist. There was but one, desperate hope. A foul, nasty, dirty little trick of a hope, but the Democrats devoured eagerly and made it their identity. Just as they had misrepresented the war and its conduct for years, so now the Democrats turned on the leading figure in that war, General Petraeus. Never mind that they themselves had unanimously approved the man. Never mind that the troops found him eminently credible and a fit leader. Never mind that on his watch, entire regions of Iraq had become manageable and countless lives saved, military and civilian both. It was far more expedient to the Democrats to sacrifice the last vestige of their honor, than to accept the consequences of their earlier deceit and treachery. Having subtly demeaned and maligned the troops already in many separate decisions, it was just one more step to take that step into public derision of the military.

While things have been difficult for the GOP in recent times, it must be remembered that to keep the White House, they only need to hold the states they have. And winning in Iraq improves those odds for the Republican candidate and hurts the Democrat. But states with heavy military populations, are truly wild cards, and if the Democrats’ war-hate gamble fails, states like California could flip and make the race a laugher for the Republican. If Petraeus is believed by the average American, the Democrat will not be supported in the election. So they fear him, because the consequences of their decision are more ominous for their personal egos than they ever imagined possible.

MorOn.org

You know what? They’re right, it IS easy and fun to play on names. Of course, it makes more sense when you are targeting a malicious group of screaming malcontents whose ability to comprehend an issue rarely extends beyond echoing the screeds of their propagandists, rather than falsely defaming the honor and mission of a man who has spent his life in honorable service defending our country and all its citizens, and a man impeccably capable of explaining the scope and requirements of the present war in Iraq.

My 9/11 Article

You will notice that I did not post on 9/11. That was intentional. I spent the day watching documentaries on the victims, real people, good people, who did not one thing to deserve being murdered, to deserve the callous attacks by a few evil men who – quite wrongly – believed that they had the right to kill people they knew were innocent for the sake of their ‘cause’. It truly, deeply, disgusts me that anyone could or would pretend that 9/11 was the victims’ fault.

I am not a military expert, but I have read history and the works of some wise and intelligent men, so I know the basics. There is, to put it simply, a faction in the Middle East which exists to destabilize the region, in the same way that the Nazis’ violence in the 1930s destabilized Germany. It’s exactly the same fascist vision, carried out the same way, accompanied by the same lies for the same tactical reasons. The fanatical beliefs are in much the same vein, so it hardly surprises me to see how much of their ferocity is based on hatred of the Jewish people, a desire for genocide even as they lie about their motives. “Islam means peace” is in the same key as “we only want living room”, and no mistake about it.

This is not an attack on Islam, though. There are good Muslims, just as many Germans were good, kind people. But the threat is real, vicious and determined, and just as there were people who played up the Nazis’ propaganda, so too the Fascist Muslims have their own puppets. Famed pilot Charles Lindbergh supported and defended the Nazis, and so did Joe Kennedy, named Ambassador to England. In historical fact, there was a time in the 1930s when it seemed the Nazi Party even had a future in American politics. But the Democrats and Republicans of that day had enough backbone to stand for their principles and not kowtow to Der Reich, the way that modern politicians bend over backward to avoid looking offensive to groups whose minions chant ‘Death to America’ in ritualistic practice.

We are at war. Like all wars, this one has its detractors and its supporters, and people who make their political futures on the war as if they were the only, or at least the first, to have opposed the war or fought in its worst battles. Like all wars, there are times when things go as planned, and others where the plan seems to have failed. But those who fight and those who lead them are our very best, men of valor and ingenuity and integrity. It is beyond disgusting that anyone in America would make their fortunes by defaming our troops and our leaders.

