A Gordian Inquest

President Robert Shaw stared grimly down the table.

“Seems like we have a lot of questions, but damn few answers a day after the murder of Don Reynolds and his people.

“Perry, I want to know who’s our suspects.”

Perry Ailes was the head of FBI, and nominally in charge of the investigation. Jack Hill was still angry that the Secret Service was not running the case, but Ailes was already running LEGATTs in a dozen cities around the globe, showing resources everyone knew would be critical to the task.

“Mr. President, we’ve got some information, but nothing definitive” said Ailes.

“Understood” replied Shaw, “but you’re leaning somewhere for starters. Let’s hear what you are looking at.”

“Obviously, this was a conspiracy,” began Ailes, “which for some reason seems to have focused solely on Governor Reynolds and Ms. Green. We have found no evidence of a conspiracy to kill either Mr. Jordan or Ms. Connolly, possibly because Reynolds led in the polls ever since the conventions.

“We’ve run into problems with the shooters, as well. Five men, one woman, Middle Eastern in appearance, though witnesses said their English was European.

“The team was a suicide crew, we are sure. The van was clean of papers, and besides the phony ID’s there was nothing to trace, not even the normal pocket litter. They burned prints off their hands and palms with acid, but we’re doing sub-cutaneous tracking to try to raise something. Homeland is working TSA tapes to find entry points, starting with Dulles and working up the coast, but so far no video. Autopsies underway, but early signs are poor; nothing in the stomachs but bread, amphetamines and caffeine. No tattoos, even the dental work appears minimal. We have some scars which could give us leads, but so far the team appears brand new to us, someone we’ve never seen.”

“What about pre-hit chatter” asked Shaw.

NSA answered, “Only what we expected right after the election, and nothing at all from known Al-Qaida spots.”

“Al-Qaida”, repeated the President. “Well, we’re all thinking it, so let’s talk it out. Is this an Al-Qaida hit?”

“No” said three people at the same time. Shaw looked surprised.

“That’s pretty strong: he observed. “OK, why not Al-Qaida?”

“First, Mr. President, Al-Qaida has effectively been disintegrated” said the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. “They can’t even issue a press release with an official spokesman, they have to use the FDM.”

“FDM?” asked the Secretary of the Interior.

“Favorite Dead Martyr” explained the President, “since AQ still uses Osama-bin-mashed-to-jelly for their videos.

“General, I hope you have not forgotten that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln AFTER Lee surrendered. Losing a war does not mean they stop going after folks.”

“I know that, Mr. President” replied the Chairman. “But this is a serious operation, something well beyond the ability of Al Qaida.”

“Besides,” interjected NSA, “we’ve heard nothing to show Al Qaida was training for anything like this. This team stayed under the radar right up the attack. Mister President, this was state-sponsored.”

The Plan

Derek Jordan grasped it first.

“The election isn’t final until the electors vote”, he said.

“Right” answered Duke. “And there’s a big difference between ‘President-elect’ and ‘President’. With Reynolds dead, the question of who won the election is back to square one.”

Heather Connolly nodded. “The voters picked Reynolds, but he’s dead now” she noted, “so the election is void, right?”

“That’s our plan” agreed Duke. “Without a President-elect, they’ll have to run another election, and nobody they pick will be as strong as Derek.”

“But why even have another election?” pondered Heather. “Derek got the second-most votes, and since Reynolds can’t take office, we can argue Derek is the next in line.”

“Well, we’ll have to word it better, so it doesn’t sound like we’re selling the Presidential election like a Miss America pageant” warned Duke, which earned him a cold stare from Connolly, “but yeah, we start with that angle, and then use the new election as a back-up plan.”

Triangulation

Heather Connolly glared down her running mate and party chairman.

“Look, I know how to look sympathetic”, she protested.

“It’s not enough” replied Horace Duke, the party chair. “Right now, we have to play along with the ‘We are all Americans’ line. The killers were Arabs or Palestinian, or even if they weren’t most people will think of them that way.”

“So?” asked Derek Jordan.

“So,” explained Duke, “There’s a big difference between us calling out the other party for Hypocrisy or being crooked, and looking like we’re happy they get assassinated.”

“It’s murder, not assassination” argued Heather.

“Assassination” returned Duke bluntly. “Like it or not, these people killed the President-Elect of the United States. We just can’t ignore that.

We can play this to our advantage, but you’re going to have to be strong on this, Heather.”

Heather Connolly knew what was coming, but even so she became furious as she listened to Horace Duke explain the new plan.

“You want me to demand a Senate investigation into IRAN?” she exploded.

“Absolutely” replied Duke. “Everyone already thinks Iran did it, so there’s no way we can run against that. But if we push hard as a National Security issue, this plays to our support for winning the White House.”

“What, you mean next time?” asked a puzzled Jordan.

“Hell no” retorted Duke, “Didn’t you realize this means the White House is up for grabs now?”

Concerns

Pete Mallard sat across the coffee table from President Shaw, aware that the President had quickly grasped the significance of the event. Shaw’s habit had always been to meet with groups, not individuals, so a private meeting with his NSA showed a quick grasp of the stakes.

“Pete, this smells to high heaven”, began Shaw. “The plot was pretty damned complex, with fake news credentials and a stolen van and all, but they don’t go for anyone else?”

Shaw stood up and paced as he spoke.

“And why not a bomb, or just go for a mass attack? This was too chancy.”

“But it worked” reminded Mallard.

“Yes, it worked” agreed Shaw. “That’s strange too. The right place at the right time? Too lucky.

“So, I don’t buy the ‘usual suspects’, Pete. We need to find the indirect attack.”

First Decisions

President Shaw looked grimly across the coffee table at Tom Sands, his Press Secretary, and Pete Mallard, his National Security Advisor, as well as Agent Hill and a number of staff officials.

