Doctor Kissinger Is Wrong Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicken Little Economics

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

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

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

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

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

God and The Choice

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

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

and this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Theft Blog Article

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

Short version of a classic:

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

Ending to be determined.

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

Feces Wrapped Up As Wisdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heaven and Hell Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sad Injustice

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

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

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

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

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

The Lawyer Factor

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


Candidate and Work Experience Prior to Political Office

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


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

If you love America, support John McCain for President.

No One and Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverend Wright Is Wrong On Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not God - Neither are You

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

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

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

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

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

Senescent Campaigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq

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

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

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

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

The Recession Test for Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy, Holy, Holy

When I take a break from my regular job and my schoolwork, I have been reading up on the saga of the Holy Grail. While that’s interesting, what struck me about it was how different we are today from Medeival times. In some ways that is good, but not in all things. No more quests, no belief in the numinous, no confidence in Chivalry or Honor, no sense of the Holy. You may smile to hear that people took comfort in the physical presence of relics, that they believed such things were signals of the will and pleasure of God, that people considered Man’s place below God’s will and that we pursue the holy not as a duty or a choice but because it changes us in ways that no other force could, but the man who lives without such beliefs is the poorer for that choice. The reality and presence of the holy is of an order of Reality beyond our comprehension, and is the essence of both fear and hope.

Non-Christians frequently charge that if Christianity were all it claims, there should be clear evidence of a different way of life among Christians. They’re right, it’s the fruit of our faith that we should live in love and hope, not acting as we did when our souls were dead in sin. Yet it must also be remembered that we still live in the carnal world, that our journey to the Kingdom of Heaven is through the wasteland of human hubris, and we are not truly home until we are perfected through Christ’s holiness. And so it is true not merely that we are granted visions of holiness as beacons to guide us in our lives, but also as spiritual sustenance; just as we partake of Communion in remembrance of Christ, so God sends us images of the holy to remind us of our identity and sustain our soul in spiritual communication.

I fear sometimes that we lose sight of the holy. As the Church finds more and more enemies, it has a harder time pointing out the holy to those who seek it, and as the world focuses more on more with personal pleasures and immediate gratification, the things of the next world are far too easily missed. We see the surface effect, not the cause, and we discard greatness because it is inconvenient. We see suffering as something to avoid, and miss the character of bearing hardship. We do no penance, because we assume we are in no need of rebuilding in our soul. We trust our own clever wit, and forget the deeper wisdom of our Maker. We call the Humane the highest ideal, and so pass by the road which leads to something greater than the human condition.

We should remember to seek that which is holy, and to be humble in our place.

The Privileged Class

One of the mostly untouched subjects in debates between Conservatives and Liberals, is a direct discussion about Class Warfare. On the one hand, it is patently obvious that Liberals believe that Society is divided into various cultural and economic strata, which they blame for a number of perceived injustices. On the other hand, Liberals refuse to test many of their assumptions, as indeed is a problem for Conservatives as well. Today, I would like to explore the hypothesis of the privileged class.

The basic assumption among Liberals is that there are certain Americans who, to put it simply, have things too good. They are rich and powerful and are never called upon to “sacrifice”, which in the Liberal Lexicon means to voluntarily suffer in order to advance some ideal. Thus, tax cuts are demonized as being solely or mostly for “the rich”, even though in actual fact the income tax cuts of the past generation have more often helped lower-income Americans as a percentage effect of their income. Corporations are evil by simple definition of having power to accomplish anything, and anyone who supports the War in Iraq without having personally served in that conflict or suffered the loss of a loved one is somehow disqualified from being able to voice an opinion. The list is by definition never complete, as any targeted enemy can and will be designated as rich or elite, or otherwise marginalized to discredit their position or identity. Conservatives do the same thing, but not to the same degree. Leading Liberals can expect to be stereotyped by their opponents, although Conservatives tend to focus on the argument more than the person.