We are the good guys. These days there many people who make their way through Life insulting and deriding America. Many of these people, oddly enough, are Americans by birth if – obviously – something else by choice. But when one looks around and honestly judges nations by what they do rather than by their slogans and chants, it is America – always – which does the most to help everyone else. We are the nation always called to defend the territory of free nations. We are the nation which sends more charity, most of it private, to other nations. By the way, did anyone notice what the world did when 9/11 happened? When Katrina hit? We got messages of solidarity, but nothing more. Compare that to our response to the 2004 Tsunami, to countless requests for military protection, to the continual outpouring of charity to South America, Asia, the Middle East, and everywhere there is need. Look at the agreements signed by nations, and then consider how well they keep their word. Imagine a world, where China, Russia, and Germany kept their promises to any degree like what the United States does. No, we’re not perfect but we’re hardly the hypocrites one finds in Europe. And it’s even more a contrast to consider the world as run by the United Nations.

So, our best go off to help everyone else, to heal them and defend them and die for them, and for that the people with the backbone to do the heavy lifting are villainized by people not worthy to clean their toilets. I guess we each remember 9/11 as we are able, some focusing on the good people, the victims and those who avenge them, while others look in the mirror and retch, and try to transfer that contempt to everyone they know, rather than admit their wrongs and try raise their level of consideration above those vermin they now so admire.

But the good shall prevail. I count on it.

Reich Shows Why Hillary Clinton Must Not Be President

The September 10 issue of BusinessWeek includes an interview with Robert Reich, the Labor Secretary under President Clinton. Economics Editor Peter Coy interviewed the Berkeley Professor for Public Policy, and posted excerpts in a one-page article on page 86, in the IdeasOutsideShot section. However inadvertently, Dr. Reich’s comments provide evidence that another Clinton Administration would be bad for America.

Coy admiringly compared Reich to Milton Friedman in places, but the comparison does not hold up to inspection. Reich admits that “Capitalism has proven itself the most successful system ever designed for allocating resources to where they’re most needed”. But Reich is unable to let go of the Socialist ideals he used to guide his decisions under Bill Clinton, and they are obvious in two key claims made by Reich in the interview. First, Reich bemoans executive compensation, claming “CEO pay diverges mammothly from the pay of average workers”. Reich also claims that job security is far too unstable in modern times, concluding that government needs to “police the border between capitalism and democracy”. The statements, as I see them, are not only dishonest on their face, but are wholly incompatible with American ideals.

Let’s start with that gripe about CEO pay. The first question to ask, is whether that claim is really true. We sure hear it a lot, how the average CEO makes a ton of money while the regular guy gets shafted. To find out, I checked with the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on how many CEOs there are, and what they are paid. Using the Standard Occupational Codes (SOC), I found that there are 299,520 people coded as 11-1011, or “Chief Executives”. Sounds like a lot, until you remember that there are 300 million Americans, and the size of these businesses vary quite a bit. Anyway, those CEOs average an annual salary of $144,600, nice but not especially awesome, given the hours, responsibility, and personal risk they assume with the job. The BLS also says the Mean Annual salary for all occupations is $39,190, so the average CEO pulls down about 3.7 times what the average worker makes. And since the average CEO is either the outright owner of his company, or proved his worth to get the job through a combination of education and experience and personal ability, the range is not – despite the hype – quite as Dr. Reich claims.

