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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


9. What are the limits to judicial authority?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

Liars For Libel; Hollywood Still Badly Misses the Target

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separate Discriminations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


4. What are your intentions regarding Tort Reform?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, John McCain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We SHOULD Question Their Patriotism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Christ Died for Us

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Black Swan

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

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

Race and Intelligence

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

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

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

Economic Suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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