What’s odd about the Liberal perspective, is what happens when a prominent Liberal happens to have money or power. In their case, some sort of exemption is granted by the Left. John Kerry is the epitome of the empty-suit aristocrat, yet he was tapped to be the Democrats’ candidate for President in 2004. Kerry followed Al Gore, who made millions for himself shilling snakeoil remedies for the ficticitious but trendy Global Warming scare. And no one familiar with Liberal politics can forget the influence and long-time control by the Kennedy empire.

I think the Liberal notion actually started with good intentions. That is, that people who find themselves blessed with financial or positional advantage should be mindful that they have a duty to those less fortunate, a moral obligation to consider the general welfare in addition to their own well-being. Any experienced businessman can tell you that’s smart economics too, as goodwill by a corporation goes a long way and tends to be reciprocated. Besides, who doesn’t enjoy having a reputation as a good citizen?

Where the Liberals went wrong, though, was when they decided that selective morality should be coerced at times, that it was appropriate to deny rights to certain people because of their politics or personal choices. The Liberals also went wrong in deciding to apply charity through government. In addition to the horrid inefficiencies in having government disburse assistance, there is the moral offense of punishing success in business through “progressive” taxation, and the effective elimination of virtue in the assistance; the good comes from the compassion and the voluntary decision to help – it is quite a false claim to tell someone that money they lost against their will was well used, simply because the people who took it by force like what they did with it. By my lights it’s also well outside the boundaries of government authority granted by the United States Constitution, the idea that government should compel you to give money to someone else simply because they have less than you do.

I would also suggest that both parties have a real disconnect with regular Americans. Sure, there has always been a part of the public who would allow themselves to be outraged that a few people enjoyed great success from their own hard work and ingenuity. But more and more, people come to respect that a lot of the rich earn their money and take risks to do it, while members of the House and Senate seem to enjoy a lot of perks, privileges, and money from nowhere that smells an awful lot like graft. The legality of how they got their hoards is frankly beside the point, when the people grabbing the money are in position to make the laws to protect their self-interest. The question about whether or not Roger Clemens used HGH or whether oil companies make “too much money” is a rank hypocritical pose, when the Senators hide how they line their own pockets and fund their futures for when they are out of office. Fewer and fewer Americans see their Congressmen or Senators as defenders of their interests, when so many Senators and Congressmen have biographies that reveal almost no real-world experience. They don’t worry about Social Security, for example. They don’t have to pay for health insurance. They usually send their kids to private schools, and in many cases they don’t know what rush hour traffic is like, or what it means to buy their own groceries or school supplies, or mail their own letters or even do their own taxes. For the most significant routine activities of life, the people who make our laws have no effective understanding of our world. If there is a privileged class in America, it’s the politicians in Washington D.C.

The Vatican and God

Here we go again. This week, the Vatican released a list of “new sins” for us to worry about. OK sure, being greedy and not caring about the harm you do to the environment is something I think should be criticized, but the schtick falls flat when you try to sell it as a “new” kind of sin. For one thing, it implies that it was – what – alright I guess to be greedy and dirty in the past? I don’t think so. Greed has always been out of bounds, remember Jesus’ admonition about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter Heaven? And He also covered pollution in that ‘what you do to the least of these, you also do to Me’ warning. What’s wrong now, has always been wrong.

But it also runs into a question of just why the Vatican thinks it has the mojo to be telling us what is and is not a sin. The Bible already lays it out pretty well, and I am one of those people who believes the Bible is how God laid down the Law. So the Vatican seems to be saying that God “missed” some sins? Or worse, that the Pope and his Posse are in a position to, what “correct” God? That kind of arrogance makes me even more of a Protestant. Sure, there are a bunch of Protestant ‘ministers’ whose egos are swollen bigger than counties, and there are a whole lot of people in all faiths and denominations who wrongly believe they have the right to order folks around like they own them, but even the worst Protestant minister stops short of presuming that he outranks God. I have to say that hearing the Vatican tossing out new standards of morality makes me wonder if the Roman Catholic Church is still just a bit tiffed by its loss of Temporal power a while back?