So where do Reich and a lot of other screaming meanies get the idea that CEOs are, in general, overpaid? It comes down to a very selective list; compensation for CEOs of the S&P’s top 500 public corporations is around $10.2 million a year as of 2006, which does work out to around 260 times what the average worker makes. Of course, the same factors of experience and proven results make it hard to condemn these leaders with any validity, so what Liberals like Reich do, is to smear the whole on no basis other than blaming them for success, skewing the overall picture by focusing only on the few who make great deals of money, and highlighting the very few whose dishonesty makes headlines. It should be obvious to the thinking reader, that if fraud and corruption were common among the country’s business leaders, the nation would have had many more severe economic crises than we have seen. In actual fact, most CEOs work hard, are notably honest in terms of their job performance, and demonstrate a serious desire to see the employees of their company succeed. The attacks on CEOs, in essence, proves to be no more than envy, someone who does not make a lot of money resenting someone who does, even though there is no cause for that resentment. Millions of people who make ordinary incomes spend a lot of money to see rich athletes play professional sports, yet they do not complain that these athletes make so much more money than they do. They pay outrageous prices for tickets to see celebrities in concert and shows, and do not whine about those celebrities making huge amounts of money for what they do. Is it really reasonable to make J.K. Rowling a billionaire, then complain because the CEO whose company provides safe and nutritious food to your kids makes a few million? Is it reasonable to call A-Rod a great guy just for playing baseball, but despise the CEO of the company which improves automobiles for greater safety and comfort as greedy, especially when the guy actually making something which improves your life makes less money than the jock whose actions do nothing to improve your life? Don’t misunderstand, I do not resent authors or athletes or even celebrities, but if it’s OK for them to make millions, then morally it’s more OK for people who lead companies which keep us healthy and happy with their products to be rewarded by their directors. It is, to say it plainly, a futile and Socialist ideal to blame CEOs simply because they happen to succeed in their pay.

The complaint about job security might at first seem more reasonable; what could be more reasonable than to expect your employer to respect and protect your job as well as you do your company? The reality, however, is that you have the right to quit your job at any time and take a better position, and the company has that same opportunity. The way you keep your job, is to convince your employer that it hurts them to let you leave, and it is to their advantage to keep you happy. If you are doing your job in such a way that you look replaceable, it seems to me that you have the problem, not the employer. I’m not saying that all employers are wise or reasonable, but given the unemployment rate basically since Carter was President, a competent person should be able to find work. To bring up job security in an era where Unemployment has consistently tracked below 5% nationally, seems to me to do no better than play on fear.

Envy and fear; that is the essence of Dr. Reich’s opinion on Capitalism. He seems honestly unable to recognize the ideals and ethics by which the overwhelming majority of American businesses operate, or even to understand that all corporations, every one, are made up by their employees and leaders, real people with real visions and the determination to succeed through hard work, inspiration, and optimistic courage. As for his statement regarding a “border” between Capitalism and Democracy, it shows to me yet another obstacle in Reich’s mind, that he believes the two concepts should be rivals or even opponents. At least Reich, however unconsciously, admits a connection between Democracy and Capitalism; the more pervasive a form of Socialism is practiced, the less it has to do with Democracy at all, as evidenced by the unhappy histories of the Iron Curtain countries.

So what does this have to do with the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Perhaps these quotes from the Lady Senator will illuminate her present economic theories:

“We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (06/29/04)

“(We) can’t just let business go on as usual, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.” (06/04/07)

“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground” (06/04/07)

“I certainly think the free-market has failed” (06/04/07)


Robert Reich is not just an old party hack from the days of Bubba, but a valid barometer for the Clinton style of policy. And another Clinton Administration would simply be poison for America and her citizens.

Fate, Folly, Fred

OK, Mr. Thompson, so you have finally decided you’re in the race. Late and a sloppy entry, but you have time to make up for that, just to long as you don’t screw up again. And let’s be honest, you have screwed up. I have this sneaking suspicion that when you decided to declare your candidacy on the ‘Tonight Show’, it was because someone in Marketing thought that was some slick ‘outside the box’ thinking. In fact, sir, it was plain stupid. You not only set yourself up as a shallow celebrity seeking applause without facing any of the hard questions which real candidates address, you demonstrated poor sense of timing and delivery – you managed to suggest that the debate you skipped was not worth your attention, and by extension you implied the same thing about the voters who watched that debate.