“How bad is it?” he asked.

“Seven dead including Donald Reynolds, plus the attackers, Mister President”, said Tom Sands. “Another five injured, all critically, including Ms. Green.”

“The dead are the President-elect, two from his campaign staff, an agent from his detail, two of Green's staff and an agent from Green’s detail.

“The injured are Ms. Green, two from Reynolds’ detail, and two more from her detail.

“The attackers appear to be Middle-Eastern, one female mid 20s, and five males, also mid 20s. They were wearing CNN shirts, carried credentials and had a CNN van. We’re chasing down the materials on that angle. The credential question is why we slammed the lid on the press-“

“Lift it. NOW” interrupted Shaw. Sands paused, but after a moment he and a man from the AG’s office got up and left to carry out the order.

“OK, I know the security drill” said Shaw, “but what next?”

“Frankly, Mr. President” began Pete Mallard, “that depends on what happens next. This was a conspiracy, which means we need to know what was their next planned move. We can guess, but right now that would be sure to be a mistake.”

“Agreed” said Shaw. “Then I need you to find options for me for each possible route. And Tom?”

Tom Sands stopped at the door.

“I will address the nation tonight. I need a draft by noon, and keep me updated on conditions.

“Also, get me phone numbers for the families of the victims. If I can’t go anywhere right now, I still need to reach the people who lost loved ones here. Start with Peggy Reynolds.”

Wildfire

President Shaw was about to enter the Press Briefing Room for a quick chat about Reynolds’ win, when Jack Hill, his detail lead, abruptly grabbed his arm and led him away. The angry noises Shaw could hear from Hill’s earpiece told him something was very wrong, even before Hill said a word.

Inside the briefing room, things were even more surreal. Cell phones rang in a dozen places at once, and as newspeople answered them they saw every exit closed off by men with heavy weapons. The regular White House employees had been removed, and the men who replaced them looked very angry indeed. A man most had never seen before stepped to the podium:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for the inconvenience, but this is an emergency situation and we require your immediate cooperation.

“There has been a shooting involving the media, and I’m afraid we must require everyone to sit down and keep your hands in plain sight.”

For a moment, there was a stunned silence, prolonged as reporters began to realize the deadly earnest of the men holding guns on them.

Across town, Heather Connolly was about to enter her car to go to her Senate office, when her detail lead was stopped by a large group of Secret Service agents Heather had seen before at Camp David. Her pique at the delay was vented at the Secret Service, who Connolly found a hindrance and too sure of their importance to the world. The she saw Sam Wilson come from the group towards her, walking with a grim urgency that she knew meant bad news.

“Let me guess, bomb scare at the Hill?” she suggested, but Wilson ignored the remark.

“Someone shot Reynolds and Green and damn near everyone in a block’s range” he said bluntly. “No word on their condition, yet, so we’re still going to the Senate but no press appearances for now.”

“Why the hell not?” demanded Connolly, “Does Shaw want to control the spin on this?”

“It’s not that,” replied Wilson. “The guys who did this had media credentials and a CNN van. The Service thinks they may not be done.”

For the first time in many days, Heather Connolly was at a loss for a reply.

Peril

President-elect Donald Reynolds met in the second-floor foyer with Vice-President-elect Green, as a small entourage led the way. Over the protests of his detail, Reynolds wanted “low-key” security, something no one commented on – publicly.

“Hey Carol” asked Don, “where do you want to go for breakfast? I’m thinking I want to try Franky’s down the street. I’ve heard they have awesome pastries.”

“Don, aren’t we supposed to meet the press at the Verizon Center?” asked Carolyn.

“They can wait a few, while I enjoy a good bear claw” replied Reynolds. And with that, the party took the stairs to a side door and found 9th Street. Not 50 feet away, a news crew jumped to its feet, and Reynolds groaned. Carolyn chuckled.

“Hey, invite them along” she suggested.

“Good idea”, agreed Reynolds. He waved at the crew, a woman and five men wearing CNN International shirts. Carolyn thought it was odd that they carried three cameras, but Reynolds now seemed elated, despite his earlier attempt to duck the media. The woman was saying something about a building, and Carolyn realized she wanted it as a backdrop for the interview.

“Now, just a few quick questions, please” smiled the woman, who seemed exotic to Carolyn, olive in complexion and a little stilted in English. Frank was walking back towards their van, which had an open back door with cables running to and from the cameras.

“Remember to smile”, said the woman, and the men raised their cameras in unison.

Something clicked in Carolyn’s mind as she saw Frank pull out his weapon, yelling “Gun!”

There was a heavy sound like ripping metal, and something slammed into Carolyn’s shoulder, spinning her and slamming her backwards. Her head bounced off the sidewalk as she heard automatic gunfire from everywhere, and the world went black.

The Duck in Repose

Robert Shaw was enjoying himself, munching on a croissant while tossing bits of the bread to his collie. Across the table, next to the space recently vacated by the President’s wife, Alan Pearsall tried to decide whether he should try to maintain a dignified air, or play along with the President’s playful mood.

“Welcome to weird-out Wednesday, Al” remarked President Shaw, to which Pearsall did not reply.

“Yep, every loon and moron with a microphone and satellite feed to a TV station will be dissecting the election for the nation, with some of the wackiest conspiracy theories you ever heard of”, continued Shaw.

“Mr. President, you’ve been looking at Kos again?” inquired the Vice-President.

“Well, it does make for some good comedy” said Shaw, “and you should be flattered, Al. They think that since I’m leaving office, you’re going to ‘control’ the next President just like you ‘controlled’ me.”

“How is that?” asked Pearsall. “I have no connection to Governor Reynolds at all.”

