A few years ago, I had the privilege of speaking to a gentleman who worked for the Gallup Organization. We had a substantive discussion about the business and standards of opinion polling, especially with regard to elections. The gentlemen and I differed on the question of party demographics. Polls weight the responses from people according to a number of demographics in an attempt to show poll results in a context proportional to the real population. This is controversial in terms of party identification, because different polls use different weights. The key question comes down to whether people are quick or reluctant to change their party identification. Also, party identification may or may not be salient to an election’s conduct. Ronald Reagan, for example, was undeniably a Conservative in his politics, yet he won support from many Democrats, Democrats who voted for Democrats in Congressional elections but voted for Reagan as President.
This phenomenon, that party identification may or may not be a factor in support for a candidate in a given election, depends on an often overlooked quality in voters; party identification is not necessarily the same thing as their values. To understand this, let’s look at what’s happened since 2005 to party identification. It’s reasonable, I think, to say that in the last three years a greater proportion of voters consider themselves Democrat, while a smaller proportion of voters consider themselves Republican. Imagine three pools of voters – Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. At first they are all roughly the same size, but events cause this to change. First off, the Republican Party chased off its Conservative wing by breaking key promises and abandoning the values which gained it the majority in Congress. Ironically, when in subsequent elections the Republicans lost House and Senate seats, they blamed it on the Conservatives, rather than admit and correct their error. During that same time, the Republican Party began to steadily desert the President , even where his position matched the stated positions of Republican office-holders and candidates; Republicans fell prey to the lie that President Bush was wrong in his policies and appointments, and millions of Americans who supported the President were ostracized by his own party. Alienated by the Republican Party, Conservatives and Bush supporters in large part chose to sit out the 2006 midterm elections, and rather than heed the cost of their folly, the GOP in the main chose to tack hard to the Left, not quite to the point of supporting the madness of Pelosi and Reid, yet not opposing them in force either. Having banished millions of supporters of the President and Conservatives from its ranks, the GOP further emasculated itself in imitation of the Democrats. This clearly reduced public support for the Republicans.
As for the Democrats, their continued success in the media and in the elections held after 2004 have emboldened the party, and there is strong optimism in the DNC that in addition to increasing control of both houses of Congress, they will claim the White House in 2008 to complete the trifecta. Liberals are greatly enthused by the campaign of Barack Obama and other radicals, and the optimism of the party has energized public support. As a result, the situation is one where fewer and fewer voters are willing to publicly voice support for a Republican, and alignment with the Democrats is becoming once again the norm, indicating a return to pre-1994 levels of power and influence.
All is not as it may appear, however. Democrats enjoyed a resurgence in the spring of 2004, which fell as Kerry’s campaign proved to be something less than advertised. Also, the feuding between Obama and Clinton threatens party unity for the fall campaign. But the greatest threat of all lies in assuming that strong party identification for the Democrats will result in comparable gains in the election of the President. I noted the shift in party identification and public support of a political party, but people vote according to their value system, which changes slowly if at all. I mentioned Reagan earlier; Reagan won support from some Democrats because of his strong defense stance, and his common-sense support for American business. In the Presidential race, therefore, the door is open for a candidate to win support outside his party, or at least to consolidate support within his party, by clearly stating where he stands and what he will do.
That said, however, it is clear that at this point the Democrats have build a reasonable degree of unity, even with the fractious debate between Obama and Clinton supporters. The Republicans, on the other hand, have a crisis of credibility, not only with the American public but within their own ranks. There is tremendous opportunity for an amazing comeback, but at the present point in time there is little evidence that the GOP is willing to do what is needed to make that happen.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Bush Supporters Will Choose the next President
It is safe to say that the 2008 Presidential election is a mess. The media’s favorite, Senator Barack Obama, is simultaneously on course to clinch the Democrats’ nomination for the party’s top spot, and seeing his political posture erode through a series of gaffes and undesirable revelations about his associates and character. The candidate once dubbed the ‘inevitable’ next President, Senator Hillary Clinton, has gained some significant primary victories in recent weeks, most notably the 41-point rout of Senator Obama in West Virginia, but the mathematical position of the race makes it very difficult for Senator Clinton to realistically win the nomination. On the Republican side, these self-imposed difficulties for Obama and Clinton should provide good cheer for Senator John McCain, the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, but McCain has deliberately burned bridges with the GOP’s Conservative wing, and has reinforced his disrespect for the work done by President George W. Bush, in the apparent belief that such conduct is politically advantageous. Yet the numbers show that the voters who still support President Bush may well decide the election for the White House this fall.
Let’s look at the polls. Job Approval for the President has not been strong for the past two years and more, but for all the bad press there is a foundation of stone which supports President Bush at all times. That number has been as low at 29% in national polls, but recently is a point or two above that. A good example would be the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It’s important to note that neither ABC News nor the Washington Post is particularly even-handed on this question, and so there is a certain amount of spin applied to attack any Republican President. The ABC poll accordingly shows President Bush at 31% support, but grudgingly concedes that 69 percent of Republicans approve of President Bush. The poll goes on to note that 39 percent of Republicans “strongly approve” of the President’s job. Working the numbers backwards, the ABC poll weighted 64% of responses from the Left, against only 36 percent from the Right. The reader should decide for themselves whether that weighting accurately reflects the voters’ polarity.