Let’s get right to the brass, Mr. Thompson. Yes, you have assets, but maybe you don’t see them as they really are. People are sick and tired of preening and posturing mandarins and narcissists, and so it’s refreshing to see someone who promises candor and a strong backbone. Your problem, sir, is that you do not hold the monopoly on those qualities, so that your advantage is in transit. To coin certain phrases, use it or lose it and the clock is running. But we must also address your liabilities. I liked you as a Senator, all things considered, but it does not speak well of your sense of commitment that you jumped ship so quickly – a reasonable voter must ask what happens if you became President, then got tired of the job? Surely you know that the office of President is a four- or eight-year colonoscopy in plain and constant view of the public, under even the best of circumstances? So how do we know you are committed, sir? The question needs a better answer than how you feel just now.

You also have a problem in your rivals for the nomination. A mayor of New York, renowned for common sense and personal courage; a charismatic governor with talent for executive work; a bonafide hero from the Vietnam War who, tactless and boorish though he is at times, stands by what he believes regardless of the climate; and a plain-speaking southern governor whose quiet tact and reason are compelling. With all due respect for your intelligence and charisma, Mr. Thompson, you need to do a much better job of explaining why your resume is the superior one to these proven leaders. America needs a GOP nominee who not only can but will whip the pretender from the Left, and lead the nation’s defense against her enemies and towards her commonwealth. A few quips get you looked at, sir, but now is the time for you to show your mettle and your stamina. You have a lot of work to do, and it’s past time to begin, sir.

Once Again The Difference

Whoopi Goldberg’s racist comments yesterday on ‘The View’ have earned their share of rebuke, (ht WSBTV)
but it is also a helpful illustration of the dilemma faced by Goldberg and her fellow thuggists. It is patently false to claim that dog-fighting is culturally accepted by the majority of people in any part of the United States, and for Ms. Goldberg to offer such a weak argument warns me that there is something far closer to home which she wants to avoid. Goldberg wants to blame a group of her choosing, rather than face up to a serious problem with her lifestyle culture. The ‘Thug Life’ is a stupid, self-destructive one, which offers no real advantages while denying young men and women their very identities in the coming world. A culture which glamorizes violence, selective hatred and racism, vulgarity and promiscuity, the ‘Thug Life’ also cheats young people of opportunity by cutting off access to advancement in business and social communities; while advocates claim small success in niche outlets based on the expression of the cult, the world in general rejects the hatred practiced by this cult and those who express it.

It is normal in human behavior to go through a stage of rebellion, but maturity requires a person to accept reality and address conditions constructively. The way is difficult, but success rewards the individual with stable friendships and marriages, success in financial endeavors and professional growth, and in the additional tool of conflict resolution and negotiation. The ‘Thug Life’ culture, however, which appears to me to be an extension of the ‘I’m a Victim’ culture made prevalent by extensive Welfare and other government programs which subsidize poverty and helplessness, actively discourages reaching out to different cultural groups, and ridicules individuals who seek to better themselves through hard work and education. The sum effect of the ‘Thug Life’ is to invite despair and failure in place of hope and joy, and so the end of Mr. Vick’s career is representative of the culture he embraced, rather than an outlier.

I hasten to emphasize that the ‘Thug Life’ is not restricted to a single demographic group. As we have seen in even recent history, women as well as men engage in it, Whites and Hispanics as well as Blacks, and in all geographic areas. It is not a ‘Southern’ problem, because the behavior is also prevalent in the North and on both coasts. It takes on different aspects according to the selected hatred of choice by the groups which practice it, so that the Crips have much in common with the Aryan Nation, more than either group would like to admit. It is pervasive, in the same way that a particularly vicious variant of a virus strikes the whole country in a wave, and it is just as deadly. I do not find it a coincidence, that the culture which thinks nothing of killing dogs in fights for amusement, loses so many young people to drugs, alcohol, and violence as well. At the risk of sounding like a revival preacher, it also occurs to me that this culture is depressingly void of a spiritual dimension. It is, therefore, no wonder that a culture which mocks God cannot find Him when they finally realize their need for Him.