“Ahhhh,” sighed Shaw, “but that just ‘proves’ that you’re subtle and devious, and so on.

“Now me, they still say it’s all luck that I won two terms and had a good run and all. That, or an evil plot of your machination.”

“Wait a minute, now I’m confused” said Pearsall. “Is that one from Kos, or CBS?”

“Well, they do both like the theory” admitted Shaw, “but it’s a bit more coherent than Helen Thomas these days, so I gotta guess it started with Kos.”

“So, anything special today?” asked Pearsall, though he knew the schedule already. Shaw sometimes liked to shake things up.

“As scheduled, we will meet President-elect Reynolds and Carol Green at 10, take some photos and start folks seeing the new POTUS in the Oval Office. Think I can sneak Bingo into the pics?” asked the President, as he scratched behind the collie’s ears.

“What about the Speaker’s request?” asked Pearsall, asking about the Speaker of the House Panini’s demand on television Tuesday, that President Shaw come to the House to answer questions from the Armed Services Committee about the Global Warming effects from military operations. Panini had implied that she would attempt to subpoena the President if he did not volunteer a visit.

“That’s why I’m in a good mood, Al” remarked the President. “In just a few months, the angry monkey parade will have a new Grand Marshal, and I can get back to being a regular guy again.”

The Scorned Woman

Heather Connolly glared across the breakfast table at her husband and campaign manager. She felt a strong need to break something or hurt someone, but Jeff Connolly had warned her that the media might look badly on a show of temper after losing the election.

“Look at Gore”, he warned. “He was so nasty after losing Florida, no one remembered his good points and in oh-four he had to sit out the election. Don’t be like Gore, sweetie.”

Heather hated being called ‘sweetie’, but Sam Wilson dragged Jeff away before she could launch an effective evisceration of her husband. Heather was not especially happy with Sam either, but one of Sam’s qualities was that no one could stay mad with him.

“Look Heather,” began Sam, “for right now we have to cut our losses. The sharks are looking for any holes in the results-“

“Like Pennsylvania? Like New Jersey?” shot back Heather. Losing those two states seemed impossible to her, which meant a fast one by somebody on Reynolds’ campaign. That, or else Shaw and Pearsall had played some games behind the scenes to make a difference.

“Like anything that can help us.” Replied Sam. “But this one wasn’t close enough for one state to break Reynolds. Derek has accepted it, hell even Duke is facing up to it. I know it’s a hard hit, but maybe you need-“

“-a drink” retorted Senator Connolly.

“and by the way,” she said as she shot Sam a glare across the top of her glass, “do NOT ever, ever talk to me again about meeting with Reynolds and Green. The only way I want to see either of them face-to-face, is when I find something to subpoena them to appear before the Senate.”

“Geez, already thinking impeachment” started Jeff Connolly, but Heather silenced him with another look.

Day of Decision

Carolyn Green checked her appearance in the mirror for the eighth time that morning, still not accustomed to what seemed banefully narcissistic, but which her staff claimed was one of those critical areas of public approval, especially now. She sighed inwardly as she wondered, again, just how she had let herself be talked into taking on this challenge. Well sister, she told herself, you said you wanted to make a difference and by God, you’ll do that one way or another.

Carolyn did not turn on the television that morning; she already knew what the news was saying. The election results had been mercifully predictable, which no doubt annoyed the media types. If God was truly merciful, Carolyn mused, He’d let America have some boredom for a while. President Shaw had called in his congratulations just after Texas made the win official, and – as expected – four hours before Derek Jordan conceded the Presidency to Don Reynolds. Governor Reynolds enjoyed a pleasant phone conversation with Senator Jordan, which was more than Carolyn could say; her attempt to reach her counterpart, Heather Connally, was met with a series of lame excuses by her Chairman, Sam Wilson. Sam was a good guy but a bad liar, and Carolyn could tell Heather was bitter from the loss. Horace Duke, the party chair, called around 5 AM with an ‘explanation’ about why Heather Connally was not available for public appearances or to talk with Ms. Green, but the whole tone smacked of hypocrisy, and calling her private line at 5 AM was simply a cheap shot. Connally would return to life as a United States Senator, where Carolyn had no doubt she would obstruct every move made by President Reynolds.

Carolyn looked around to make sure everything was ready; the hotel room would be tended by Secret Service as well as the 4-star staff, but Carolyn hated to leave a mess or forget things. Her own campaign chairman, John Lake, had set up a breakfast meeting for President-elect Reynolds and herself, along with party Chair Fred Barrett, and of course a crowd of press. Thus the need to act and look perfect, today of all days. Carolyn left the bedroom and nodded to Frank Gorshin, the head of her Secret Service detail. Frank was so good at so many things, that Carolyn had more than once asked him to become her Chief of Staff, but he had always told her he’d have to think about it. Frank brushed a cuff with a subtle movement of his hand, issuing a fast click signal to alert the team that the VP-elect was on the move.

The Problem With Reason

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case out of Washington D.C., where a long-standing law prohibiting honest citizens from owning and keeping handguns for their self-defense and the defense of their families is being challenged as a violation of 2nd Amendment rights. It would seem, at first, to be a clear division of positions – one either contends that the 2nd Amendment was written regarding individuals, or it was not. But, a longer inspection makes things a bit sticker. For Liberals, the fact that the Bill Of Rights was clearly written to protect the people from a repressive government makes it hard to claim that they should be denied the right to protect themselves from criminals. But for Republicans, the notion that an individual has the right to bear arms runs into trouble as soon as you ask how far that right extends; taken to extremes an insurrectionist collecting an armory of weapons could claim he was protected by the Constitution. One is forced to depend on Reason, no matter where one’s ideals and emotions originally direct their opinion.

