An Open Letter to President Bush - I

[[[]]]

A website called deargeorgeletters.com is compiling a project to write and display letters to the President. Here’s what I wrote:


Dear Mr. President:

It’s been a long four years, Mister President, but you’ve done well. But now is the time to continue that effort to seal the victory and mark the way for the next generation of Americans. You are right, and you have the support of the people who are doing the heavy lifting, never forget that.

Your enemies insult you, because they cannot produce a better answer than your policies. Your rivals deride you, because they see a greatness they cannot match. Do not pay heed to polls created by people paid to find failure or blame America. Do not worry about what people who spent more time and money choosing their clothes than building a base of knowledge, just because they get in front of a camera.

You are, sir, simply the most effective President since Ronald Reagan, and in many ways you have the same opportunity to set the world right in a way no one else possibly could.

Stay strong, stay confident, stay on course. Don’t ever give up.

Respectfully,

DJ Drummond

We Owe These Guys

*****__________
*****__________
*****__________


If I mention the following names, what do you suppose they have in common?

Sergeant Mike Meiner
Sergeant Brian Wilhelm
Sergeant Mike McNaughton
Airman 1st Class Scott Pizzifred
Airman 1st Class Scott Palomino
Marine Corporal James Eddie Wright
Army Specialist Danielle Green
Buck Sergeant Keith Wolverton
Marine Corporal Casey Owens
Navy Corpsman Jose “Doc” Ramos


Any thoughts? You might suspect these are people who all served in the War on Terror, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They also are combat veterans who were disabled, often requiring amputations. They are mentioned here, because of the efforts of these people:

Dick Lynch, founder of IMPACT
Dan Goodale, West Coast Director of IMPACT
Larry Boyd, IMPACT General Chairman
Christian Okoye, Kansas City Chiefs and early IMPACT organizer
Jake Plummer, Denver Broncos
Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears
Mike Lee (pro bullrider)
Mike Shanahan, Denver Broncos
Reuben Droughns, Denver Broncos
Champ Bailey, Denver Broncos
John Lynch, Denver Broncos
Arnold Palmer, Pro Golf legend
Brian Kilmeade, Fox News
Ben Crenshaw, PGA star
The Buffalo Bills Football Club, NFL
Isiah Thomas, NBA star
The Cincinnati Bengals Football Club, NFL
Jeff Gordon, NASCAR
President George W. Bush
Darryl Grant, musician
Pat Bowlen, CEO Denver Broncos
Rudolph Giuliani
Junior Seau, Miami Dolphins
The New York Yankees Baseball Club, MLB
Carl Peterson, folksinger
The New York Knicks Basketball Club, NBA
George Strait, country singer
The Washington Redskins Football Club, NFL
Bob McNair, owner Houston Texans
Houston Force, Professional Softball Team
The Houston Texans Football Club,NFL
Jimmie Johnson, Hall of Fame Coach
The Miami Dolphins Football Club, NFL
David Carr, Houston Texans
Andre Johnson, Houston Texans
Joe Nemechek, pro Motocross driver
Greg Bifle, NASCAR
Zach Thomas, Miami Dolphins
Jason Taylor, Miami Dolphins
Scottie Pippen, NBA Hall of Famer
David Stern, NBA Commissioner
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor New York City
John Peyton, Mayor Jacksonville Florida

These people are all direct supporters and participants in Impact Player Partners, which honors and provides support to American military personnel who are severely injured or disabled. Impact Player Partners arranges for these brave heroes to meet with their favorite sports and entertainment personalities, and to honor these veterans before, during, or after sporting and entertainment events. Impact Player Partners also provides career, emotional, and financial support to these veterans, including transportation and lodging expenses for family members visiting their injured loved one, uncovered medical expenses or prosthetic device upgrades, and assistance to help with loss of income. They plan to build at least one home per years for an injured war on terror hero. You can help be a part of this. Simply go to Impact Player.org , read up on these guys and what they are doing, and help where you can. The easiest way is to buy some of their “Impact a hero” wristbands, like I just did.


“When I saw the stumps, I thought, ‘Damn, both of them? ‘ Then I looked at my leg and I was trying to figure how to put a tourniquet on it because I didn’t have any hands.” - Marine Corporal James “Eddie” Wright


The Summit Daily News summed it up with its headline:

“We owe this to these guys”.

Resolve

[][][][]

The 2005 Baseball season for the Baylor Bears is over. The Bears dropped a heart-breaking 4-3 decision to the Texas Longhorns last night in a College World Series 'Bracket Final' game. Along the way however, Baylor had a thrilling run. At one time holding a record of only 8-7, the Bears got their house in order and finished with a great 19-8 Big XII record, good enough to tie Nebraska for the Conference regular-season title. The 39-21 record after the Big XII Conference Tournament was not only good enough to earn an at-large berth to the NCAA Regionals, but to host as the #1 seed in the Waco Regional, which the Bears won in three straight games. Against Clemson in the Super-Regionals, the Bears lost the first game in the best-of-three matchup, but came back to not only win the next two games but dominate. That earned Baylor’s ticket to the College World Series, for the first time since 1978.

After a 5-1 loss to arch-nemesis Texas and a come-from-behind 4-3 win in extra innings over Oregon State, the Bears found themselves in an elimination game against top-ranked and top-seeded Tulane, who carried 56 wins on their record into the game. I spent Tuesday evening watching the game and following online messages from Baylor fans as the game progressed. This is also why I did not blog yesterday; I spent the day recovering!

Tulane started the game with a foul-out, a single, a strike-out, a throwing error by Baylor that moved the runner to second, then another strikeout. The Bears, home team for this game, started by reaching on a Tulane error, which looked good but didn’t blossom. A fielder’s choice took out the lead runner, followed by a caught stealing and a pop-up. Everyone settled down for a long game. Then Baylor’s version of ‘Titanic Meets Iceberg’ happened.

In the second inning, Madden singled for Tulane through the right side. Bogusevic moved him over to 2nd with a Sac bunt. Then Dini singled, and Tulane got their first run. 1-0 Tulane, and there was an annoying unhappiness from the Baylor fans, not many but they shouldn’t have been grumbling off just one run.

Things quickly got worse. On a 1-1 pitch, Hamilton homered for Tulane, and just like that it was 3-0 Tulane. When Holland grounded out to the Shortstop, it looked like Baylor would recover with limited damage, but Southard reached on a throwing error, all the way to 2nd, and then he stole 3rd. Emaus walked, putting men on the corners and that brought up Manzella, who singled through the middle to move Emaus to 2nd and score Southard, unearned but still 4-0 Tulane.

The online messages were distinctly bitter at this point, in large part giving up. More than a few of the fans left the board and did not return, clearly giving up on a top 5 team and its season, with more than two-thirds of the game still to go.