The Commission

There is a web site which, ostensibly, exists to allow for respectful debate and the thoughtful exchange of experiences and opinions between believers of different faiths and philosophies. In reality, sadly, the owners of this site have allowed their personal bias to lean more and more heavily against traditional Christianity, and to a lesser extent against Judaism and Islam. This is a loss for the ideal of free discussion, but in context hardly surprising. If one believes the Bible, as I do, there is abundant evidence that those people who have a direct relationship with God live on lines completely alien to those who do not have such a relationship with God. What makes the matter all the more strange, is that once a person is aligned with God, they realize that we are made and meant to have contact with the Father, the more the better. And so human existence is a series of paradoxes; believers strongly desire to grow closer to God, and our natural lives get in the way, especially our selfish nature, while non-believers make their way with God’s help, unaware and therefore ungrateful for all He does, even though in many cases He does more for them than for those who seek Him in earnest.

The Commission of Christ is a mystery, and I do not pretend to understand it fully, except that I know that I know nothing, or near enough to nothing that it is hubris to think I am measurably further along the Way than anyone else I could think of for comparison. But I know this – the Commission is a personal covenant, one which carries great and sobering responsibility, yet also holds promises of breath-taking generosity by God, including the absolute assurance that we shall be neither lost nor forgotten. I understand that those who have not accepted the Way generally regard that assurance as a fable, which seems to me a coping mechanism; how anyone could or would refuse such a gift is baffling beyond my comprehension, except that they cannot imagine such Grace and Hope may exist in this world. That, or they imagine that humans can somehow become what we always dreamed, the collective evidence of History and human nature ignored.

I have been wrestling with the question of just why it matters that we should spread Christianity, if God makes Himself available to anyone who will seek Him. And it occurs to me that the heart of Christ’s teaching is indeed the heart; the doctrines, all the words and rituals, though they matter in certain ways and places, are secondary, far miniscule, next to the simple dedication of one’s heart – and there is no better service than to live in imitation and honor of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For some, this is stating the obvious. For others, sheer madness or myth. For me, it’s just remembering who I am, and Whose.

Gut Sense of the White House Race

OK, it's Saturday and I'm not in a numbers-type analysis mood. I just finished two assignments for school, and the formal part of the brain is sitting idle for a bit, and watching the casual Saturday brain do its thing.

Maybe the best thing about being a 2-bit blogger as I am, is that I am free to post what I want, just as I see fit. No one ever asks me anymore when I am going to post on this or that, which would bother me if I did not remember that I am not some wise old sage who has all the answers. Don't get me wrong, when I post I do want to make sense and try to make my point. I really appreciate you good people who read my writing, and I have not forgotten my promise to work on 'Reditio' and to follow up on a few projects of some importance. But at least I am free to sit back on a Saturday and just pontificate, without even the need for a staff and cassock for the look.

So what about these guys running for President? I said long ago we'd miss W when he's gone, and looking at what we have to choose from, I'd say the thoughtful observer misses him already. Sorry Jeb, that doesn't mean there's a groundswell for you to run, just so we can get another Bush in the White House, although I admit it would almost be worth it just to see Hillary blow the gasket when she hears the words "Bush" and "Candidate" and "President" in the same sentence.

I wonder if we could get Laura to run? That way, there'd be someone with real intelligence and class in the race, and the media would implode trying to find any kind of dirt on her, but Laura doesn't seem interested in spending much time and attention with criminals and con men, so she would hardly be interested in working with Congress, as the President must do as a major part of the job.

I know how the world works, so I have a sense on what is going on, but really - is there anyone who understands American History, who gets his or her hopes for the future of our great Constitutional Republic raised by the prospect of President Hillary, or McCain or Obama or Fred? After the way he ditched his buddy Senator Craig, even Mitt Romney seems shallow and craven to me, and that makes the rest of the field look even more dirty. Honestly, I do not believe there is a candidate of note in either party right now, who could look our Founding Fathers square in the eye and say they will do them proud if they gain the office. Reagan could have done that, because he did the job right. Bubba Clinton could have done that, because he had that much Chutzpah. And Dubya could have done that, because for all his mistakes he did his level best, something rare enough in D.C.