The problem with that Reason, however, is that people tend to ignore it when it won’t say or do what they demand of it. An obvious example is the pervasive paranoia on the Left, which increasingly blames things on President George W. Bush, no matter how absurd the charge, but the Republicans have their own share of myopia on that count, as the 2006 mid-term elections bear out. America was hardly thrilled with the Democrats, yet the GOP managed to convince the voters that they should change the party in power. As a result, the nation is thoroughly disgusted with Congress, yet has given no clear signal who should lead; the Anarchists must see this as their golden opportunity. Certainly the focus of political ads for the Presidential campaigns has been largely stylistic, with little to no substance for anyone to use to decide who should get their vote. The serious voter must be close to despair.

The United States is a country truly unique in the world. And yet, American politics is no more lucid and civil than many other places. To run for President requires a campaign fund larger than the value of some corporations, it depends on a serial contest in multiple venues, where candidates must hone an image sufficiently distinct to stand out, but sufficiently common to remain appealing as a member of the established community. It’s a lot like any large demographic, a majority of middle-road performance, with a few noteworthy for their failures or success. The American condition is different, because when it works, the system produces leaders who listen to the people, respond to their needs, and whose vision advances the country, more often and with better foresight than any other nation on the planet. But the way we get there is far from reasonable at times. It is chock full of emotion and symbolism, of sometimes trite, even banal displays of the obvious. The most reasonable candidate is often the first rejected.

American business is still the template for the world in many ways; organization, marketing, and distribution are obvious arenas where U.S. companies excel. Yet the United States is also home to some of the most bone-headed economic decisions ever made by a non-Communist/Socialist government. American CEOs run the range from some of the most insightful and innovative leaders in the world, to some of the most insipid and trollish boors on the planet. Reason gets a migraine just trying to explain why that is so.

The American Education system is regular derided for its poor quality, in part due to a determined emphasis to place socially “conscious” issues on equal footing with practical developmental tools, or even superior. Yet the lion’s share of innovative products, medical breakthroughs, and applicable discoveries continues to go to the United States. Apparently, geniuses somehow understand the limitations of the public education system and find alternative avenues for self-education and intellectual growth. Yet again, Reason is baffled by the results.

Reason is an essential quality of a complete adult, yet it constantly finds itself trumped in decisions of the moment.

Assassination: Still a Threat

Today is a grim anniversary, marking 44 years since President John F. Kennedy was gunned down while in a motorcade to a speaking engagement in Dallas, TX. The event is singularly memorable in American history, the kind of gruesome reminder that terrible things can happen anywhere, to anyone.

Some people get the notion that this is old news, that the day when assassinating a President should be worried about is long gone. The actual record since that horrible day in 1963, however, is not promising:


April 14, 1972 – Arthur Bremer traveled to Ottawa (where he believed security would be looser) to attempt to assassinate President Richard Nixon. The security proved tighter than he expected, and he abandoned that attempt,. Choosing instead to try to kill Governor and Presidential candidate George Wallace.


February 22, 1974 – Samuel Byck hijacked a DC-9 at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, with the intention of crashing the plane into the White House to kill President Nixon. He shot three people, killing two of them, but committed suicide when police stormed the plane.


September 5, 1975 – Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a follower of serial murderer Charles Manson, attempted to shoot President Gerald Ford.


September 22, 1975 – Sarah Jane Moore, also a member of Manson’s “family”, shot at President Ford. Oliver Sipple, a bystander, grabbed her arm, which caused her to miss.


March 30, 1981 – John Hinkley, Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan in front of the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C.


October 29, 1994: Francisco Duran shot at the White House from the outside fence with a semi-automatic rifle. He fired at least 29 shots.


May 10, 2005 – Vladimir Arutyunian threw an RGD-5 hand grenade at the podium in Tbilisi, Georgia, where President George W. Bush is giving a speech. A malfunction kept the grenade from detonating.


It must also be noted that attempts, successful or not, were also made on Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman.

There are also unconfirmed reports that attempts have been made on the life of every President since Kennedy, but that the Secret Service does not release information which might compromise its procedures or which might promote interest in an assassination attempt. One example is the reported attempt by a group of Middle Eastern men to “interview” President George W. Bush at the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort early on the morning of September 11th. They were turned away, but later were witnessed close to the motorocade.

Controversy continues to surround the JFK assassination, but it’s by no means old history.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 20

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


20. What should the United States’ relationship be with the United Nations?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 19

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


19. What should our short and long term strategies be in Iraq?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 18

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


18. Should judicial nominees be guaranteed a “yes or no” vote in Committee? Why or why not?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 17

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


17. What actions do you support for education reform?

Sunday Night, Thoughts on a Fired Coach

I just finished and submitted a 37-page Marketing plan for one of my classes. I’d tell you all about it, except for a few things:

1. The plan was for a real business in the area, so a lot of the information is privileged;
2. Marketing is one of those bad habits people get into, and except for a rare few who use morals in their work, it’s not something I would want to encourage;
3. Proof-reading the paper bored me no end, and I wrote the dang thing, so I would be cruel indeed to inflict it on an innocent public.

It’s not enough I had to write it and send it in electronically; I also have to print up a hard copy on quality bond paper, and have it bound and mailed in to the professor. So, I am sitting here waiting for the printer to put out the product, which at “best quality” is taking longer than it did for Hillary Clinton to figure out that advocating drivers licenses for illegals was not a good way to win the Donk nomination, mush less the White House. So, I am plunking away at my keyboard while the printer does constructive work. Well, I also have to iron my clothes, but if there’s anything more boring than what I am doing now, it has to be ironing.

If you are still reading this, you must be as bored as I am. But, at least it’s free, except for the wasted time.