Well, to be fair the whole world of Religion seems to be pushing to grab power and influence. We had the whole Moral Majority thing back in the Reagan years, which lost of lot of its appeal when it began to look less like an appeal to reform government and more a ploy to pass laws which gave that group an advantage. The Muslims and the Mormons have done a lot over the years to gain political advantage as well, seeing no conflict of interest in using faith resources for material gain. Countless politicians make it a point to be seen on TV going into church, making nice with ministers and occasionally standing behind a pulpit. And even the quasi-religious types play that game, as Buddhists and Scientologists work hard to spin public opinion to their gain. It’s not as if the Catholics are the only group who have become rather obsessed with earthly power and influence.

But the Roman Catholic Church, fair or not, has the burden of a higher standard. The RCC has enjoyed power and influence for so long, that in most minds the Vatican speaks as the representative of Christ, and as such it should be, hmm, immaculate in its contemplation. This week’s bluster falls well short.

Bloggers As a Demographic

John Hawkins re-ran an article on why Bloggers do not succeed. Like his other work, it was an interesting article and thought-provoking.

I do not, however, completely agree with it.

Here’s the thing. I write on two blogs, as part of a team at Wizbang!, which opportunity I greatly appreciate, and I also write on my personal blog, Stolen Thunder.

I also have a ‘real world’ life, which involves my family, my full-time job, my pursuit of my MBA and CPA, my cancer treatment, and repairing the damage done by my well-meaning but rowdy canines, pretty much in that order. As much as I’d like to become some internationally famous luminary with a huge expense account and the adoration of Right-leaning blogophiles everywhere, it’s not a big blip on my radar, largely because of something I heard years ago.

I remembered a story about a young man who was frustrated as a musician, because he really wanted to be famous and rich, yet he knew that was somehow off the mark. His father asked him if he loved music, and the young man said he did.

“So do what you love”, suggested his dad, “and don’t try to be famous or rich. Be a musician.”

It’s sort of the same thing with blogging. I like feeling appreciated as much as anyone, but I blog because I think I can add to the conversation, and sometimes just to say my peace. I blog when and how I see fit, and yes that means I don’t often pull in a huge crowd, but – eh – I never wanted to be a star, not really. I like conversation better than trying to make folks think I’m the next Christopher Hitchens or quote me from every post. And the people I read, they tend to be normal folks who have good arguments, an interesting way of writing, or whose work is important to me. Of course, I read the big guns, Michael Yon and Bill Roggio, and I have never posted anything near as significant as their work. But I flatter myself that I can tell a good story every so often, that my insights about various things are worth the time it takes to read ‘em. Nobody makes you do that, after all – if my stuff is dreck, just pass me by the way I do the NYT or the LAT. But I think a lot of us bloggers are not worried about punching up big numbers, or trying to impress anyone. We’re bloggers because we’re bloggers.

Which Carbon Do They Mean, Anyway?

I have to say, at the start of this piece, that I am extremely skeptical of the claims made by those who so warn us of ‘Global Warming’. Part of it is their manner – I do not take kindly to being threatened or bullied, and I see a lot of that among the ‘Climate Change’ thugs, no matter how popular they may be in Hollywood or how well-funded their activists may be. I also do not think it is an effective manner to address the question, by declaring the debate to be over just when it really begins. If your case is solid, it can withstand questions, challenges, and doubts – telling me not to test your claim is really telling me you are a con artist.

There has been a lot of Science claimed in this debate, with a lot built on speculative projections by computers. You know, those same computers that year in and year out miss the number and scope and location of hurricanes we will see each summer, yet we’re supposed to buy a century-ahead projection based on the assumptions I just noted never get tested in the first place. I could go into the technobabble, but really that does not get us anywhere since it all comes down to chroming up a Yugo to make folks forget it’s a Yugo. Let’s get down to simple cases, I suggest.