I'd like to be pleasantly surprised by our next President. But as I said, I'm a realist.

A Disgusting Lack of Principle

I am disgusted. Not in the way Mitt Romney is, but rather with people like Romney, who put image ahead of principle in certain times and places. We all screw up, but someone accused of public misconduct gets lonely real quick; one’s closest friends and supporters become curiously absent when they are needed most.

I don’t know, really, what happened in that airport bathroom. Neither do you, by the way. What I have read, however, sounds like a very, very weak case against Senator Craig, and if someone I knew and respected had been arrested on such a charge and said he did not do it, my first reaction would be public defense of the man, not a political excuse to trash him. The fact that he plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct suggests to me that the police realized that they could not make the charges stick as originally advertised. Yes, Craig plead guilty. But not to what we are hearing in the media, not to the strangely enthusiastic chorus of a political lynch mob.

The Democrats, hypocrites by rule, are going after Craig simply because he is Republican. Clinton was groping women for years while President, but they defended him. Barney Franks’ boyfriend once ran a brothel out of his Congressional office, but only two Democrats even wanted to censure Franks, and none wanted him canned. I could go on and on along those lines, but it’s common knowledge that Democrats will never turn on one of their own, while even a rumor against a Republican moves them to self-righteous fury.

The Republicans, however, might be even worse. From what I have read, Tom Delay committed no crime, but when the wolves went after him, his party and colleagues deserted him and he quit, as much in disgust as exhaustion. Alberto Gonzalez was completely in the right with regard to the U.S. Attorney firings, but no Republican had the guts to say so, and so he quit as well. It seems that courage is in short supply among the GOP, especially the kind which directs a man to stand for his allies and victims of witch-hunts.

Some Thoughts About Why The Democrats Nominate Horrible Presidential Candidates

Yes it’s me again, and as usual I have been looking at some numbers and finding some interesting messages. It’s no surprise that I said, and still do, that the GOP candidate will win the White House in 2008. The extended discussion of why that will be so, cannot be explained in a short setting, but one thing which pushes the results that way, is the incredibly poor candidates presented by the Democrats every so often. And so that is where I begin.

I was looking at the party delegates to each convention in 2004, and I noticed something odd. The key to the Presidential election, as everyone knows, is how the 538 electoral votes play out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, so I expected the proportion of delegates to be some multiple of that 538. Say, 1076, 1614, 2152, you get the idea. But the GOP sat 2,509 delegates in 2004 (4.66 times 538) and the Democrats sat 3,061 delegates (5.69 times 538). Odd.

I dug in a bit deeper, and found a very useful site which displayed how the numbers were driven. The Democrats’ seating may be seen at thegreenpapers.com here, and the Republicans’ seating is here.

I drew out each state and noted their delegates to the convention and the state’s Electoral Vote value, and from that was able to determine how many delegates per EV the state held. I expected a fairly consistent ratio, but it does not work out that way. The sum results of my examination were that the Democrats and Republicans target states they feel are important, and ignore the Electoral College ratios in preference to their own bias when selecting delegates, which is crucial to the decision of who gets the party nod for the White House race. What else is interesting about that is that the Democrats and Republicans choose different strategies for picking their lead candidates. This can be best illustrated by looking at where each party placed the most delegates per electoral vote.

The Democrats’ heaviest delegate-per-EV allocations were as follows:

1. New York, 6.61 delegates per EV
2. Michigan, 6.53 delegate per EV
3. Illinois, 6.48 delegates per EV
4t. Wisconsin, 6.30 delegates per EV
4t. Minnesota, 6.30 delegates per EV
6. Pennsylvania, 6.24 delegates per EV
7. New Jersey, 6.20 delegates per EV
8. Connecticut, 6.14 delegates per EV
9. Ohio, 6.10 delegates per EV
10. Maryland, 6.00 delegates per EV

The reader may note that only Ohio could be considered a ‘red’ state, and so the strategy was to consolidate Democrat support in mostly hard-blue states.