But to the topic. Earlier today, Baylor University’s Athletic Director officially announced the firing of Head Football Coach Guy Morriss. Morriss was 18-40 in five seasons at Baylor, which team lost all 8 of its Big XII conference contests, and frankly stunk up the place all season. That by itself could be a shame, except for a couple points which annoyed me and made me question Morriss’ integrity. The first part was the discovery early this summer, that Morriss had put his house up for sale. Well folks, you usually only do that if you figure you are going to have to move, and when a coach does something like that in advance of a season, it’s darn hard for me to believe he’s going to give his best effort into his job. Certainly, I watched his post-game statements with that fact in mind, and I did not like at all, what I heard and read. Also, this is a coach who promised, from before the season started, that the 2007 Baylor Bears were going to a bowl. When they reached 3-1, it might even have looked like a possibility, but a closer look at the season revealed that such a claim was hopelessly optimistic at best, and from what I could tell, completely dishonest in light of actual conditions. As the conference season got underway and progressed, Coach Morriss started becoming evasive about why his promise was not coming true, and worst of all, he started blaming the players for the losses, even when glaring errors in coaching became obvious. I could go on about the football side of things, especially my hope that Mike Singletary, College and NFL Hall of Fame Linebacker and legend to Bear fans, will be the next head coach of the Bears – pretty much no one else would have a realistic chance of recruiting real talent for Baylor right now, much less shaping the team into a winning program anytime soon. But as I read the news about Morriss’ firing, I did not feel any pleasure, not even a real sense that he deserved his dismissal. Part of that comes from having to acknowledge that I am a fan, not a professional coach, and the Big XII is a hard place to win – three of the top 5 teams in the AP rankings right now are from the Big XII, after all. I may have seen errors on Morriss’ part, but I cannot really say whether or not he was the right man for the job. I know in other places that sometimes someone enjoys success because of hard work someone else did before him. Also, I have to wonder what it is like, to work where every mistake you make is known to, and ridiculed by, countless thousands of people who can’t say they would have done better in that place.

So, Guy Morriss, while my farewell to you is not reluctant, it is sincere in my goodwill, and my thanks for your work.

Welcome, Readers of 'Sadly, No'

I received a strange and rather peculiar communication today, which alerted me that I have guests here at 'Stolen Thunder'. So, I took a virtual stroll and found the fine lodgings of the distinctly Left-of-Center blog "Sadly, No". So, first off, thanks to everyone for the visit. Second off, yeah that's my dog at the top. Beautiful animal and a great companion, and much better to look at than I am. Just in case you were wondering ...

But I feel obliged, as well, to respond to a rather silly comment made by one of your readers on your site. The reader, in a piece which rather nastily tried to smear Lorie Byrd (but people will amuse themselves in their favorite fashion, and for some folks that means lies and insults when that's all they know). The reader, in a comment which linked to here - thank you - remarked that "Another Wizbang! contributor has a site (VERY SERIOUS) of his own". Well, it's true that I also write on Wizbang!, but I do not see why that obliges me to maintain my personal site free of wit, personal perspective, and simple good humor. This is my site, and while I open my thoughts to the consideration of anyone inclined to stop by, I alone choose the mietre and timbre of the writing here. I carry the mood I do just now for the following reasons:

1. A little more than a year ago, I was diagnosed with Pseudomyxoma Peritonei, an unusual form of abdominal cancer where the cells are free-floating, and generally do little more than block the body's internal fluids unless they go malignant, at which time the cancer attacks several organs at once and in that case is commonly fatal. A bit like carrying around a grenade in your gut, so please excuse me if my perspective values certain common elements of Life rather highly, in the knowledge that if something goes wrong it could go very bad very fast. I am fortunate to live in a city with arguably the world's foremost Cancer treatment hospital, and I am happy to say that my present prognosis is quite hopeful. Even so, I am hardly about to forget that Life can end at any time, and so I try to focus on the things which matter. Your mileage may differ;

2. A few years ago, I fell victim to that condition so endemic to bloggers, the notion that I was important and deserved to be heard because I was so damn smart and profound. Well, I woke up from that. I post if I have something to say, and maybe sometimes I think it's good stuff, but other times I'm just making noise to amuse myself. Hey, I know a guy who posts his video games on You Tube, and Al Gore gets awards out the wazzou for spouting off on things where he is absolutely illiterate. The nice thing about the Blogosphere is that there is no 'gravitas' litmus test, and those who think there is, well, I mentioned that 'I'm so important' virus, and those guys still have it.

3. If you're still reading this, you're mistaking me for someone important. I'm just a Dad with a job and a ton of work, who happens to blog. If the stuff here sounds good to you, thanks. If not, hey, at least I'm not hitting you up for money or your vote.

Again, thanks for the visit.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 16

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


16. Do you believe the continued existence of a central bank (the Federal Reserve) that issues fiat money is in the best interests of the U.S.?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 15

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


15. What are the limits to the authority of the Federal Government?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 14

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


14. Confidence in the validity of elections has fallen sharply in some places. What would you recommend to repair and rebuild that confidence?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 13

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

13. What is your proposal for lowering the National Debt?

Just a Reminder: It’s a Bad Idea to Ignore History

The readers who know me are well aware that I said early on, that a Republican would win the White House in 2008. I did not make that prediction in 2004 or 2005, but 2006 when it seemed as though the Donks were doing a ‘reconquista’ on everything the Reagan Revolution had given to the American people. And I made that prediction on the basis of two key traits:

[] While they are absolute morons at times, Republicans in general will put the country ahead of everything else, and the voters know this;
[] Democrats always end up going to extremes, having abandoned the center to the degree that they cannot find it, even when they most need it.