Did I mention it got worse? Owings reached on another Baylor error, which allowed Manzella and Emaus to score unearned runs. 6-0 Tulane. Madden struck out to end the Tulane 2nd, but they had batted around and put a half-dozen runs on the board, the most Baylor had given up since the regular season. The ESPN announcers, particularly Harold Reynolds, were saying Baylor could not come back. With 7 innings to go, most of the fans and both ESPN announcers have flat-out given up. “Warm up the bus” quipped Reynolds, enjoying an undeserved slap at the Bears. The Bears got walks on both sides of a one-out double by Russo, but couldn’t bring anyone in to score.

The third and fourth innings passed without notable events. One hit and one walk for Baylor during that span, but no solid results. Tulane settled in to protect a large lead, planning on conservative baseball. In the fifth inning, Madden walked after 2 outs, and a Bogusevic double sent him home to score Tulane’s 7th run. The Bears got the third out when Dini grounded out, but could not manage anything in the bottom of the inning. In the sixth inning, Holland singled but otherwise Tulane was quiet. The Bears went 1-2-3 in the sixth, and the announcers duly noted that in 2005, Tulane had never lost when leading after six innings. Reynolds repeatedly suggested that Baylor start playing its bench so that the young players could say they had played in a CWS game. Online, perhaps five fans remained, stubbornly hoping against the odds that the Bears could make a comeback like they did earlier in the year, like the May 13th game when the Bears trailed Texas A&M 8-0 but came back to win 10-9. Sometimes, wishing for the impossible gets granted.

Tulane went 1-2-3 in the seventh inning. At first, the Bears seemed to have nothing new, as Fortenberry struck out. But Witt made it to 1st on a fielding error, and moved to 3rd when Sevigny doubled to left center. A wild pitch allowed Witt to score and Sevigny to move to 3rd, and Baylor was on the board, trailing Tulane by a 7-1 score with 8 outs left to use. Griffin then doubled down the line and Sevigny scored. 7-2. Then Reynolds singled to center field and griffin scored. 7-3. Tulane changed pitchers and Ford popped up. Brees got a single into right field, but when Dillon popped up the inning was over. But with six outs left, the Bears had done some real damage.

Tulane knew it needed to grab the momentum back, but while Hamilton got a single up the middle, it came after the first two batters struck out and popped up. A fielder’s choice ended the Tulane eighth. After Russo flied out, Fortenberry smacked the first pitch he saw up the middle for a single. Witt singled through the left side, and that moved Fortenberry to 2nd. Sevigny struck out swinging for the second out, but in a double steal, Witt stole 2nd and Fortenberry stole 3rd. When Griffin smacked a single through the left side, Witt and Fortenberry scored. Reynolds on ESPN admitted the double steal was a brilliant move; it made the score possible, especially since Reynolds next grounded out to end the inning. But now it was 7-5 with 3 outs left apiece and everybody realized the game was very much in play.

It can be a very tough order, getting your offense moving on short notice. While Tulane knew after the seventh inning that they needed to get going, making it happen was something else entirely. Now with their splendid 7-run lead cut all the way down to 2, they felt real pressure. Southard grounded out to second, Emaus and Manzella popped up, and Tulane knew it would all come down to their pitching and fielding. The stands were loud and excited, and suddenly while both sides wore green, you couldn’t shake the feeling that the Rosenblatt fans were Bearish.

Ford started the Baylor ninth by singling through the right side. That brought the potential tying run to the plate, something which had seemed impossible just a little while earlier. Tulane changed pitchers, bringing in Morgan. The Bears brought in a pinch runner, sending Mandel in for Ford to get extra speed on the base paths. Brees followed with a single through the left side, moving Mandel to 2nd. That put the potential tying run on base, and the potential winning run came to the plate for Baylor in the person of Dillon. The Bears sent Gerdes in to pinch run for Brees, again playing all-in to score the runs they needed in their last chance. Dillon doubled down the right field line, but Tulane played it well enough that only one run scored, as Mandel touched the plate. Dillon was at 2nd, and Gerdes reached 3rd. It was now 7-6, with Baylor players at 2nd and 3rd and nobody out. Tulane sent Gomes in to pitch, replacing Morgan. Gomes walked Russo on purpose, hoping to set up a double play opportunity. It was pretty smart, with Baylor already having the tying run at 3rd and the potential winning run at 2nd. The guy at 1st was just a detail, it seemed. When Fortenberry popped up to the Shortstop, the move looked even smarter. If Gomes could coax the right ground ball out of Witt, a double play could end the game with a Tulane win, and all the Baylor noise wouldn’t change that. When Witt hit a slow bouncing ground ball to the second baseman, it looked like Tulane had wrapped it up.

But while the second baseman tagged the base for the 2nd out, he suddenly realized that Witt was running faster than he thought. If Witt beat the throw to 1st, then Gerdes’ tying run from 3rd would count and tie the game. So, he threw a little harder to get the ball there. The throw was just a smidge high and the first baseman couldn’t catch it, as the umpire signaled Witt safe at 1st base. Gerdes indeed scored from 3rd, but with the ball bouncing away from the first baseman, Dillon came around at full speed touching 3rd base and rounding the course to get home for the winning score before the first baseman could get hold of the errant baseball. Just like that, 8-7 Baylor wins, final.

If you’re not a baseball fan, what I wrote may not seem all that interesting, but it has parallels in Life as well. The announcers at ESPN, usually professional, turned into jerks when it seemed Baylor was out of it. Many of the fans online gave up when the score looked insurmountable, and many of the paying customers at Rosenblatt became quiet and sullen, unaware of the drama yet to unfold. But the Baylor fans and the announcers should have realized that Baylor had indeed earned its place at the College World Series, as well as their national ranking and NCAA seed. That was not coincidence, but the result of attributes that the team called upon all year, discipline and confidence and yes, resolve.

I noted at the start that Baylor followed that incredible win with a loss to Texas, and they are now packed up and done for the season. So, why brag about one win when they lost the chance for the National title? Because baseball teaches lessons if you pay attention, and part of that is to recognize what you have done along the way. The Conference co-title, the Regional and Super Regional triumphs, and a seriously valid national run all still stand. As for that 4-3 loss to Texas, hey it was 3-2 Baylor late in the game. Hats off to Texas for gutting it out; sometimes a game’s results doesn’t mean anybody lost, but rather that one team found an extra strength and determination and resolve to win. Way to go Texas, but way to go Bears as well.

Whether we’re talking baseball or the life it imitates, we should all be looking for that resolve, and how to use it.

Guest Workers

/[]
Republicans and Democrats alike have chided President Bush for not tightening immigration controls, especially the border with Mexico. More than a couple political theorists suggest that a Democrat could win the White House in 2008 by running “to the right” of the GOP on the issue of Immigration, by pursuing a sterner position on Immigration and Border Security than has been presented up to now. The problem with such thinking is that it misses the nature of alien worker demographics in the United States, and so cannot claim a solution where it misdiagnoses the cause.