Let’s now look at 2004 again. President Bush claimed over 62 million votes in that election, and while that was admittedly against a clearly weak Democrat opponent, it demonstrates a strong base. Obviously, Bush has lost some of that support in his second term, not least because he is not running again, but if 39 percent of Republicans still support him “strongly”, that works out to more than 24 million voters who would not mind seeing someone like George W. Bush in this fall’s election, but who would not like anyone who attacked and demeaned him. Stating it bluntly, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the Democrats’ nominee would lose a certain number of votes this fall as a result of the fierce infighting during the Primaries and residual damage which would resurface during the General campaign, but probably no more than 10% of the numbers from 2004, resulting in no less than 53 million votes for the Democratic Party nominee. If John McCain can rebuild support from Conservative and Bush-approving Republicans, even the attrition from party blunders would leave McCain with effectively 88% of the Republican support Bush enjoyed in 2004, or 54 million votes. McCain’s appeal to independents would probably raise his numbers by another 5 or 6 million votes. However, under no circumstances should McCain expect significant Democrat support, or to win the majority of Independent voters, meaning that he will be most dependant on a solid core of GOP support. McCain’s stance will probably cause between 5 to 6 million Conservatives to stay home this fall, washing out most of the gains he hopes to make from Independents. That means, when everything is said and done, that the 24 milllion Bush-approving Republicans will be essential to a McCain victory. If McCain collects less than 85% support among Republicans who approve of the job done by President Bush, he will lose the fall election to the Democrat. It remains to be seen if Senator McCain grasps this critical fact, and if so, what he will do to convince Bush voters that he deserves their vote.
Let’s look at the polls. Job Approval for the President has not been strong for the past two years and more, but for all the bad press there is a foundation of stone which supports President Bush at all times. That number has been as low at 29% in national polls, but recently is a point or two above that. A good example would be the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It’s important to note that neither ABC News nor the Washington Post is particularly even-handed on this question, and so there is a certain amount of spin applied to attack any Republican President. The ABC poll accordingly shows President Bush at 31% support, but grudgingly concedes that 69 percent of Republicans approve of President Bush. The poll goes on to note that 39 percent of Republicans “strongly approve” of the President’s job. Working the numbers backwards, the ABC poll weighted 64% of responses from the Left, against only 36 percent from the Right. The reader should decide for themselves whether that weighting accurately reflects the voters’ polarity.
Let’s now look at 2004 again. President Bush claimed over 62 million votes in that election, and while that was admittedly against a clearly weak Democrat opponent, it demonstrates a strong base. Obviously, Bush has lost some of that support in his second term, not least because he is not running again, but if 39 percent of Republicans still support him “strongly”, that works out to more than 24 million voters who would not mind seeing someone like George W. Bush in this fall’s election, but who would not like anyone who attacked and demeaned him. Stating it bluntly, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the Democrats’ nominee would lose a certain number of votes this fall as a result of the fierce infighting during the Primaries and residual damage which would resurface during the General campaign, but probably no more than 10% of the numbers from 2004, resulting in no less than 53 million votes for the Democratic Party nominee. If John McCain can rebuild support from Conservative and Bush-approving Republicans, even the attrition from party blunders would leave McCain with effectively 88% of the Republican support Bush enjoyed in 2004, or 54 million votes. McCain’s appeal to independents would probably raise his numbers by another 5 or 6 million votes. However, under no circumstances should McCain expect significant Democrat support, or to win the majority of Independent voters, meaning that he will be most dependant on a solid core of GOP support. McCain’s stance will probably cause between 5 to 6 million Conservatives to stay home this fall, washing out most of the gains he hopes to make from Independents. That means, when everything is said and done, that the 24 milllion Bush-approving Republicans will be essential to a McCain victory. If McCain collects less than 85% support among Republicans who approve of the job done by President Bush, he will lose the fall election to the Democrat. It remains to be seen if Senator McCain grasps this critical fact, and if so, what he will do to convince Bush voters that he deserves their vote.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Job
In my present position, I am often called upon not only to review the performance of my staff and to hire new employees, both contract and permenant, but also to describe job positions. This happens because as my company grows and evolves, the positions needed to perform even core competencies also change, and we have to make sure people are brought on board who are qualified for the work and clear about expectations. The job description provides a template for determining who makes the cut for later interviews. It seems to me that it would be worthwhile to consider the job description for the President of the United States.
The United States of America is a well-established global concern, mature yet also still enjoying growth. USA Operations are directed by its Constitution, which established three legitimate arms of control, none of them supreme and none of them inferior. Laws are created and passed by the Congress, pursuant to approval through signature from the President, who is accorded limited veto power. The federal courts may also rule a federal law to be unconstitutional, requiring modification or destroying the law. The President holds the power to begin wars and to a large degree control their conduct, although funding for all wars depends on Congressional approval, and therefore Congress can end any military venture it deems should be ended. Congress can create Congressional amendments by which (if ratified by the states) the Courts must abide. The federal judiciary is appointed by the President, pursuant to approval by the Senate. As a body the Congress holds the most power, as a group the Supreme Court is the most independent (facing no elections or term limits), but as an individual the President of the United States is arguably the most powerful and influential human being on the planet.