The Republicans’ heaviest delegate-per-EV allocations were as follows:

1. Alaska, 9.67 delegates per EV
2t. Montana, 9.33 delegates per EV
2t. Wyoming, 9.33 delegates per EV
4. South Dakota, 9.00 delegates per EV
5. North Dakota, 8.67 delegates per EV
6. Idaho, 8.00 delegates per EV
7. New Hampshire, 8.00 delegates per EV
8. Utah, 7.20 delegates per EV
9. Nebraska, 7.00 delegates per EV
10. Nevada, 6.60 delegates per EV

The GOP also focused on its core territory, but New Hampshire and Nevada were a lot more in play.

So, the Democrats consolidated Blue States, and the Republicans consolidated Red States. This is not as balanced as it might first appear, but before I go there, let’s look at the top states by delegate tallies, beginning with the Democrats:

1. California – 322 delegates, 55 EV
2. New York – 205 delegates, 31 EV
3. Texas – 170 delegates, 34 EV
4. Florida – 154 delegates, 27 EV
5. Illinois – 136 delegates, 21 EV
6. Pennsylvania – 131 delegates, 21 EV
7. Ohio – 122 delegates, 20 EV
8. Michigan – 111 delegates, 17 EV
9. New Jersey – 93 delegates, 15 EV
10. Massachusetts – 81 delegates, 12 EV

So the top ten D states by delegate count carry 1,525 delegates (49.8% of total) and represent 253 Electoral Votes (47.0% of total). Note also that New York gets nudged ahead of Texas, Illinois ahead of Pennsylvania, and the South is largely ignored except for Florida. This should give you an idea of the theme for the Democrats’ thinking.

OK, now look at the Republicans’ top states by delegate count:

1. California – 173 delegates, 55 EV
2. Texas – 138 delegates, 34 EV
3. Florida – 112 delegates, 27 EV
4. New York – 102 delegates, 31 EV
5. Ohio – 91 delegates, 20 EV
6. Pennsylvania – 75 delegates, 21 EV
7. Illinois – 73 delegates, 21 EV
8. Georgia – 69 delegates, 15 EV
9. North Carolina – 67 delegates, 15 EV
10. Virginia – 64 delegates, 13 EV

So the top ten R states by delegate count carry 964 delegates (38.4% of total) and represent 252 Electoral Votes (46.8% of total). Note also that Florida is moved ahead of New York, and the South gets a lot of respect. Note especially that the top-to-bottom disparity between states is much smaller in the Republican delegate counts than in the Democrats’ ranks; the Democrats expect a few states to decide their race, while the Republicans want to see how candidates stand in the nation as a whole. Looking at the results for the last half-century of actual election results, the significance of these strategies means that the Republicans have been weaker in some of the anchor states like New York and California, but generally win more states than the Democrats, and represent a broader appeal in geographic and demographic terms. The Democrats attack weak points and leverage urban centers, while the Republicans attempt to present a generalist for their candidate. This could explain why Barry Goldwater did so poorly in 1964, and Bob Dole in 1996; neither appealed to the nation in general. The Democrats, however, have lately been unwilling to present a generalist for their candidate, instead presenting candidates with limited and tactical approaches, like John Kerry’s OCD fixation on Vietnam as a theme for 2004, and Al Gore’s manic behavior during 2000, as he demonstrated little patience for the ordinary Americans, especially in rural settings.