In short, I am confident that the GOP will nominate someone capable enough for the job, who will demonstrate love for America and a commitment to American interests, and I am also confident that the Donks will ignore history to a degree sufficient to cost them the election. Lord knows, they’ve shown that propensity beyond dispute in recent years. A simple example of this can be seen in the results of past Presidential elections, and what it means for 2008. The following are the results of Presidential elections since World War 2 by the class of candidate’s occupation, that is the role most voters identified with the candidate:

2004 - President defeats Senator
2000 - Governor defeats Vice-President
1996 - President defeats Senator
1992 – Governor defeats President
1988 – Vice-President defeats Governor
1984 – President defeats Senator
1980 – Governor defeats President
1976 – Governor defeats President
1972 – President defeats Senator
1968 – Vice-President defeats Vice-President
1964 – President defeats Senator
1960 – Senator defeats Vice-President
1956 – President defeats Governor
1952 – General defeats Governor
1948 – President defeats Governor

Looking at that run, we see the President running 10 times, winning 7 of them (70%). Vice-Presidents ran 5 times, winning twice (40%). Senators ran 6 times, winning once (17%). A retired General ran once and won (100%), and Governors ran 8 times, winning 4 of them (50%). If we considered just those numbers, Wesley Clark would look much more formidable (but it would be foolish to over-count the results of one instance), but in general the results tell us that whatever a party wants in a candidate, nominating a Senator is a bad idea. Sure, JFK won as a Senator, but that was against Richard Nixon, and even then it was a squeaker and some folks would argue that Kennedy, umm, “had help” in that election. It’s a lot more interesting to see the other five Senators:

1964 – Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona; a popular champion of Conservatism and seemed a formidable match against Lyndon Johnson. But Goldwater only collected 38.5% of the popular vote, and won only 6 states;

1972 – Senator George McGovern from Minnesota; very popular with the Left, who believed Vietnam would be the issue to drive Nixon from office. But McGovern claimed only 37.5% of the popular vote, and won only 1 state;

1984 – Senator Walter Mondale from Minnesota; the Democrats though his ‘straight-talk’ style would appeal to Americans. But Mondale claimed only 40.6% of the popular vote, and won only 1 state;

1996 – Senator Bob Dole from Kansas; the GOP believed his war record and impeccable personal integrity would win over voters against the scandal-ridden Bill Clinton. But Dole took only 40.7% of the popular vote, although he won 19 states;

2004 – Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts; Democrats thought his medals from Vietnam would make him credible as a critic of Bush and the war in Iraq. Kerry did the best of the losing Senators, claiming 48.3% of the popular vote, and like Dole he won 19 states.

So these five nominees were all impressive at the time to their party, and carried something like charisma into the general election. But when the ballots were counted, they won a collective average of 41.1% of the popular vote, and an average of only 9 states. Whether Democrat or Republican, in peacetime or war, running a Senator as the party nominee is a poor choice, tactically.

So, looking at the two major parties, what does this mean about the races? The Republicans have a Mayor and a Governor in the lead, with another Governor and two Senators a bit behind. Kick out the Senators from the GOP race and you still have three healthy contenders. For the Democrats, things are a bit different. Both of the heavy front-runners are Senators, and so is the guy in third place. Only Governor Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis “I See Green People” Kucinich are left if you scratch off the Senators. So, it looks very much as if the Democrats will nominate a Senator to run against a GOP nominee who is not a Senator.

Bad odds if you’re a Donk fan, but hopeful for Americans.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 12

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


12. What is your first proposal to balance the Federal Budget?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 11

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


11. Should undocumented aliens have the ability to get legal drivers licenses?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 10

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


10. Given that many states give equal treatment U.S. citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens, just what does it mean to be a U.S. citizen (besides not being hassled by Immigration?)

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 9

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


9. What are the limits to judicial authority?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 8

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


8. What will you do to ensure the integrity of the voting system?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 7

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.



7. Where do you stand on eliminating the income tax and SSI tax and replacing them with a national consumption tax?

Liars For Libel; Hollywood Still Badly Misses the Target

A new film is opening up this month, a little “make you think” piece directed by Robert Redford, whose ego demands that he also show up in the film as an actor. "Lions for Lambs" is essentially three stories, ostensibly representing three different views of the war, not in Iraq but in Afghanistan. The first story examines the overview of the war, and contends that no one knows how to fight terrorism, which is a bald lie, but a convenient one for Redford, since it attempts to establish a moral equivalency between Left and Right; if no one has the right answer, no one can claim the other side is wrong, hmm?

The film is a clear bit of Democrat propaganda; a heroic and idealistic Liberal reporter (played by Streep) taking on the claims of a fairly bombastic Republican Senator (Cruise), and while on the face it appears that the debate is balanced, I found it biased, which is hardly surprising given the director, the screenplay, and the casting.

The second story is even more hard-Left, casting Redford as an idealistic university professor who worries that students simply do not care about the world in general, and it is somehow up to him to convince them, as the film’s tagline goes, “If you don’t stand for something, you might fall for anything”, which in the context of the film never explores the possibility that the Left might be the side harboring the con men, but this is to be expected from Redford.

The third story pretends to be the ‘conservative’ side, focusing on two soldiers trying to stay alive while surrounded by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Like so many offerings from Hollywood, the story presented is completely alien to actual events and true military doctrine used by U.S. forces, but then it would be stunning indeed for Hollywood to actually pay attention to what real troops really do, to examine the true tactics or listen to real accounts of battle in the present war. The truth, as always, is inconvenient for the Left, and so Redford uses nothing of the sort in his work.

This character of film-making is nothing surprising. Before this film, Redford’s work included a disillusioned spy trainer in “Spy Game”, a hacker working against both the NSA and the Mafia in “Sneakers”, a soldier betrayed by a blundering government in “A Bridge Too Far”, an idealistic reporter in “All The President’s Men”, and an innocent man being hunted down by the CIA in “Three Days of the Condor”.