The President of the United States must be 35 years of age at his inauguration or older, and he (or she) must be a ‘natural’ citizen of the United States, which is to say born to American citizens and by law a citizen at birth. There are no additional formal requirements to become President, except that the person who would become President must be elected to that office, or else be the sitting Vice-President or next-in-succession at such time as the sitting President resigns, is removed from office, or becomes unable to preform the duties of the office as defined in the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are no requirements regarding education, military service, race, gender, employment, or vocation. Depending on the mood at the time of election, various types of experience and background have helped or hurt various candidates throughout the years.
Because the President has authority to deploy troops anywhere around the world, and to initiate military actions at his decision, a candidate’s military service is often a key qualification in electoral practice. However, in recent years the requisite quality more often desired is judgment, the ability to gauge the effect of a decision in advance of the action. Accordingly, a candidate who second-guesses a decision without a clear and productive alternative is weak, as is one who holds a position without explaining his reasoning. A candidate who can respect actions taken by a predecessor, yet offer an effective new direction for future strategy, however, is far more formidable a candidate.
Because the President has authority to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices, a candidate’s political bias and environment is crucial to voters’ perception of his likely nominations. While judicial appointments are often cast as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, better descriptors might be ‘activist’ and ‘constructionist’ judges, on the basis of whether the President would appoint judges inclined to believe that the Constitution is incomplete or sufficient to define and address the conditions on which those judges will decide the constitutionality of a lower court action.
The President has no formal authority to influence the Economy, beyond presenting a proposed federal budget each year to the Congress, in practice a President often enjoys a unique position to influence public opinion, and in such position to sway a close Congressional vote on a key action, especially one involving taxes. The President enjoys a traditional annual forum to speak to the nation’s key issues, called the State of the Nation address.
That’s it, essentially. The President appoints judges, signs or vetoes legislation, proposes budgets, sends the military on missions, and influences the national course through persuasion. He does not and cannot stop hurricanes, foretell the future, control the affairs of foreign governments, or command the economy to lower prices, increase wages, or otherwise make life wonderful through sheer will. He can work to persuade business leaders to make sound decisions, he can stay out of the way of people who know what they are doing, and he can do his best to appoint people to federal positions who can make a difference, but he is not Superman, despite the election hype.
There you have it, a job description of what the President should be and do. One final mention, the references to ‘he’ does not mean that only a male would make a good President; in English grammar the non-specific gender reference for any unknown human entity would be male. Thus, when a person’s gender is not know, by default that person would be referred to as ‘he’ or ‘him’.
The United States of America is a well-established global concern, mature yet also still enjoying growth. USA Operations are directed by its Constitution, which established three legitimate arms of control, none of them supreme and none of them inferior. Laws are created and passed by the Congress, pursuant to approval through signature from the President, who is accorded limited veto power. The federal courts may also rule a federal law to be unconstitutional, requiring modification or destroying the law. The President holds the power to begin wars and to a large degree control their conduct, although funding for all wars depends on Congressional approval, and therefore Congress can end any military venture it deems should be ended. Congress can create Congressional amendments by which (if ratified by the states) the Courts must abide. The federal judiciary is appointed by the President, pursuant to approval by the Senate. As a body the Congress holds the most power, as a group the Supreme Court is the most independent (facing no elections or term limits), but as an individual the President of the United States is arguably the most powerful and influential human being on the planet.
The President of the United States must be 35 years of age at his inauguration or older, and he (or she) must be a ‘natural’ citizen of the United States, which is to say born to American citizens and by law a citizen at birth. There are no additional formal requirements to become President, except that the person who would become President must be elected to that office, or else be the sitting Vice-President or next-in-succession at such time as the sitting President resigns, is removed from office, or becomes unable to preform the duties of the office as defined in the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are no requirements regarding education, military service, race, gender, employment, or vocation. Depending on the mood at the time of election, various types of experience and background have helped or hurt various candidates throughout the years.
Because the President has authority to deploy troops anywhere around the world, and to initiate military actions at his decision, a candidate’s military service is often a key qualification in electoral practice. However, in recent years the requisite quality more often desired is judgment, the ability to gauge the effect of a decision in advance of the action. Accordingly, a candidate who second-guesses a decision without a clear and productive alternative is weak, as is one who holds a position without explaining his reasoning. A candidate who can respect actions taken by a predecessor, yet offer an effective new direction for future strategy, however, is far more formidable a candidate.
Because the President has authority to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices, a candidate’s political bias and environment is crucial to voters’ perception of his likely nominations. While judicial appointments are often cast as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, better descriptors might be ‘activist’ and ‘constructionist’ judges, on the basis of whether the President would appoint judges inclined to believe that the Constitution is incomplete or sufficient to define and address the conditions on which those judges will decide the constitutionality of a lower court action.
The President has no formal authority to influence the Economy, beyond presenting a proposed federal budget each year to the Congress, in practice a President often enjoys a unique position to influence public opinion, and in such position to sway a close Congressional vote on a key action, especially one involving taxes. The President enjoys a traditional annual forum to speak to the nation’s key issues, called the State of the Nation address.