To be sure, many aliens enter the United States, legally and otherwise, for the purpose of becoming citizens here, and especially in the hope that their children will be American citizens. But observers miss key clues that show other plans and intentions of these visiting workers. A common practice by Mexican workers in the United States, especially among migrant workers, is to work in the United States and send money home to Mexico and other Latin American countries. More than a few alien workers have openly stated their plan to work in the United States until they have saved a certain amount, then return home where their money brings a relatively comfortable life. Americans themselves do that all the time; my own father once took a contract position that sent him to work in far north Alaska for eight months, because the money for the job was far better than any regular work he could get that allowed him to come home every day.

And it’s not just Latinos that do this. I have met with a large number of Asians who work hard in the United States because they can do so with few restrictions, sending as much as 80% of their earnings home. They do this by living in conditions most Americans would consider appalling, such as gong si fongs where as many as fifteen men may share a single apartment, and do little more than work, eat, and sleep. The modern convenience of wire transfers makes such finances possible.

The United States certainly suffers from this practice; the illegal workers do not pay income taxes, and the habit of using indigent services for medical and social care for families certainly taxes an overburdened system. Also, companies learn to play the game, hiding illegal workers to avoid their share of Social Security taxes and INS audits, and the habit of some to cheat their workers then report them to Immigration is a disgusting practice. But the United States also benefits from this condition, as skilled workers perform their work for far less than nominal wages, allowing regions to profit from a corrupt tradition. Reform is not going to be enough, but closing the borders would simply cause as many problems as it solves.

The proper steps, I believe, are not politically sexy but common-sense. Begin with enforcing the laws on the books. Beef up funding for the Border Patrol and INS, especially with linguists. Punish companies which abuse alien workers, make an example of two or three of them, and put real teeth into laws against smuggling people into the country, especially where their subjects have been coerced into carrying drugs or prostitution. Make it unprofitable. One immediate effect this will have, is to show our neighbors that things have changed on this particular playing field, and that will make the next steps easier to plan and make reality.

Monday

[]...

Monday is more than a day of the week. It represents picking up some tasks already in a state of momentum from the previous week, and beginning a few new projects and putting out a few new fires. And of course, every so often a bear created by a co-worker gets loose and finds its way into your territory, with the real possibility that some bears are aimed your way by your colleagues.

As my work continues towards the completion of a major project, along with the normal complement of surprises, I began to consider what a workweek in Washington is like. If nothing else, it helps me appreciate my own position.

To begin with, Washington is still abuzz with the ‘Slander The Marines’ act by Senator Durbin last Tuesday evening, followed by an absurd attempt to defend the insults. Naturally, the reverberations continued into Monday, as politicos tried to decide whether to hide from the echoes or deal with them. Being politicians, most tried to ignore the issue.

In that same vein, Congress refused to consider the appointment confirmation of John Bolton to the United Nations. Lunch and drinks were apparently much higher on the agenda.

In a political tribute to “Money For Nothing”, the Congress also waylaid discussion on Social Security Reform or Reform for the Internal Revenue Service, while staffs hurried to manage the most important priority; television interviews and fundraisers for the politicians as the July 4th break approaches.

And of course the best news; the whole day, regardless of its lack of accomplishment, was paid for by the American taxpayer.

Tuesday should be just as fun.

The Aluminati, redux

[]--[]
About a year ago, I wrote about the creation of a new class of political operatives; the Aluminati.

Over the years, becoming noticeable after the resignation of Richard Nixon and the subsequent abrogation of the U.S. promise to defend South Vietnam, the Aluminati came into influence, spreading the most irresponsible gossip and anti-American propaganda from the safe comfort of academic and journalistic bastions, free from criticism or the need to prove their case; the allegation was enough for the Left. One wonders what the Boston inflection of ‘J’accuse!’ might be.

Once established, the Aluminati fed richly off their unchallenged assertions. Claims that the Central Intelligence Agency had deliberatedly created and spread AIDS, while created from whole cloth of Leftist paranoia, nonetheless found currency among inner-city radicals and anti-American agents. The connection between Ronald Reagan and the Iranian government, though it never existed in fact, was firmly set in the minds of those pre-disposed to believe that an American President would put connivance ahead of his sworn oath. Even a Democrat President was not immune; as the end of the century approached, the completely unbalanced not only came to believe that the U.S. government was about to impose martial law and replace the American Constitution with something from the 'X-Files' for no reason or cause at all, but produced hoax tapes and fake documents to sell their story. Small wonder then, that when a Republican won the next election, the Aluminati saw the election as a coup d’tat, and when a terrorist group actually did kill thousands of Americans in a vicious act of malice, the Aluminati blamed America for the attack. Success in the War on Terror must, to their mind, be derided as failure. Authorizing the tools to be used against terrorists, already in use against gangsters and drug cartels, must be denounced as attacks on Civil Liberties. An age of unparalleled hypocrisy and hate began in 2002, not by the government but by those individuals and groups which hated the American ideal and mission.

The Aluminati knew they were losing in 2003. The fall of Baghdad was a crushing blow for thugs in Fallujah and Damascus, and also for professors in Berkeley and Senators known to Martha’s Vineyard. The Aluminati might have been unbalanced, but they were not without resources, and it is no coincidence that Michael Moore began production of his most infamous propaganda piece to counter the clear U.S. victory. It is no coincidence that Moore sided with the terrorists in Iraq; he knew their brothers as his patrons in the film industry.

Moore’s earlier success in selling lies cloaked as a documentary opened the door to a cottage industry for the Aluminati. It worked for Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and Barbra Streisand, and it allowed Jane Fonda and Sean Penn to commit treason with effective impunity. It wasn’t long before the Democrats, aware of their chronic losses in federal elections, decided to consider implementing Aluminati tactics in their campaigns. It became apparent early in the primary season, that attacks on the Republicans brought in contributions and poll support, even when those attacks were completely irresponsible and included lies about the troops and misquoted history. With the support of the television and print media, the Aluminati believed they had little reason to worry about contradiction or backlash. Fortunately, the 21st Century has produced a social antibody to the Aluminati; the New Media.

Abuses of the truth and public trust by the Old Media had become obvious to most Americans by the end of the 1980s. Even the clear disdain by the New York and Los Angelese elites against regular people and their concerns could not stop the rising popularity of Talk Radio, and the subsequent stardom of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh proved unanswerable for the Aluminati, in large part because he destroyed their contentions simply by presenting them in context, by presenting the historical facts against their claims, and by allowing regular people to say their piece. While Limbaugh at times is himself bombastic and over-the-top, he still presented a threat the Aluminati could not answer. And Limbaugh was only the first of many voices in radio. By 1999, the Aluminati could no longer present a claim with the assumption that it would be accepted simply because they said it was so.