As for Meryl Streep, her history includes “Rendition”, an already-infamous account of how Iran is good and Israel and the United States are bad bad bad, “The Machurian Candidate” (the 2004 remake) where conservatives brain-wash candidates and kill anyone trying to stop them, and of course “The Deer Hunter”, where Vietnam Vets suffer horribly from trauma caused, you guessed it, by a callous U.S. government.

As for Tom Cruise, it’s true he did “Top Gun” as a hot-shot Navy pilot, but he also did the “Mission Impossible” movies, where the U.S. government is always up to no good, “A Few Good Men”, where he plays an idealistic Liberal attorney determined to prove that Marines abuse their recruits, and of course his early work in “Taps”, playing a beserk Cadet Captain who kills dozens of people in a spree of blood lust. It is hardly coincidence that Redford loaded his film up with anti-American propagandists. It is fortunate in that respect, however, because the American public, contrary to Redford’s “disappointment” in their standards, has a fairly good memory, and most of us are not willing to pay money to sit and see our nation and its leaders smeared with lies and insults. We can see that for free every night on network television, after all.

Separate Discriminations

There is a hot debate going on, and it has been going strong for some years, about how we should treat detainees at places like Guantanamo and in the custody of allied nations. The odd thing to me, is that I see discrimination in the points of view of both Left and Right, but the preference shown is in opposite directions. The way I see it, the Left wants to protect perceived “rights” of persons apprehended by our troops, even if that protection endangers innocents, our troops, and the mission. The Right wants the mission to succeed in Iraq, even if by that effort individuals suffer injustice to some degree, and certain innocents may suffer pain, loss, and even death. This is the hard truth to the matter. I am not saying that the Left desire the mission to fail or innocents to die, nor do I say that the Right does not care about what happens to a particular person, but the choice is made and consequences result from the decision. We should be honest about that, even though if we have a functioning conscience that fact should make us all uncomfortable.

Moral choices with consequences happen all the time. If someone takes hostages and negotiations do not appear to be working, yes there will be a sniper positioned to kill the person who has taken the hostages, and if the hostage-taker dies in that situation few of us would have a good reason to complain about the action. If someone is part of an organization which murders innocents and continues to pursue such actions, then to my mind that person’s life is forfeit. No, I am not saying that a terrorist who surrenders or swears off his old ways has to be killed, but whether or not someone is personally committing an act of violence at the time he encounters our troops has no bearing on his fate; Admiral Yamamoto was not flying a bomber when we shot him out of the sky in World War 2, but it was still the right and necessary thing to do. And terrorists hardly match the moral standards which Admiral Yamamoto was known for.

Basically, I see it this way. 9/11 started the war, and all the claims otherwise don’t budge that fact. And no, it’s not just Al Qaeda; that group is basically a front for a number of different organizations, in sort of the same way that the old ‘Islamic Jihad’ of the 1980s was a hodgepodge of different groups that took the name for their own purposes. The Madrid train bombing is an example of the was/was-not aspect of Al Qaeda’s activity. Terrorists are not ‘freedom fighters’ or simply practicing guerrilla warfare, either. They kill indiscriminately and their chief purpose is to destabilize governments and provoke enemy forces to waste resources in many places. So, the United States and its allies (and yes, we have allies) moved into Afghanistan and Iraq because it was necessary, because if they did not the whole region was headed for a bad blow-up. You can believe it or not, the evidence has been plain for years and until 2003 even the Democrats said so themselves in public. Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq fell into three basic camps: The Saddamites who would personally lose from his fall, which includes those countries who enjoyed special deals with Saddam, especially Germany and France and Russia; those nations whose appetite for conquest was thwarted by a force they could not hope to overwhelm (Iran and Syria, for example); and Socialists, whose greatest fear for the Middle East was that a stable Middle East would advance American influence and power. It’s hardly a shock that most of the public protests were organized and paid for by Communist-front groups like ANSWER.

The Left had its day, and may again, but now that the Surge is clearly working, that ordinary Iraqis are making clear that they will not accept the likes of Al Qaeda or Iran’s infiltrated thugs, and that the U.S. Military is making Iraq far better than it was under Saddam for the regular people, more and more people are realizing that the troops were neither duped nor stupid, but were right all along in their commitment and spirit. But the war continues, and the key question still haunts us: What do we do with these monsters we catch?

First, let’s be clear that we are not talking about your average criminal on ‘Cops’. These are the kind of people who build bombs to kill women and children in schools, they kill people at Mosques in prayer, they are too cowardly to face anyone in straight-up combat, they depend on hidden bombs and ‘soft’ targets. They increasingly have no connection to the area where they operate, but have been imported and outfitted by alien forces. They are, therefore, not a native ‘resistance’ but hired thugs and fanatics, whose whole worldview centers on death; theirs or someone else, in many cases they don’t even care. Their actions merit execution, not protection. They are extremely dangerous, to themselves as much as anyone else. I would not blame the military, frankly, if they just locked them away somewhere and provided sufficient protection from escape, and if they killed each other off, no great loss. But the U.S. military is made of better ideals than that.