Applying these findings to the 2008 race, some interesting points become clear. First, for the Democrats, any candidate who wishes to do well must win the urban areas and build name recognition on the coasts first; Bill Clinton’s Southern Strategy of 1992 would be undercut by the Democrats’ convention allocation. This means that any last-minute contender for the Democrats must enter the race before the end of 2007, and it appears that the race will indeed come down to Hillary and Obama. Hillary Clinton is the closest candidate to a generalist on the Democrat side, but she may well be weakened by statements made to seal some of the important Northern states for the nomination. In short, grasping Michigan could cost Hillary the Southwest, and guaranteeing Pennsylvania could lock her completely out of the South. In the case of Obama, he must not depend on Illinois alone, but must demonstrate the ability to challenge in New York. Even if he cannot win the Gotham primary, Obama cannot be seen by Democrats as being out of his league in that state.

No candidate besides Clinton or Obama presently has the standing in an anchor state to challenge either of the leaders.

In the Republican field, an intriguing contest has begun. Fred Thompson has clearly stumbled, and unless he recovers quickly he will be out of contention before he even announces he is running, which is now much less likely than anyone was suggesting even a week ago. A word of advice, Fred – just because the other Fred was able to be a hit by being fat, rude, and witty once a week, does not mean you can do the same; the “Flintstones” after all, was just a cartoon and ended its run before even your first appearance on “Law & Order”.

I mentioned Fred, because political corpses litter the road on the right. I know no one wants to be the bearer of bad news, but someone needs to tell John McCain some straight talk – he’s not Presidential, and never will be. And it’s time to put away this idea of a late entry stunning field. I have always been a supporter of a Condi run, especially the mental image of Dr. Rice in a debate against anyone the Left could put behind a podium. But Dr. Rice has made it clear she is not entering the race, and after Condi the level of potential Presidents who have not already announced drops precipitously. So, in essence we are left with Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and Duncan “someone has to bring up the rear” Hunter. No one else, and I emphasize this, is in anything close to contention. Looking at the delegate allotment, I’d have to say Rudy looks the strongest by any definition. Things could change, and frankly I think more of Huckaby than anyone else of the top four, but Giuliani has been surprisingly steady up to now.

But no matter who the nominees are, the available information tells me that, almost as if it were a tradition, the Democrats will put their foot wrong during next spring, and that may make all the difference.

Executive Compensation – How Do You Figure It?

In one of my classes, the subject of how much high-level executives are paid came up, and the professor asked if we could come up with an equation to define how an executive should be paid. I came up with the following equation:

XC = (N){(Xf [(3Sc(Fp-Pp)) + (0.5(T + (V*Ex)]))2R} – (CP*CE)

where

XC = Executive Compensation

Xf = Standard executive compensation for the industry stated as a multiplier

Sc = Scale of company

T = Duration of contract, including non-competition restrictions

V = Visibility

Ex = Expectations

R = Risk

and

CP = Contractual Penalties

CE = Critical Events (such as arrests, SEC investigations, bankruptcies, and the like)

N = a negating factor voiding the contract (N would equal either 0 or 1)

This equation is based on the assumption that I am attempting to describe executive compensation as it should be developed.

My initial equation was based on the fact that the modern executive compensation generally starts with the base salary, and adds bonuses and perks to it. In the exercise here, to leave the compensation one which attracts a good executive and which rewards superior performance, but also to deter dishonest, lazy or simply incompetent executives, we must add penalties for certain events. In my initial equation, I dumped those into CP or contract penalties, but given the habit of some committees to take short cuts, maybe that is too simple. So I would add the variable CE or Critical Events, such as Bankruptcies, SEC investigations, as a multiplier of CP. A CEO who likes to have expensive lunches is one thing, but one who hires spies to find out what board members are doing (as happened at HP) is of another degree entirely. I would also take a page from the professional sports leagues, and throw in a negation clause, I will call it N, value 0 or 1, which means that under certain circumstances the executive gets nothing at all, although I have to say it would be hard to get someone to sign such a deal, unless the conditions were very carefully defined and unlikely except for egregious conduct (did I mention Michael Vick?).

Anyone else like to play this game?