Pollution is a very real problem, and like a certain other problem it’s obvious when you see it. If trees and grass die in the vicinity of a factory, it’s pretty reasonable to wonder what sort of effect that factory is having on the kids in that neighborhood. If the water turns funny colors and gets lumpy, you could reasonably question its safety. If the air turns funny colors and gets hard to breathe, it’s even more an obvious problem. There was a time when getting rid of particulates in the air, carcinogens in the water, and filtering out known poisons from the trash and by-products of a machine or building was right and needed. The advocates for the environment stood for us all then, but as I recall their chief method was to inform and debate, to encourage folks to ask questions and be skeptical. Funny how different the next generation of ‘environmentalists’ are about their method.

I say that because we hear a much different cry today. The air, the water, and the land are all much much cleaner in the United States and most “industrialized” nations. It sort of puts the environmentalists out of business, the way things have gone, but they found a new Bogeyman, nice and even scarier because they can – and do – claim that the whole planet is in peril, and there’s no time to do anything but what they tell us. It comes down to carbon.

Carbon is an element, no more harmful than Hydrogen or Iron or Oxygen in itself. A diamond is simply compressed carbon, coal is carbon that is burned for energy use, and other types of carbon find their way into food and clothing and all sorts of uses. It’s not harmful, judging by the history of the past few thousand years. There’s even a nice little symbiosis between animals and plants; we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants consume carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Again, that way of things has been around for thousands of years, probably longer but unlike the ecologists I try not to claim something where we cannot really verify it.

But all of a sudden, carbon emissions are supposed to be threatening the planet. The way this is supposed to happen is kind of like cross-genus evolution, there’s carbon emissions at the start, then somehow it all turns into earth-ending catastrophe. Horrible storms, droughts, floods, bad hair days, failed marriages and TV writers going on strike, it’s – well- every bad dream all rolled up neatly into a packaged crisis which can only be solved by, well, mindlessly agreeing to the dictates of a few “experts” who are so smart and important that we’re not even allowed to check their credentials. Sorry, but I’m one of those gotta-see-the-proof kind of guys, and from where I sit, a factory that emits carbon dioxide pretty much the same way my piehole does, is really a good thing, not a bad one.

Now, having said that, I also want to say that I try hard to be open-minded, and I am aware that Carbon can be dangerous in certain forms. Carbonic acid, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Tetrachloride, it’s certainly possible for Carbon to take a form which is dangerous to folks, but I don’t see Carbon Dioxide that way, again because there’s really no hard evidence to show causality.

So here’s the thing, you Global Warming, Climate Change, or Gore Is God types or whatever you call yourselves this month: Present your evidence, support your position against challenges and questions, and demonstrate that your hypothesis is superior to any of the alternatives – and yes there are certainly alternative suggestions – and you could win us over. But if all you can do is make demands and refuse to support your claim, then please just go away and let the adults get back to work.

Mid-Terms

Out of pocket for the next few days, as I deal with mid-term exams.

The Republican Primaries 2008: What Went Wrong?

Congratulations to Senator John McCain, who clinched the 2008 Republican Party Nominee for President of the United States last night, yet who is also a man disliked by a significant portion of the party and a man who generates enthusiasm less often than a year-old box of corn flakes. McCain’s advocates fall into three broad categories; those who emphasize his war credentials and ignore his record on other issues, those who are afraid of the Democrats’ nominee and want a Republican in the White House, any Republican, and so are willing to settle for McCain, and those who actually like censorship of political speech during an election, for a minority of the Senate to decide the fate of judicial nominees, and for the Global Warming Ponzi Scheme to be allowed to constrain business and rob taxpayers. How on earth did the Party of Ronald Reagan come to this?