Many people born before 1980 do not understand the full impact of the personal computer; certainly IBM blundered in not even making a true PC available until after Apple proved the market’s viability for the product. But the evolution of the Internet Community was unseen by almost everyone. The Aluminati believed that by controlling the print and television media, they could prevent any serious threat to their control of the flow of information. The creation of the FOX network proved that was incorrect but worse, the sudden rise in the ability and number of blogs showed a vector dominated not by political factions, but by the users and audience themselves. Where Old Media influence was controlled by money and patronage, the New Media depended on the coin of Credibility of the blogs. By the beginning of 2004, the number of blogs showed a strong rise, and by the end of 2004 the count had positively exploded, with speciality blogs relevant to any consideration. The Aluminati falsely compared the Bush Administration to failed economic periods and disastrous enterprises; blog economists and historians not only countered their claims, but provided compelling proof. The Aluminati lied about military morale and conditions; military on active duty themselves countered those claims with the new class of ‘Milblogs’. The Aluminati lied about the polls; statisticians and analysts ripped open contrived analyses to show flawed demographics, even the outright manipulation of the respondent pool to obtain the desired results. The Aluminati even found themselves unable to manipulate smear campaigns; an attempt to defame the Swift Boat Veterans’ criticism of John Kerry backfired as the Swift Boat Vets provided consistent and corroborated evidence to back up their claims; to this date John Kerry has not backed his contentions. Worse for the tinfoil warriors, a crass attempt by CBS to influence the 2004 Presidential Election by using forged documents to back up false claims about President Bush’s service during the Vietnam conflict backfired when document and typesetting experts, along with military clerks who served during the early 1970s and family of the supposed author countered the claims effectively. The Aluminati’s favorite weapon, to flood the airwaves with rumors and charges against Conservatives, was now worth a great deal less, as average Americans began to challenge unsupported contentions and demand evidence.

The 2004 re-election of George W. Bush, accompanied by gains in the Congress which reinforced the message, has scared the Aluminati enough that a number of Democrats have reverted to the faux Americana that got Bill Clinton elected. But a number of the Aluminati refuse to reject the tactics that brought wealth to Michael Moore and fame to Howard Dean. The easy glory from the Hard Left has become an addiction the Aluminati cannot do without, even in the face of growing evidence that America is growing more conservative, away from liberalism.

The selection of Howard Dean as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the continuing efforts by CNN and CBS to pursue an all-out policy of false accusation against the Bush Administration, and the resurgent attempts to quell free speech on the internet and in radio all show the determined if last-ditch effort to stop or slow the advance of citizen journalism. For the near future at least, the market for tinfoil accessories remains alive, however futile its mission.

Dealing With Our Ghosts

[][]
A generation ago, General Patton spoke for Americans in general when he said

“America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war”.

Patton was using hyperbole, of course. The United States actually had lost wars before, against Canada and against Red Cloud’s Sioux warriors. In the long term, however, Canada’s influence and power waned against the rising American strength, and the U.S. Army eradicated the Sioux as a tribe. Patton meant that Americans may lose a battle, but in the end will stick with a fight until it’s won. Patton never knew Walter Cronkite and the subversive style of warfare by the press. There is no question that the Left not only was delighted by the collapse of South Vietnam, nor that many on the Left were willing to commit treason to make it happen. After Nixon’s resignation, the Democrat-controlled Congress took every support out of the treaty with South Vietnam, allowing North Vietnam unopposed entry and seizure of the nation. The Leftist press chortled with glee, as tens of millions of innocents in the region fled for their lives. A reign of terror, analogous to Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’, began in Southeast Asia, largely unchronicled and unanswered.

Bruce Kesler, who writes for the Augusta Free Press, has a great article prepared, on the need for President Bush to renew the initiative to free Southeast Asia for her people, not for the despots able to hold on to their palaces through thuggery and schemes. Kesler noted the respose from Jean Libby, an American History teacher to a transcript of an interview with Prime Minister Phan Van Khai of Vietnam in the Washington Post on June 16, 2005.

“The government Phan Van Khai represents is in power because a Treaty was
violated—North Vietnam signed the agreement not to invade South Vietnam
in 1973, but invaded in 1975 because, very simply, they could. The
United States did not back up its ally, South Vietnam, because, very
simply, they couldn’t.”

“The Socialist government of Vietnam originated based on deception. The
revered hero, Ho Chi Minh, committed genocide on nationalists who wanted
a free Vietnam beginning in August, 1945. The teachers, the
intellectuals, the small property owners, the soldiers who had defeated
the colonial power, France, at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 but were not willing
to become communists were exterminated. This process began in most
earnest in June, 1961, with the establishment of concentration camps
(those were the words in Resolution #49) for the purpose of
“reeducation.” Those camps were enlarged in 1975 when an entire
population that worked and fought for democracy in Vietnam were
imprisoned, either in camps or in New Economic Zones that removed women
and the elderly from their property and confiscated it as a reward to
communist soldiers or government workers, particularly the ever-present
police.”

The cruel fact is, that this totalitarian regime is still very much in control, and has neither changed its methods nor its goals. Bruce’s article notes:

“- Dr. Pham Hong Son translated the article "What is Democracy?" from the
U.S. Embassy web site into Vietnamese and distributed it through the
Internet to his friends. He was arrested, charged with espionage and is
now in a 12 year sentence.

- Mr. Nguyen Khac Toan, a veteran, who simply helped the people write
petitions and appeals against illegal appropriation of land. He is now
serving a 4-year sentence for espionage.

- Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh, former ideology writer. He applied for permission
to form an opposition party. He's now in his 7-year sentence. Charge?
Espionage!”

President Bush will send a message when his emissaries meet with those from Vietnam. They can condone the existing regime of malice and oppression, or they can make clear that the world has changed, and with it expectations from Vietnam.

Please send a message to President Bush, to be as strong for the people of Vietnam, as he has been for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. The email address is president@whitehouse.gov, and the phone number is 202-456-1111.

Thanks to Bruce Kesler for highlighting the issue, and for remembering the victims. And especially Nguyen Chi Thien and Dr. Hai V. Tran. If you don’t know these two heroes of freedom, ask around.

Jack's Take On Dick

[][][]

Vincent Flynn changed only three words to allow Colonel Nathan R. Jessep (as played by Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men”) to explain his opinion of Senator Durbin:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Senator Durbin? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Al Queda, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the detainees suffering, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. "

I sure wish a real Marine would get the chance to say something along those lines to the Senator.

Homeland Update

[]
[]
My series on Homeland will continue, but investigation and consideration of the factors and relevant trends makes it necessary to push back the next few entries.
[]
[]

"By Any Means Necessary"

./\.
I saw this phrase on another board, used justify radical change in an area the poster believe had become extremely unjust. I didn’t like that phrase however; it bothered me on a deeper level, and I thought for a while about why that should be.