That’s it, essentially. The President appoints judges, signs or vetoes legislation, proposes budgets, sends the military on missions, and influences the national course through persuasion. He does not and cannot stop hurricanes, foretell the future, control the affairs of foreign governments, or command the economy to lower prices, increase wages, or otherwise make life wonderful through sheer will. He can work to persuade business leaders to make sound decisions, he can stay out of the way of people who know what they are doing, and he can do his best to appoint people to federal positions who can make a difference, but he is not Superman, despite the election hype.
There you have it, a job description of what the President should be and do. One final mention, the references to ‘he’ does not mean that only a male would make a good President; in English grammar the non-specific gender reference for any unknown human entity would be male. Thus, when a person’s gender is not know, by default that person would be referred to as ‘he’ or ‘him’.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
It’s Not About Nice
The talk these days is about how Obama leads the ‘Nice’ race, and is therefore that much more formidable. Or to put it another way, now that we know he has no resume, no tools for foreign policy decisions or economic infrastructure, we are now told Obama will win anyway, because he’s just so lovable. Yeah, right, sure. Look, I believe Barack Obama is a nice enough guy, but we have not seen his temper very much, his people and the media working overtime to keep him from ever having to answer any really tough questions. There were flashes though, when his canned answers for why he stayed close to a country-hating racist of a pastor for twenty–plus years got challenged, albeit briefly. Obama is not as nice and fluffy as he pretends, and I can’t help but wonder if he won’t show a little ire along the way to November.
But aside from that, the old fable that the ‘nice’ candidate wins the White House is suspect at best. Sure, Eisenhower and Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all well known for their charm and high-watt smiles, but who can seriously claim the same for Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Was Bill Clinton really a nicer guy than George H.W. Bush? And what about the election in 2000? Clearly, George W. Bush was a nicer guy than Al Gore, even Mr. Gore admitted the same, but Gore actually received more votes in the Popular tally than did Bush. The theory just doesn’t hold up.
But aside from that, the old fable that the ‘nice’ candidate wins the White House is suspect at best. Sure, Eisenhower and Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all well known for their charm and high-watt smiles, but who can seriously claim the same for Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Was Bill Clinton really a nicer guy than George H.W. Bush? And what about the election in 2000? Clearly, George W. Bush was a nicer guy than Al Gore, even Mr. Gore admitted the same, but Gore actually received more votes in the Popular tally than did Bush. The theory just doesn’t hold up.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Hurting the Democratic Party?
One thing I have been hearing a lot these days and seeing a lot of articles, is how the prolonged race between Sentors Obama and Clinton for the party nomination is “hurting” the Democratic Party. OK, so maybe I’m the kindergarten scissors in a drawer full of power saws, but say what?
Shouldn’t Democrats be fully informed about the people who want to lead the nation under their banner? Shouldn’t the rules in place be followed for selecting their nominee?
But there, of course, is the rub. The Donks wanted to have their guy/girl/whatever in the spotlight early on, so they could build up their position. The favorite myth of the Left, that later means worse, is still big with these guys, proving once again that they learned pretty much zilch from 2004. If I were making the case for someone hurting the party. I’d say the people selling the theory that lessons from past elections should be ignored, that image is better than substance, that regular people should be lied to rather than listened to, those are the people who hurt whatever group they touch.
The Democrats used to be a potent force for political effectiveness and moral leadership. Not that I agreed with every decision they made, but men like John Kennedy and Harry Truman were good for the nation, and their character showed up in hard decisions and clear initiatives. Not that there are not good Democrats now, but they are much fewer than before, and they are not leading the party (is anyone?) This has happened before, of course, and in both major parties. The Democrats had Grover Cleveland at a high point, then fell back a bit through Woodrow Wilson and his era, and rallied back a bit under Truman and Kennedy, before falling into the mud for a long time after that. The problem the Democrats are starting to recognize now was a long time coming, but it was not caused by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Those two people are merely the sad consequence of a generation of shallow, manipulative scheming by so many politicians before them. And so the problem will not be resolved by one of the two dropping out of the race, but the Democrats having a hard look in the mirror and – finally – deciding to stand for something more than grabbing power by preaching envy and hate.
Shouldn’t Democrats be fully informed about the people who want to lead the nation under their banner? Shouldn’t the rules in place be followed for selecting their nominee?
But there, of course, is the rub. The Donks wanted to have their guy/girl/whatever in the spotlight early on, so they could build up their position. The favorite myth of the Left, that later means worse, is still big with these guys, proving once again that they learned pretty much zilch from 2004. If I were making the case for someone hurting the party. I’d say the people selling the theory that lessons from past elections should be ignored, that image is better than substance, that regular people should be lied to rather than listened to, those are the people who hurt whatever group they touch.