I think a lot of this started early. Back in 2005, Patrick Ruffini ran a straw poll about GOP candidates, and I called him on a number of wrong claims and false statements. It was, in short, an informal shoot-the-bull poll with no value beyond a very local barometer of the moment, just as my occasional polls here should not be taken to represent the nation. But I called Ruffini on his attempt to play his poll into something it was not. The reason I bring up that dead cat carcass again, is because even there, I warned that Ruffini was pushing a false image, in his case the viability of Giuliani. It’s not that Rudy was a horrible choice, but that pushing him so early in a poll which closed off some far more conservative possibilities displayed the problem we saw this spring, a set of choices created by non-Conservatives, yet forced on Conservatives. Do you want the really liberal RINO, or perhaps the only-sometimes-RINO? Ruffini has inconsiderately moved or deleted his 2005 poll from his archives, so I cannot recite his list of options, but I can safely advise the public that Senator Fred Thompson, Secretary of State Condi Rice, Governor Jeb Bush, and other leading Conservative voices were – oh so conveniently – left off the poll. Not to belabor Mr. Ruffini too much, as he has every right to speak for the milktoast Republicans when he feels so inclined, but even from the start, Republicans were shown polls and surveys with no meat on the menu. There was, I will say bluntly, no seat at the table for a Reagan Republican.

There were, of course, a few plays for the Conservatives. There are so many Conservatives, that some GOP candidates would surely try for their support. Fred Thompson said the right things, but sadly he missed the crest of support in mid-2007, and by the time he started moving, he was too far behind, in media attention, campaign funds, and in developing his grassroots network. Mitt Romney also played up his newfound Conservatism, but he failed to convince enough Conservatives that he was the real deal. Same problem with Huckabee; the rhetoric just did not square with his record. McCain took the contrary path. Seeing that Conservatives were split, unable to find anyone who really reflected their ideals and priorities, he decided not to chase their support in the primaries, and instead made them his target, successfully drawing support from outside the party even as he chased the party’s mantle. The hypocrisy of such a strategy does not appear to bother Senator McCain.

So here we are; the Democrats are enemies of Conservatism, and now so is the Republican Party’s nominee. Fortunately, we are not bereft of hope. In a statement sure to be sneered at by non-Conservatives, I believe most devoutly that God Almighty favors most Conservative Ideals, and just as Ronald Reagan arrived to bring back America’s greatness after Carter’s disastrous term, I believe that our movement will yet again regain its support and strength. But Reagan had to wait for his moment, and before him Barry Goldwater was a true Conservative who never got to set foot in the promised land of a Conservative America. With McCain, Clinton, or Obama in the White House for at least four years, this nation will suffer for at least that long. The sole mitigation will be those Conservatives in the House and Senate, whose backbones and nerve will sorely be tested by the new reigning coalition of Liberals, Quislings, and McCainiacs. This crucible, though, may be the testing ground for the next Reagan.

The Virtue of Debt

The news has been pretty fear-based, lately. We’re in danger of economic collapse, nobody loves America, there’s no hope unless we elect Obama right now, and so on. Really, if panic were a commodity, it would be the hot ticket, wouldn’t it? Anyway, a lot of this comes down to the idea that people do not like being debt. That could be healthy, except of course for the modern pervasive belief that we are somehow entitled to whatever we want. And here we are.

I grew up believing in personal responsibility. We owe for what we use and have, and we owe both our parents for what we got from them, and to our children for the promise we make by having children. We owe our spouses the lifelong commitment we accepted at the alter, we owe our employers our best effort, and we owe our nation our loyalty and constant efforts to reach the ideals set so long ago, and which grow each generation as our ability grows. All this responsibility is difficult sometimes, but it’s a good thing. We need it.

This is what gets lost, when the media leads cries for someone to make all our troubles go away. That’s a lie in the first place, but even if it could be, Utopia is only another kind of prison. It’s in paying our own debts, that we find real freedom.

The Party and the President

I am still not at all happy with the idea that John McCain is likely to win the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. The man's hypocrisy regarding Free Speech is unacceptable, his fatuous buy-in to the Global Warming lie is disturbing, and his regular habit of attacking Conservatives in his policies and statements is insulting. The problem is, if McCain gets the Republican nomination and I do not vote for him in the fall, then I am effectively supporting the Democrats' nominee, either the criminal Hillary Clinton or the vacuous and completely unqualified Barack Obama. Not at all a good situation.