Don’t misunderstand me, please. I’m a student of History, enough to know that when reforms and corrections are not made within a certain frame of time, a backlash happens. I am also comfortable with sometimes-radical change, especially when the alternative is true disaster. But that phrase is far too easy to use to justify any sort of behavior. In fact, something very like it was used to justify the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11, something very like it was used to justify napalming villages, something very like it was used to justify countless wars and purges. It was essentially the motive behind both the Jihad that swept across southern Europe in the 7th through 10th Centuries, and also for the Crusades that swept back the other way into the Middle East. It was the excuse for the Salem Witch Trials, and the pogroms against the Jews, Gypsies, Indigenous people in many places, and whenever an opposing force was met.

I simply cannot agree with the phrase; it’s too broad and too bloody. It’s used to justify anyone, anywhere, for anything.

Many people have commented on the unfortunate differences between the early Christians, and modern ones. Three major differences concern me the most. The first century of Christendom went fully after Christ’s example, becoming essentially a tribe of families who shared everything they had and considered each other equals regardless of race, social status or any other superficial element. Second, they went everywhere with the Gospel, spreading it quickly and far; evidence of Christendom spread throughout the Roman empire, as well as Africa and parts of Asia by the end of the 1st Century CE. But most of all, the Christians endured relentless and terrible persecution, dying rather than renouncing their faith, and enduring the worst sorts of torture ever known to man. Compare that to today, when many social Christians appear to begrudge charity, where the Gospel is not often take outside the neighborhood, and then usually by “prayer warriors” more likely to impose the Gospel on someone than share it with them, and the mildest insult becomes a prized battle scar for the contentious advocate. It is a terrible thing to consider that Jesus may have had many modern Christians in mind when He said, “They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.” (John 16:3).

My point is, a small group of believers, outrageously persecuted through no fault of their own, nearly wiped out simply for being who they were, survived not by retaliation or malice, but through devoted application of their faith, effectively showing the truth of their faith through endurance. Their way was not “by any means necessary”, but only by the means they accepted as right and good. I honestly believe that God protects those people who will not desert their faith in Him, holding fast against the lure of power and influence and wealth, and also against the torment of harassment, the oppression from mortal forces, and the loss of present gain. This is true, whether one is speaking of the Christians or another faith, Jews or another nation, dominant cultures or repressed ones. It is not the ends which matter, but the methods.

Jedi Businessman

///
It has been said of the new Star Wars movie, that the Empire is the Conservative Right, and the Jedis are, well, something else. That doesn't work for me, actually. Looking through all six movies, what I see is that the Empire is a focused effort to seize power for its own reward, while the Jedi serve a greater cause, and the world at large.

So, what do I mean by Jedi businesmen? We live in a world of corporations and trade agreements. The United States and China do not compete militarily very much, but are active partners and rivals in world commerce. The dominant question for most Americans is how well they can take care of their families, financially. And the definition for success in most eyes depends on the standard of living attained.

Clearly, this is a superficial way of thinking, but because of the number of people involved and the pervasive impact money has on lives in general, it needs to be considered., Returning to the movies' as an example, see how often the Jedi offered a deal, in place of conflict? Obi-wan did this in the bar at Mos Eisley, and negotiated well with Han Solo. Luke made the offer to Jabba the Hutt before taking him down, and Qui-Gon made offers to resolve conflicts with the Trade Federation. It may be reasoned that the Jedi kept their word, and so a deal would have been as advertised, good for all parties. So in Jedi, to be a businessman depends on keeping your word and seeking advantage for all parties. Even in a suit and tie, if one keeps honor, one may be Jedi.

Homeland: Race Relations

.{}{}.
Almost two centuries after the nation’s founders wrote words promising equality for all men, the United States still had to address basic rights of minorities. Even with the Civil Rights Act, the clear disparity in how Race is addressed in the United States is one of the most dangerous long-term problems the country faces. Worse, the problem has grown in complexity, even as the initial issues are finally being settled.

Through advancements in the law, minorities enjoy the same rights as majority races, but that is not the same thing as equal conditions or opportunities. Unfortunately, this is not something which can be addressed with law, but which requires cultural adjustment.

During the first century of the United States, immigrants understood that to succeed they needed to assimilate. In the U.S., this should not mean losing the culture of their race, but it does mean accepting the American identity. Since the dominant culture has often expected participants to act in the fashion they found acceptable, there has been a clash about where the line is drawn; for many decades, immigrants were compelled to change their appearance and dress to conform to expectations, but now there has been a backlash, where minorities who attempt to succeed through excelling at the practices of the dominant culture are attacked and insulted for their success, as sell-outs. The determination of where to draw the line should depend on the individual’s decision and commitment, but there is a lot of work to do on that count.

Worse is the now-chronic problem of gangs. There is, simply put, no longer any race, neighborhood, or region of the country which is immune to gangs, and racist gangs are increasing in size, number, and violence. Predatory recruiting practices make families everywhere concerned, and the knowledge that a child may be attacked simply for their skin color, makes it that much harder to establish cooperation and trust between races. And that affects the nation's future at its core.

Homeland: The Dominant Culture

.[].
When the United States formed their Republic in the 18th Century, the notion of citizenship was restricted to White Land-Owning Men. In some measure, idealism was a healthy part of the new government, but self-service was certainly part as well. The advantage for the Americans, was that their own reluctance to advance their own ideals was no worse than the intransigence in Europe and Asia. It also helped that the Americans were willing to work together beyond state boundaries, where the other continents still fought wars over tariffs and trade disputes.

Whatever one thinks of the man as a politician, it is beyond debate that Andrew Jackson was a man of strong will and mind. The same fellow who invited the whole of the city of Washington to visit the White House upon his inaugeration, practically compelled the creation of a party to oppose the staid party of George Washington, and began the balancing act which has driven American politics ever since. The next upheaval came with Lincoln, the avatar of the party of true reform, the Republicans. While he meant to save the Union as his ultimate goal, Lincoln destroyed Slavery in the process, and began the forced acceptance of Equal Rights on a broader level.

Civil Rights in the United States has come a long way, but historically it is still very much in its infancy. To be male, white, and own property in the United States is still a clear advantage, culturally. Counter-culture is successful as a niche market, but the real money and power still comes from the same historical base. It’s why every President has been white, male, and a landowner. It’s why the image of American power still looks like something the founding fathers could have predicted. Overall, however, the dominance of power and money is becoming dependant on collaboration and mutual objectives by separate cultures.

Homeland

[]_[]_[]

The United States is not understood by most of the world, which is why most of the world does not like or respect the United States. Unable to fathom American thinking, other nations find themselves applying their own perspective to our conditions, and when we do not do as they expect, they become suspicious and cynical of our stated goals and intentions, partly because of old U.S. history, and more often because of their own bitter experience.

In some ways, the United States is the senior partner for the planet. I say this not only because the United States has runs its country for the longest period under the same system of government (every nation on the planet besides the US, has changed its form of government since the US created its Constitution in 1783) , but because most nations which actually operate under the terms of their Constitution, modeled that Constitution after the U.S. Constitution. This means that nations are comparing an effectively short history of their own, to the relatively stable and trail-blazing standard of the Americans.