The Democrats used to be a potent force for political effectiveness and moral leadership. Not that I agreed with every decision they made, but men like John Kennedy and Harry Truman were good for the nation, and their character showed up in hard decisions and clear initiatives. Not that there are not good Democrats now, but they are much fewer than before, and they are not leading the party (is anyone?) This has happened before, of course, and in both major parties. The Democrats had Grover Cleveland at a high point, then fell back a bit through Woodrow Wilson and his era, and rallied back a bit under Truman and Kennedy, before falling into the mud for a long time after that. The problem the Democrats are starting to recognize now was a long time coming, but it was not caused by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Those two people are merely the sad consequence of a generation of shallow, manipulative scheming by so many politicians before them. And so the problem will not be resolved by one of the two dropping out of the race, but the Democrats having a hard look in the mirror and – finally – deciding to stand for something more than grabbing power by preaching envy and hate.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Economics is Not a Pure Science
On another blog, I had the pleasure to exchange opinions with a bloglodyte. What earned this fellow that sobriquet was not the fact that he and I disagreed, but that he pursued his argument without the use of reason or a single cogent fact. Vituperance and envy pretty much shut down all of the higher-cranial functions for this bitter young man. Along the course of his disjointed rants, he attempted to make some of his claims more credible by insisting that he held a master’s degree in Economics, a claim his own claims immediately dispelled. As a rule of thumb, one should have at least a passing familiarity with the major concepts and prevailing theories of a subject, before claiming expertise in the field. The fellow took umbrage at my observation that Economics is not really a science in the true sense, but rather a set of sociological behavior matrices, based on mathematic theories applied to conditional scenarios. This basic fact is essential to understanding how Economics works, and why it is so relevant to Politics.
Look at the stock market, for example. Every day, more than a thousand publicly traded stocks are bought and sold at bourses around the world and through online sales. The prices of these stocks are supposedly based on the best estimates of the companies’ fundamental performance indicators in terms of revenue, costs, debt, and other salient factors, yet minute by minute the price varies. Why? Because the price of the stock is determined by buy and sell decisions made throughout the business day, based not only on hard data and analysis, but on the emotional belief that a company is worth more or less than it’s stock price indicates, driving the price up or down. In fact, it is this emotional component which creates sales of stock in the main; if everyone agreed what the price of a stock should be, the stock price would quickly assume that value and no one would buy or sell from that point onward.
For that matter, look at oil. We’re not running out, in the short term at least. Drive to any station, and they will have all you want of all grades of gas, and even on the overall scale, stocks are not in any present danger. So, what drives gasoline prices up and up? The component costs of getting that gas to the station, that’s what, such as the petroleum. Why is oil more expensive? Because of the belief that events in the Middle East, concerns about environmental costs, and so on make the oil more expensive. That, and the fact that the eco-morons want cheap gas but won’t let anyone drill for oil close to home or build any more refineries, but again, that’s an emotional decision and supports what I am saying.
Another example is this whole sub-prime mortgage mess. Granted, it’s a real problem, but the problem affected a small percentage of mortgages and a minor sector of home building, not affecting the basic value of a home or the rates on exiting fixed-rate mortgages, as is held by most folks. What changed was brought about by a change in opinion about the stability of the industry, the trustworthiness of mortgage lenders, and the need for the government to act, which is almost always cumbersome, ineffective, and pricey in the long run. It simply needs to be understood, that we the people, to a great degree choose the economic conditions through our reaction to events which are for the most part transitory and minor. That is not to say that the effects are not real, or that people do not suffer tragically in some of these cases, but the humanistic component of all economic conditions must not be ignored.
Which brings us to politics. Obama’s faithful believe he will change things for the better, to my mind in spite of all the evidence. Hillary’s supporters believe that her time as First Lady and her short service as a Senator give her the qualifications not only to run the country, but also a far better grounding in the requisite capability than Senator Obama. And McCain’s team is confident in their belief that he is the best-qualified candidate to lead the country. Ultimately, all three of these candidates are in a race to get the most people to express belief in them, to emotionally invest in the candidate. I cannot recall a national election ever being won on the basis discourse, for good or ill. And because all of the candidates can be counted on to dwell on the U.S. economy and offer up their proposed solutions, what people believe about the economy is an important element to how the race will play out.
Look at the stock market, for example. Every day, more than a thousand publicly traded stocks are bought and sold at bourses around the world and through online sales. The prices of these stocks are supposedly based on the best estimates of the companies’ fundamental performance indicators in terms of revenue, costs, debt, and other salient factors, yet minute by minute the price varies. Why? Because the price of the stock is determined by buy and sell decisions made throughout the business day, based not only on hard data and analysis, but on the emotional belief that a company is worth more or less than it’s stock price indicates, driving the price up or down. In fact, it is this emotional component which creates sales of stock in the main; if everyone agreed what the price of a stock should be, the stock price would quickly assume that value and no one would buy or sell from that point onward.
For that matter, look at oil. We’re not running out, in the short term at least. Drive to any station, and they will have all you want of all grades of gas, and even on the overall scale, stocks are not in any present danger. So, what drives gasoline prices up and up? The component costs of getting that gas to the station, that’s what, such as the petroleum. Why is oil more expensive? Because of the belief that events in the Middle East, concerns about environmental costs, and so on make the oil more expensive. That, and the fact that the eco-morons want cheap gas but won’t let anyone drill for oil close to home or build any more refineries, but again, that’s an emotional decision and supports what I am saying.
Another example is this whole sub-prime mortgage mess. Granted, it’s a real problem, but the problem affected a small percentage of mortgages and a minor sector of home building, not affecting the basic value of a home or the rates on exiting fixed-rate mortgages, as is held by most folks. What changed was brought about by a change in opinion about the stability of the industry, the trustworthiness of mortgage lenders, and the need for the government to act, which is almost always cumbersome, ineffective, and pricey in the long run. It simply needs to be understood, that we the people, to a great degree choose the economic conditions through our reaction to events which are for the most part transitory and minor. That is not to say that the effects are not real, or that people do not suffer tragically in some of these cases, but the humanistic component of all economic conditions must not be ignored.