The utopian solution would be where a just system could weigh the evidence and choose a fate appropriate to the deeds and the need of the society for accountability and deterrent force. In the case of terrorists, however, problems begin at the outset. There is no suitable local venue for trials, nor are terrorists the sort of people to face the consequences of their deeds realistically; these are monsters which revel in blood and pain, and have become convinced, against all reason, human sensibilities and logic, that they will receive an eternal reward, not punishment, for their crimes. The more heinous, the more glory they think. Man learned long ago that when an animal reaches such a condition, it must be destroyed, as much for the good of other animals as for the humans. The same hard rule applies here; if it is known that a man has committed the sort of acts we see so common to Al Qaeda, not merely murder or violence in the heat of the moment, but the thirst for the blood of innocents, a creed of cruelty performed as we have seen done to children and other innocents, then death is the only possible consequence – swift and as merciful as the situation allows, but to spare such monsters is to doom more innocents. There are those who quail at such a hard determination, but no one who has seen the work of Al Qaeda could be fooled into thinking they remain human. In terms of practical effect, the knowledge that Al Qaeda members will summarily executed will drive people to make a quick decision either to join them in all aspects, or to give them up to the Coalition to avoid sharing their fate.

If someone is apprehended on something less than certain knowledge, however, the matter becomes more difficult. Such situations must not be confused with common crime, yet there must be a system whic grants appropriate responses to conditions of doubt or extenuating circumstances. For that purpose, I defer to the proven success of military tribunals. While those who cannot respect the American military officer will bridle at the notion, the fact remains that military officers are the people most competent to judge by the facts rather than the emotions or politics of the moment, and they are as a group impressively successful in addressing individual cases with the right mix of justice and mercy. I can think of no better system than the one in place, however much the Left scorns and mocks it.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 6

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


6. What specific measures would you recommend to protect Social Security for coming generations?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 5

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


5. If you could write an Amendment to the Constitution and know it would pass and be ratified, what would that Amendment be?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 4

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.


4. What are your intentions regarding Tort Reform?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 3

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

3. Is there a better solution to Middle East turmoil, than the establishment or promotion of freely elected democratic republics? Why or why not?

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions pt 2

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

2. What will you do to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and/or terrorists?

Thank you, John McCain

40 years ago today, Lt. Commander John McCain, USN, was shot down on a combat mission over Hanoi. As the son of then-CINCPAC Admiral McCain, John was subjected to even more torture and humiliation than the other prisoners at the infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’. Commander McCain served five and a half years as a prisoner, several times refusing to leave before prisoners who were shot down before him. John McCain’s service during his captivity represents the finest traditions and honor of the United States Navy, and whatever one thinks of his politics and stature to run for the office of President, he is indisputably one of our finest heroes from the Vietnam era.

Thank you, John McCain, for your service and for your sacrifice. May the nation you love never forget, nor cheapen, all you have done for her.

Will You Answer What Congress Won’t? The Top 20 Questions

Back in late 2004 and early 2005, I sent emails, faxes, and letters to every member of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. In it, I asked them for their answer to a set of twenty questions which the readers of Polipundit wanted asked. The text of the letter was posted here.

52 Readers in 38 states joined the effort, asking their district Representatives and Senators to answer the questions. Response from our elected Representatives and Senators was poor, predictably so. Most Congressmen and Senators simply ignored the letters, emails and faxes. In the end, only seventeen answered with any degree of substance, and not one answered more than two questions.

I was looking at the set of questions this week, and you know, they still look like good questions to me, so I am going to ask you for your opinion on them. This will take a while, since I am putting up one question for each post, but please give this your serious consideration. And folks, this is not about politics or smacking down the other side; this is an opportunity to explore the issues of substance for our country. Sad that Congress was not up to it, but maybe we can get the conversation going. Thanks in advance.

1. Should photo ID cards be required in order to vote?

We SHOULD Question Their Patriotism

One of the snottiest demands from high-profile Leftists, is that we on the Right may not question or challenge their Patriotism. Frankly, any reasonable look at some of the statements and behavior on the part of Leftist leaders, demands just such a criticism.

I have to start with a recent, and fairly stupid, example: Senator Barack Obama. The new reported a little while back that Obama was not wearing a flag pin of the United States. Frankly, in itself that’s a pretty dinky deal, hardly the stuff of great debate. But Obama, never one to defuse a ticking time bomb when he can play with it, turned it into a serious issue by saying,

” as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.”

Nice double-shot. Parents who wear a flag pin to keep their kids in mind who are serving are “substitute” patriots, while arrogant cynics who attack the troops’ mission for their own political gain are the “real “ patriots.

I defy that, and am frankly appalled that anyone who wants the job to direct where and when troops are deployed could make such a statement. Of course, this is a man who doesn’t put his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is played; he holds his hands over his crotch.

But Obama is an easy target, an inexperienced con man who has not yet learned to hide his true allegiance in double-talk.

A stronger case for Democrats’ deliberate disloyalty comes from Senate Majority Leader Harry “Land Deal” Reid. Reid, you may call, decided to show his ‘support’ for the troops by declaring “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything”.

Well, let’s see. Casualties in Iraq are down, way down, and not just soldiers. Iraqi civilians are also doing much better, and Al-Qaida is getting downright desperate. In fact, one of our milbloggers blogging while he serves over there doesn’t say we’re winning in Iraq, he flat-out says we have won the war there.

You may note that ‘Happy News’ Harry has not retracted his dour claim, nor apologized to General Petraeus for the shabby treatment his report received from the DonkeyKong party.

Need I go down the list, to mention John “Stuck in Iraq” Kerry’s slap at serving soldiers, or Pete Stark’s wide smear against both the President and the troops for claiming “amusement” at their casualties, or that the soldiers’ support for the mission is wrong? Do I need to mention Mister Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazis, or Charlie Rangel’s insistence that the troops don’t want to fight, but are in there because they are not “smart” or “bright” enough to get a job anywhere else? Perhaps I need to recall Chuck Schumer’s claim that “the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here.”

How anyone can read or hear that and conclude that Schumer is an American, let alone a patriot, defies Rationality itself.

I do not claim the Democrats are traitors. But they are certainly none of them patriots.

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.