But it is also true that the United States is a new nation, in many ways. First off, while the U.S. form of government has enviable stability and success, as a people the Americans continue to grow and change. The most common thinking in 21st Century America was rare only a century ago, to say nothing of comparing the demographics of today’s average American to the colonial populace of 1781. The United States is also a strange bird to many other nations. The countries of antiquity are generally recognized by the nationality of their people - that is, the Greeks, Russians, Chinese and so forth are identified culturally much more than by their political functions. To most of the world, a country defined by its immigrants is beyond their comprehension. The United States, on the other hand, is constantly changing, as the races and nationalities of its people continue to change in proportion and interaction. It has been noted that only in America do Jews and Palestinians coexist peacefully, only in America do Serbs and Croats carry no feuds, only in America may people from both Taiwan and Beijing expect equal respect and treatment for their person.

After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Government created a new authority for National Defense; the Department of Homeland Security. It was a strange sounding name for many people, but it identified a new self-image for America - we are a homeland. But where other nations are homelands for a race or ethnicity, America is a homeland for an ideal. We are a collaborative nation, made up of many parts and members, each worthy in its own right and possessing not only a unique identity, but a special place in the functioning homeland of the United States.

Over the coming week, I intend to examine the character and interests of some of the major groups participating in our homeland. But make no mistake; the emerging identity of America in the 21st Century is already coalescing, and this must be the focus of government planning and direction.

The Call

( [] )

It's a strange thing, being a blogger. Sometimes I can almost respect the lives and work of journalists, if I could believe the majority of them were half as serious about the commitment to accuracy, consistency, and simply respecting the ideals of the nation in the pursuit of a story, as bloggers are. Since I first began to write on blogs last spring, I have occasionally been contacted by various people in various places, offering me insight into their positions and experience, on the condition that I respect their privacy and protect their anonymity. Fortunately, I have always been able to agree to this provision; I would never protect anyone guilty of a crime or advocating violence, nor anyone acting in opposition to the traditional responsibilities of the military, government, or similarly authoritative positions, but the people who contact me hold the same sort of ideals. Apparently, only Newsweek and the Washington Post hear from people whose sense of responsibility and conscience are lond dead. Friday evening, I got a call that fell into that no man's land between details which cannot be revealed, and something that screams to be told.

The Intelligence Community of the United States is something of a maze, an enigmatic mess of groups and agencies, even for many of the men and women who work in it. Without a prolonged discussion which would bore the tears out of most people, the Intel guys basically fall into five types: The Technical and Logistics crews who make the tools and supplies that make Operations possible; the Field agents of various classes who get the information, the Analysts who sort out the information and prepare reports, warnings, advisories, and recommendations, the Politicians who represent the agencies in their dealings with Congress and the President, and the Money guys, whose main plan is always to get the agency they work for a bigger budget and larger share of the power pie. You think the office politics is bad where you work, think for a few minutes about what this arrangement is like, especially given the incestuous habit some guys have of collecting Congressional patrons in exchange for, well, "inside" information, which used to lead to leaks whcih endangered the security, even the lives, of real agents, in a way the Plame affair scarcely imagines.

Anyway, I'm of an age where I know a few old friends who went one way when I went another, and as a result I got a call on Friday from an old bud who used to work in the field, and now gets to write reports for some of the higher-ups. Since he and I are pretty much law-&-order types, there's no juicy secrets here about the War on Terror. He doesn't get chatty about details, and I don't plan on breaking trust with anyone who not only carries a gun, but who has saved my butt in more than one way.

But in case you were wondering how well the War is really going, my buddy assures me of a few interesting points:

[] Coalition morale is high, for good reason.

[] Zarqawi may be alive and on the run. But his network is really, really messed up, however. One of his lieutenants has been nicknamed "Snitch-Life", which won't translate well to fascist terrorist, no matter how they try.

[] Osama bin Laden hasn't been heard from since Howard Dean was taken seriously for a good reason.

[] A new group may be expected to soon start claiming credit for "insurgent" attacks in Iraq. This represents new desperation, rather than organization.

[] Syria will have electrical problems in a number of places this summer.

[] Don't be surprised to see raids on Madrassahs in Jordan, Lebanon, even Iran in coming weeks.

IOW, we're winning, so expect a lot of whining from the Left.

And thanks guys, out in deep center.

Munderings About Taxes

[[[]]]
It’s pretty hard, trying to make sense of Liberal ideas. Not surprising to me, given how poorly Liberal ideas have performed historically. Especially where Money is concerned. After all, in 21st Century terms, American Liberalism is about Class Warfare, the notion that simply succeeding is wrong and should be punished. The whole tax structure in the United States is about hitting people harder, the better they do for themselves. If anyone thinks this makes sense, Howard Dean is counting on your vote. For anyone as unhappy with the notion of freedom only for people running on envy and bitterness as I am, this issue needs a closer look.

Nobody wants to be poor. And most of us are sensitive to the plight of the truly needy. But the truly needy are not defined by people complaining because they don’t want to work a job like regular people, who complain because the house they own isn’t nice enough to please them, or they feel entitled not to the car they have, but to a new car whenever they feel like it. It’s not a right to demand luxury, anymore than we owe cable television to prison inmates, or tax benefits to fringe groups simply for being a minority. It’s also not a right, to hate people simply for having money. The thing is, the “hate the rich” act has been around for a long time. People tend to miss the distinction between the American and French Revolutions; the American Revolution was begun in large part by businessmen who wanted the British Government to just let them live their lives and treat them as equals. The French Revolution was begun mostly by starving peasants, so enraged at the Aristocracy that they simply murdered them wholesale; all the myth about Napoleon was more about the tyrannic subversion of the people by the more unscrupulous manipulators in their midst. The American Revolution is about the Republican Party really, while the French Revolution is about the Democrats.

This is not to say that the Republicans have been pure and true to their promises at all things; ask any Libertarian about the Federal deficit and the last few Appropriations bills, and you’ll get a lot of reaction. But ever since John Kennedy was President, the Democrats have begun that long, deep slide into absolute abrogation of their duties, and never more than in a basic understanding of Economics.

A lot of commentors like to claim that a country’s money should be handled the same way one would handle a family’s money, but personally I’m not spending family money on armed forces, roads, and vaccine development for the Avian flu, so that comparison doesn’t really hold up. National revenue comes from taxes for the most part, and the question naturally should be focused on how much is the right amount. The latest budget is, if my memory is right, $2,600,000,000,000.00 - that’s one year of federal spending, folks. Dividing that by 300 million citizens would be a hefty share for each person, but that doesn’t recognize that we’re really talking about only 145 million taxpayers, so the punch is really more than twice as hard. And that does not include state, county, local, sales, and school taxes.