Which brings us to politics. Obama’s faithful believe he will change things for the better, to my mind in spite of all the evidence. Hillary’s supporters believe that her time as First Lady and her short service as a Senator give her the qualifications not only to run the country, but also a far better grounding in the requisite capability than Senator Obama. And McCain’s team is confident in their belief that he is the best-qualified candidate to lead the country. Ultimately, all three of these candidates are in a race to get the most people to express belief in them, to emotionally invest in the candidate. I cannot recall a national election ever being won on the basis discourse, for good or ill. And because all of the candidates can be counted on to dwell on the U.S. economy and offer up their proposed solutions, what people believe about the economy is an important element to how the race will play out.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Why Real Men Don’t Care What Women Want
Cassy Fiano has written a piece about the need, in her opinion, for men to “MAN UP”.
I respectfully disagree. Enough so that I think a full rebuttal is needed. While some of Cassy’s points are valid, her article makes what I see as mistakes in several areas, and these need to be addressed, if the gender behavior question is to be better understood and resolved.
The first thing to say in any gender discussion, is the obvious fact that men and women are different. Physically, mentally, emotionally, and in how Society treats the gender. Look at crime, for instance. In my book, an adult teacher who molests a student is a particularly slimy felon, one who should be put away for a very, very long time. Yet over and over, we see that female teachers who have sex with their students do not receive even half the length of sentence commonly issued to male teachers who do the same thing. Sexual harassment is supposed to apply to equally to men and women, but here again we see that women suing for sexual harassment are far more successful in court than men who do the same thing, as a proportion of damages awarded to cases filed. Granted, this is an offense where male perpetrators far outnumber female offenders, yet this also is skewed, because even in today’s world, a male employee who complains of unwanted sexual advances by a female superior will be mocked and ridiculed in the public, in a way no female complaintant in the United States needs to fear.
A significant portion of the article addresses the decision by women either to work outside the home or to stay at home. The article never mentions that in many families, the man stays home while the woman works, not in some hillbilly paradise where the guy slacks around, but because the woman may be better suited to working in a corporation while the man has better domestic skills. It may come as a shock, but some men are better at cooking, cleaning, and child care, and some women are better in monetary skills. If a couple or family finds themselves in the fortunate situation where one paycheck is sufficient, it’s nobody else’s business how they decide to sort out the various responsibilities of the house.
The article also appears to take a swipe at two-career parents, quoting Mellisa Clothier’s rather stupid asssertion that many men “no longer work as hard because they just don't have to. On the one hand, they don't have the financial pressure of their father's generation, but they also don't have the self-respect, work-ethic and noble purpose of their father's generation either.”
What utter bilge! No serious thought could possibly have produced that statement, which reflects some long-disproven assumptions about the modern generation and a more than slightly elitist arrogance. I will use my own experience to illustrate:
My father worked as the sole breadwinner for his family when he was young. This is because at 8 years old during the Depression, he still had an easier time finding a job than his mother or sister could, and so even before Middle School, my father was helping support his family. That mindset, to do what the family needed at any cost, became something of a lifelong mission for my father. In the performance of that mission, he worked long hours, took countless assignments in other countries because they paid more, and sacrificed an untold number of personal luxuries and goals for his wife and kids. He spent what little “free time” he had with us kids and with the church as a Bible Study teacher. The ‘payoff’ for his work? Four heart attacks, a stroke, he was laid off seven times during his career, his commitment to the job hurt his marriage, we had to move four times to find work that met the family’s needs, and the stress and wear from so much travel and effort left him a physical wreck, so that the last nine years of his life he could barely walk, leaving his bed only for minutes at a time. This was not doctor Clouthier’s mythical “self-respect”, “work-ethic”, or “noble purpose” – such terms lose their meaning when the man is destroyed just trying to take care of his family, and people like Clouthier do not begin to understand the forces at work which challenge a family to survive, let alone succeed.
Then there is my wife, Mikki. Her first husband was a big believer in the stay-at-home wife, he would have applauded Ms. Clouthier. He treated his wife like a possession, like a prize to be kept under lock and key and always under his control. Of course, his freedom to work while she stayed home also helped him have an affair, which destroyed the marriage as such things often do. Mikki was left alone to fend for herself, and she was grimly pleased to do see she could manage her affairs without some husband to do it for her. When she and I married, we both understood that she intended to work full time, for several reasons but which included the fact that she would never allow herself to be kept in a box, whether it be a house or apartment or assumption. If Ms. Clouthier and Ms. Fiano wish to stay at home and have the means to do so, good for them, but that in no way means anyone else is obliged to do the same, nor are they irresponsible if they choose that path. Further, I am no less a man for respecting my wife’s wishes and being aware of her history and needs, and if Ms. Clouthier and company cannot fathom that, it is their flaw, and not my own.