But with that said, there is a bigger problem. George W. Bush has his faults, but he was a good President, and he could have been great if the Republican Party had backed him more often, instead of stabbing him in the back on so many key votes. The reason they did this is simple enough; a mix of territorial greed and personal hubris. More than a couple leading Republicans got it into their head that they mattered more than the President of the United States, and they did all the could to punish President Bush for putting the nation first.

The Democrats do this too, of course. One reason the 2006 mid-term elections turned out not to be so earth-shaking, is the non-stop feuding between Pelosi and Reid and Dean and Schumer and so on. And it's not a new thing; the Congress under Clinton started out under control of the Democrats, who nonetheless saw no reason to respect President Clinton's role as the nation's leader.

Most Presidents, actually, have found Congress much more often an obstacle to their plans and policies than an ally. Reagan stands out because of his ability to go over the heads of Congress to the American people, but frankly no one today demonstrates such skill. No, Obama does not have that skill, because he lacks the moral weight and rhetorical wit to carry the day past the first wave of resistance. No, Hillary Clinton's shrill and cackling delivery will not achieve success with the people. McCain's angry bark will reflect a bitter, narcissistic man, not a leader.

The one thing I am sure of, for the 2009-12 term of our next President, is that the years will be rancorous and ineffective in the main, except where exceptional need or duplicitioous greed compels or sways some new venture. That, and that we the people will get the bill for it.

McCain Blows It – Again

During an appearance in Cincinnati, Senator John McCain discovered that the talk radio host who was warming up the crowd referenced Senator Barack Hussein Obama by his full name, sharply criticized Obama’s connections to Chicago political sharks, and mocked Obama’s empty rhetoric in the face of the threat from Terrorism.

In response, McCain immediately apologized to the Democrats and repudiated the talk show host.

“I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them," he said. "My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator (Hillary Rodham) Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign."

McCain called both Democrats "honorable Americans" and said, "I want to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about them."

This is much kinder than what Democrats have been doing, trashing President Bush with lies and character smears. One wonders why Senator McCain never rose to call the Democrats on their conduct, yet is so quick to apologize to them. One wonders, as well, why McCain’s determination to show respect to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was never mirrored by respect for fellow Republicans Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

At best, McCain blew yet another test of his ideals and character. At worst, he showed colors wholly unsuited to the GOP’s nominee for President. Either way McCain has once again damaged his prospects by attacking Conservatives instead of the real enemy.

My Primary Vote

I am a firm believer in citizens’ duty to vote, so I went out today and early-voted in the Republican Primary. Partly because there are a lot of races at the state and local and county level which need attention, but also because even with the current weasel-fest, a vote matters.

So, besides the other races, platform decisions and issues, I cast my vote for Mitt Romney to be the Republican Party nominee for President. It occurred to me that it might be worth discussion, that decision.

I am still undecided, frankly, about whether I will vote for John McCain this fall if he – as expected – wins the GOP nomination. I fully understand the ramifications of not supporting the Republican in a race, where the Democrat would clearly be far worse. But for now, in the primary, the decision was easy – even out of the race, Romney did more to convince me he was fit and suited for the job, while McCain did not even make the effort to earn my vote.

When the votes are tallied, I fully expect McCain to have ‘won’ Texas. That makes my vote more important, than less. If enough people vote as I did, maybe McCain will ‘win’ by something less than a convincing margin, and it would send an appropriate message, for McCain to find that voters prefer some of the guys already out of the race, to the fake conservative from Arizona. John McCain might get my vote this fall, but he will have to earn it. I think there are many of us who feel that way, and it’s up to John to show he has learned that he needs conservatives to win and direct his campaign accordingly, not for us to knuckle under to threats or scare tactics.