It’s time for us all to pay much closer attention to how much money is coming out of our paychecks, and where it’s going. Now may not be a good time to mention that tax money pays for not only Presidential candidates, but other federal office seekers as well.

No Kings In Asia

_-_-_

Jim Hoagland has written an interesting article for The Washington Post, but necessarily the way he intended. Mr. Hoagland’s article, titled “Whose Asian Century?”, examines the race between China and India for economic dominance in Asia. This is an interesting thought, but I found reason to question Mr. Hoagland, using his very reasons in application to his column. I found a number of statements which don’t bear up well to inspection.

Mr. Hoagland began by saying of China, “empires unravel, usually from within.” However, that was not the case of England, which became a Constitutional Republic of sorts, though not as we Americans call it. And as for Egypt, Rome, France, Russia, and the original Chinese Empires? They fell after costly wars against nations intent on invading/destroying them. Mr. Hoagland’s warning only becomes salient, if we find a military expedition headed in the direction of Beijing.

Defending the claim that India, not China, is headed for regional supremacy in commerce and industry, Hoagland writes “Current straight-line projections of China's rise to power neglect developments and adjustments in other Asian countries, particularly in the region's two great democracies, India and Japan.”

OK, first off: Does anybody else here see the difficulty in putting India and Japan on the same page, in strategic terms, or of comparing either of these countries to the United States, politically? There’s a reason neither Japan nor India has met its promise in the past half-century, and their governments have a lot to do with it. In Japan, there’s not so much a democracy as an oligarchy, a rigidly controlled network or ministries which approve every tissue for a sneeze, almost. Far too regulated and controlled to react to spontaneous opportunities, or to give entrepreneurs real freedom to explore new tactics. As for India, they’re a Democracy all right, in the same way Greece is a Democracy. There’s practically no order at all, which scares off a lot of investment because there is no regulation for critical industries. Ask the Wharton School of Business and they’ll assure you yes, they study Japan and India, but they do not envy them.

Hoagland then makes a statement I might have agreed with 15 years ago, but not now: “Politically, China is ruled by Leninists who must maintain the status quo. Militarily it relies on a large, underequipped land army. Economically it has adapted and mastered Henry Ford's assembly line on a continental scale. Financially it hordes its cash, regulates its markets with zeal and defensively uses fiscal policy to prevent mass upheaval.” All of those statements are true at one level, but they fail to understand the critical creation of Autonomous Precincts. These are largely ignored by Western observers, because there is no true political or military autonomy in those regions, and in places like Nepal “autonomy” is no more than a big lie. But in Canton and certain other precincts, especially the Hong Kong and Macau regions, the business climate is slowly changing to allow some real innovation. Chinese leaders, whether Manchu warlords or Wen Jiabao’s committees of industry, like to have their perks, and China rewards those who bring in capital investment. It’s not enough to make China a global power in commerce, but it is an underestimated factor.

Asia is more than China; Mr. Hoagland got that much right. But he has a lot more to learn, before handing crowns to Japan or India.

More About the Christian Identity

[][][]

In my last entry, I seem to have confused some people on the issue of who goes to heaven, and how. Good, this is a complex point, and one which should be examined through discussion.

Make no mistake, I am committed to Christ, and I whole-heartedly recommend the faith to anyone seeking meaning and purpose to their existence. But a lot of Christians seem to be cultural Christians, accepting a version that may well be different form the role Christ meant for us, and there I find it necessary to discuss whom we are meant to be, as well as a glimpse at some of Heaven’s more surprising tenants.

First the basic question; is it necessary to be a Christian in order to enter Heaven? The answer seems easy, until you think about it.

First, who is Jesus Christ? Jesus said plainly, that if you know Him you know the Father. He was, is, and ever will be God, Who chose of His own volition and love to walk among us, as one of us. Accordingly, it is impossible to reject Christ yet love God. It would be easier to demand a life without oxygen, yet demand no complications in breathing.

The tricky part, however, is when we deal with the matter of ‘rejecting’ Christ. There are those people who clearly hate Christ, but many who do not choose to become Christians, do so for reasons which are hard to criticize and more, recognizing that God is merciful and seeks to show compassion to all of us, means that we must be very, very slow to consider a person lost to God.

The Bible provides clues to how people can get to Heaven by less-traveled ways. In the Old Testament, a number of non-Jews are portrayed in a light which suggests God was pleased with them, including the Pharoah whom Joseph served, Nebuchadnezzar, the Queen of Sheba who knew Solomon, and King Xerxes. The fact that God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham also shows a commitment on God’s side, which is not conditional on Man’s behavior, a point which needs to be understood and reinforced. Paul wrote that we Christians were grafted onto the vine of that promise, not supplanting it but growing alongside it. Also, it needs to be understood that God is not a pawn for technicalities; the thief on the cross was never baptized but was truly saved anyway, as one obvious example. If God means to grant heaven to any person, there is no man qualified to deny that act.

The rapture also shows a signal to the matter. If we Christians are to be raptured as it seems, and so receive our measure at the Bema seat, then what of the passage in Revelation which says that men would be judged by what they did. If a man who does not become a Christian in this mortal life has no hope, then why go through the pretense of a judgment; all remaining after the Rapture would be lost! Also, we see in Scripture many times the promise that we will reign with Christ. Reign over whom, if the only people in Heaven are Christians?

Thus, we hit an impasse. I cannot agree that a man may enter Heaven on his works, because even if a man could live a life with no errors or mistakes, the strength and ability to do good comes only from God, and so the man would earn no credit for himself as a result of his works. And if Christ is not the Savior of the entire world, why would God have made such an effort and why would He bear such pain? That cannot be correct, either.

Here is what seems right to me, with the caution that I speak only from my own understanding, which is flawed as all human minds are to some degree: We all must at some point consider Christ and the Gospel, and make our choice. Some will reject Him totally, but I do not think that will be the case for all, nor even most. Some will accept Him fully, and their faith will shine brightly indeed. These are the elders we see in Revelation, and the people whose seats will be in the presence of God, not only for their faith and pure spirit, but because of the natural desire everyone has to be with people like themselves. Those who follow God the most closely will desire Him the most, and God will delight in those who, He knows the best through their choice.

The rest of us will all accept Christ, in what means we are able. The Christian will see Him as Lord, the Jew (eventually) as Messiah, and all the world will come to know Him by His right and worth. And this will determine our place and course in the world to come. We who are Christians in this world, are called to spread the Gospel, by word but more by deed, showing the love and hope we claim to everyone, freely confessing that all we know for goodness comes from Jesus, but never condemning anyone for their doubt and reluctance. After all, during Christ’s time on Earth, Peter denied Him, his earthly brother James did not believe His divinity, and Thomas was a cynic indeed. Yet all of them came around in their time, just as did Paul, who spent months if not years persecuting Christians and denying the essential truths. Who is to say where the life roads may lead for those who now say they cannot believe? We must serve as we are able, and bless as we have ourselves been blessed.