I also have to speak up about this “man up” command from on High. In the comments to Cassy’s article, reader Aries said ”Men have seen women in action. Whiners, complainers, misandric and endlessly focused on themselves only. Women threw men away.” Blunt but true, that. Many men are just sick and tired of women telling us half a hundred different things they expect us to do. Nothing is ever good enough, and while I agree with equality, my definition of that word never included my surrender to women and their countless chaos of neurotic demands. Women chase after drunks and liars, ignore and mock the nice guys, then complain because they can’t find a good man. Women demand equal pay and opportunity in the workplace, but also want special rules and preferential treatment from HR and the business practices. Women demand to be treated as equals and receive respect, but as a rule treat men either as the enemy or simply as not worthy of their regard, much less respect. Women despise being treated as sexual objects – rightfully – but see no hypocrisy in ranking men according to their physical attributes. I have personally known hundreds of men who put their wives first, who constantly try to find ways to show they love and appreciate their wives, but I have only found a handful of women who do the same for their husbands (Mikki is one). Oh, I am sure there are more out there, but the overwhelming fact is that men are dogs and women are cats. Men, like dogs, are sloppy and careless and spill and break things, but most are utterly dependable and full of love and fun. They are heroic and serious about family. Women, like cats, are full of themselves and tend to hate dogs as a group. If you take loving care of a dog for even a few minutes, you will have a friend for life, and a lot of men are the same way. If you take loving care of a cat for years, catering to its every need and whim, you will be rewarded with the privilege of cleaning out its litterbox, and the presentation of an occasional hairball or shredded shirt, and a lot of women are the same way.
In closing, I admit my posted opinions are a broad brush posting, and there are many good women out there, just as there are some men who are utterly useless. But the stereotypes presented by Ms. Fiano needed a counterweight. There is hope for gender relationships, if only for one great truth: Men love and need women, and women also love and need men.
I respectfully disagree. Enough so that I think a full rebuttal is needed. While some of Cassy’s points are valid, her article makes what I see as mistakes in several areas, and these need to be addressed, if the gender behavior question is to be better understood and resolved.
The first thing to say in any gender discussion, is the obvious fact that men and women are different. Physically, mentally, emotionally, and in how Society treats the gender. Look at crime, for instance. In my book, an adult teacher who molests a student is a particularly slimy felon, one who should be put away for a very, very long time. Yet over and over, we see that female teachers who have sex with their students do not receive even half the length of sentence commonly issued to male teachers who do the same thing. Sexual harassment is supposed to apply to equally to men and women, but here again we see that women suing for sexual harassment are far more successful in court than men who do the same thing, as a proportion of damages awarded to cases filed. Granted, this is an offense where male perpetrators far outnumber female offenders, yet this also is skewed, because even in today’s world, a male employee who complains of unwanted sexual advances by a female superior will be mocked and ridiculed in the public, in a way no female complaintant in the United States needs to fear.
A significant portion of the article addresses the decision by women either to work outside the home or to stay at home. The article never mentions that in many families, the man stays home while the woman works, not in some hillbilly paradise where the guy slacks around, but because the woman may be better suited to working in a corporation while the man has better domestic skills. It may come as a shock, but some men are better at cooking, cleaning, and child care, and some women are better in monetary skills. If a couple or family finds themselves in the fortunate situation where one paycheck is sufficient, it’s nobody else’s business how they decide to sort out the various responsibilities of the house.
The article also appears to take a swipe at two-career parents, quoting Mellisa Clothier’s rather stupid asssertion that many men “no longer work as hard because they just don't have to. On the one hand, they don't have the financial pressure of their father's generation, but they also don't have the self-respect, work-ethic and noble purpose of their father's generation either.”
What utter bilge! No serious thought could possibly have produced that statement, which reflects some long-disproven assumptions about the modern generation and a more than slightly elitist arrogance. I will use my own experience to illustrate:
My father worked as the sole breadwinner for his family when he was young. This is because at 8 years old during the Depression, he still had an easier time finding a job than his mother or sister could, and so even before Middle School, my father was helping support his family. That mindset, to do what the family needed at any cost, became something of a lifelong mission for my father. In the performance of that mission, he worked long hours, took countless assignments in other countries because they paid more, and sacrificed an untold number of personal luxuries and goals for his wife and kids. He spent what little “free time” he had with us kids and with the church as a Bible Study teacher. The ‘payoff’ for his work? Four heart attacks, a stroke, he was laid off seven times during his career, his commitment to the job hurt his marriage, we had to move four times to find work that met the family’s needs, and the stress and wear from so much travel and effort left him a physical wreck, so that the last nine years of his life he could barely walk, leaving his bed only for minutes at a time. This was not doctor Clouthier’s mythical “self-respect”, “work-ethic”, or “noble purpose” – such terms lose their meaning when the man is destroyed just trying to take care of his family, and people like Clouthier do not begin to understand the forces at work which challenge a family to survive, let alone succeed.
Then there is my wife, Mikki. Her first husband was a big believer in the stay-at-home wife, he would have applauded Ms. Clouthier. He treated his wife like a possession, like a prize to be kept under lock and key and always under his control. Of course, his freedom to work while she stayed home also helped him have an affair, which destroyed the marriage as such things often do. Mikki was left alone to fend for herself, and she was grimly pleased to do see she could manage her affairs without some husband to do it for her. When she and I married, we both understood that she intended to work full time, for several reasons but which included the fact that she would never allow herself to be kept in a box, whether it be a house or apartment or assumption. If Ms. Clouthier and Ms. Fiano wish to stay at home and have the means to do so, good for them, but that in no way means anyone else is obliged to do the same, nor are they irresponsible if they choose that path. Further, I am no less a man for respecting my wife’s wishes and being aware of her history and needs, and if Ms. Clouthier and company cannot fathom that, it is their flaw, and not my own.