The answer is imperfect, but in this life all such answers must be.

The Christian Role In Heaven

[][][][][][][]

A friend of mine who does not happen to be Christian, has asked about the Christian view of where people go if they are not Christian. The question is sticky, since it suggests a general answer would be applicable to every individual person, but a few things should be considered as indicators of God's will, I think.

One thing that people trip over is the line from Jesus, saying "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). A lot of exclusionists try to use that verse and others like it, to say that everyone must adopt their specific doctrine, or be condemned. I think that has been largely misunderstood, and to great pain. Rather than argue from my own doctrinal understanding (which is biased on its face), I think a look at context is vital.

Let's assume, arguendo, that Jesus was properly quoted, and meant exactly what He said, and more was exactly right. Note that in the 14th Chapter of John, Jesus was meeting with His disciples for the last time, in the upper room where they had the Last Supper. This statement then, was to His disciples, personally given and face to face. The first verse of that Chapter reads "Do not let your hearts be troubled", and Jesus also specificaly promised them that "I am going there to prepare a place for you". This talk was not a warning but a word of hope and comfort.

So how does that verse get raised? Jesus promised His disciples "You know the way to the place where I am going.". The disciples naturally were worried that they would fail this point, so Thomas (the famous doubter, remember) asked "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?". It was to this question that Jesus answered "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jesus was not warning the people that they'd better follow His slightest suggestion perfectly or be burned; He was assuring His followers that they would do as He did, and go where He goes, because they could not fail, having chosen the good.

In that context, the Gospel shows the meaning of its hope and love. Now, from that Scripture, I read the matter thus:

There is bad news and good news for us all. Some think that certain words or signs will be enough to impress God, but God makes it clear that to go where the Father reigns, we must do as He wills, and that example is found in Christ, who loved, taught, shared, and gave freely. Those who do as Christ did, will not fail to receive their reward

This does not mean that sin is a lie, or that our works will be sufficient. The truth is, we all owe better than we do, no matter how much we do, so anyone who depends on their own strength or ability will fail. This is apparent, actually, even in the world we know. No matter how strong or healthy a man is, he will grow feeble and die. No matter how intelligent a man is, he will nevere know all there is to know, nor even all that is important. No matter how wealthy a man is, he will die with nothing. The only things a man may leave after himself are his family, his friends, and his work. It is no coincidence that all of those things can succeed only in cooperation with other people.

So it is with the spirit. We can never be pure enough, strong enough, or accomplish enough to pay our way. The good news is, that is not at all necessary.

The character of God is such, that none of us can say for certain that any person, no matter his reputation, was consigned to hell. We can know, however, the sort of people who are received in Heaven, and it is a great number. It is Heaven, to be clear, that we should focus on, not as a goal to be earned and acquired, but as a gift God has prepared for us.

Throughout History, Man has only known of Christ since His life on earth, and even then only in those places where Christians have faithfully spread the Gospel. A simple consideration of how many billions of people have lived since the first human, knowing that God is the Father and Creator of every one of them, can only mean that the Father has a plan for hope and glory for each of us.

This does not mean that everyone goes to Heaven, but it also does not mean that only those who carry the name "Christian" will be in Heaven. This is apparent, I think, by the covenant God made with the Jewish people. Since I do not believe God makes errors, it seems to me that God intended His covenant with Abraham to be a signal to all people, that a direct and blessed relationship with God is not only possible, but intended by His perfect will.

So, what is the meaning of Christianity? If it is not a special covenant by which all men may be saved, why are we told this in Scripture? What are we meant to be and do, we who call Jesus 'Lord'?

Two books in the New Testament address this well, I think. In Hebrews, it is written "because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood" (Hebrews 7:24. In 1 Peter, it is written "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5) and "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9).

Look at how Jesus lived on Earth; not as a moody tyrant, but among the people, helping and teaching by word and example. Is it surprising to see that His disciples are called to the same work?

Look to the Jewish Rabbis and the Catholic Priests today. Are they not set apart by every aspect of their person? They act, speak, even dress in a manner that is unique. Yet, none of them has the position to settle civil or criminal disputes (except where one is asked to do so by both parties in certain cases as a matter of respected wisdom, not by fiat), none of them issues laws to command people or compel behavior, none of them uses physical or coercive force in their teaching. The way of the priest, then, is one of example and leadership, of the accomplishment of good through cooperation and community. We are meant, here on Earth and again in Heaven, to do the work first, that others may follow a good example. The Christian in Heaven then, is tasked to show the light of Heaven, and the crowns spoken of in Revelation are no more or less than the spirit which delights in holy service.

Is there rank in Heaven? Save that God reigns, I do not know, nor care. But since we who go to Heaven will go from an imperfect and corruptible life to a perfect and incorruptible essence, we shall hope for examples of the way there, just as a man looks for good light to see his way.

The Canyon In New York

<><>
John Burns, writing for the New York Times, has an interesting, if sadly predictable, perspective on Iraq. In an article titled “Iraq’s Ho Chi Minh Trail”, Burns attempts once again to connect the War in Iraq to the conflict in Vietnam. As usuall, the analogy only holds if one’s attention is very selective, and crucial differences are ignored.

Burns begins with a short comment about the search for Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, implying that the Americans have made his capture a top goal, and commenting that even if he is caught, this will not end the insurrection, and indeed suggests that the capture of Saddam Hussein was of little value in strategy or consequence. This is laughable, of course, since it assumes that Iraq would have acted the same over the past 18 months if Saddam had been running loose, as it has in fact. It seems to me that such things as the free elections, the impressive rise in private retail businesses in Iraq, the turnover of domestic security operations in Iraq to Iraqi officers, would not be nearly as likely to have happened, were the murderous former dictator still at large.

Burns shows his flaws early, even in the title of his column. It is a poor history student indeed, who does not understand the difference between the Ho Chi Minh trail in Southeast Asia, which was never seriously intercepted by U.S. forces, and the terrorist incursion routes, which are being fought by Coalition forces.

Mr, Burns writes as if U.S. morale is low, when in fact it is strong and rising, with the clear desperation of terrorists cpparent in their tactics and targets. Some of the accounts by the media bordered on the ludicrous. Burns reported a Washington Post account, of “rebels lying on their backs in a crawl space beneath the concrete floor of a house, blasting marines above them with bullets designed to penetrate tanks.” Leaving aside the notion that a foreigner who sneaks into Iraq for the purpose of killing Iraqi civilians as well as Coalition forces should be described as a “rebel” rather than the more accurate “terrorist”, anyone mildly familiar with Physics would question the notion that bullets have been made which “penetrate tanks”; The divorce between these MSM agents and the truth is plainly evident.

A crack was made some time ago in New York’s Media, which became a ditch and now a canyon. And people like Burns just keep digging.