I also have to speak up about this “man up” command from on High. In the comments to Cassy’s article, reader Aries said ”Men have seen women in action. Whiners, complainers, misandric and endlessly focused on themselves only. Women threw men away.” Blunt but true, that. Many men are just sick and tired of women telling us half a hundred different things they expect us to do. Nothing is ever good enough, and while I agree with equality, my definition of that word never included my surrender to women and their countless chaos of neurotic demands. Women chase after drunks and liars, ignore and mock the nice guys, then complain because they can’t find a good man. Women demand equal pay and opportunity in the workplace, but also want special rules and preferential treatment from HR and the business practices. Women demand to be treated as equals and receive respect, but as a rule treat men either as the enemy or simply as not worthy of their regard, much less respect. Women despise being treated as sexual objects – rightfully – but see no hypocrisy in ranking men according to their physical attributes. I have personally known hundreds of men who put their wives first, who constantly try to find ways to show they love and appreciate their wives, but I have only found a handful of women who do the same for their husbands (Mikki is one). Oh, I am sure there are more out there, but the overwhelming fact is that men are dogs and women are cats. Men, like dogs, are sloppy and careless and spill and break things, but most are utterly dependable and full of love and fun. They are heroic and serious about family. Women, like cats, are full of themselves and tend to hate dogs as a group. If you take loving care of a dog for even a few minutes, you will have a friend for life, and a lot of men are the same way. If you take loving care of a cat for years, catering to its every need and whim, you will be rewarded with the privilege of cleaning out its litterbox, and the presentation of an occasional hairball or shredded shirt, and a lot of women are the same way.
In closing, I admit my posted opinions are a broad brush posting, and there are many good women out there, just as there are some men who are utterly useless. But the stereotypes presented by Ms. Fiano needed a counterweight. There is hope for gender relationships, if only for one great truth: Men love and need women, and women also love and need men.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Soul School
There is a debate going on which takes many forms, but is based on the same old questions:
Why do we suffer?
Why does evil exist?
Why are we here?
… and the like. These questions are of a kind, and near as I can tell no answer yet has ever been perfect, nor do I think ever will be so. This is because God made billions of individual people, one by one. It seems to me that we each have an answer that is right for us, one which is unique because we are unique.
The people on one side of this debate seem to be very bitter and prone to blame God for whatever they don’t like. They blame God for the existence of evil, basically saying that they are not responsible for any wrong they do, because they believe that God set them up for a fall. This is not merely erroneous, but quite arrogant and a very dangerous attitude to hold in practice; it is in the same catageory as the man who knows he is drunk but figures if he has a problem driving, he can blame it on the bar, on the road, on the other driver, anyone but himself. Such people also fail to consider the purpose of asking the basic questions – presuming God exists, it is quite foolish to imagine that we can come up with a better defense for our behavior than he can for His position, or that we hold any standing wherein he is compelled to accept us as moral equals. The proper purpose of such questions, then, is not to try to catch God out as some kind of criminal, but to gain understanding and perspective. This, I think, was one of the key lessons of the book of Job.
Another contention that has become popular, is the notion that this life is a test. Pass it and you get great rewards, but fail it and you are in for a bad eternity. This claim and the many variations on it are quite common, but even a casual inspection shows flaws in the premise. After all, there are different kinds of tests, but generally from my experience there are two varieties. First is the type of test to determine the quality or nature of something, like a blood test for various diseases or to check blood cell counts. This kind of test results is a prescribed regimen for the subject. . The other type of test is certification. It can be initial certification, like NASA testing prospective astronauts to make sure they can withstand the rigors of training, or the aptitude tests given to high school students to determine whether they can handle the material of a college curriculum, or it can be confirmation of successful completion of a mission, like a home inspection to be sure a house is ready for move-in, or final examinations in a course. What both varieties of test have in common, is the course of action which precedes or follows the testing. Therefore, it seems to me reasonable to say not that we are going through a long test in this life on Earth, but we are in a kind of school. And that changes a lot of the rules and presumptions, once you think about it.
The starting point is God. Like it or not, the most essential reality in the universe is its Creator and Master. Not merely ‘master’ as in the guy with the keys or the most powerful being, but ‘master’ in the true sense, a being so perfect in power, authority, and essence that he rules by right. And everything besides God was made by God, and owes all to Him. It all starts there. Obviously, there are certain people who cannot accept this, and so they rebel. So, even before we get into our own condition and needs, there is rebellion against the Sovereign Lord. This is important to the resolution prepared for us by God.
Perspective is a critical factor to judgment. People see from a limited viewpoint, and for humans omniscience is never possible, although we fool ourselves many times into thinking we have the full picture. The only entity who truly enjoys omniscience is God, and that is worth thinking about. How can a being know more than one perspective? One possibility is if that being can be more than one person, so that perspectives may be tested against other perspectives, not only in time (God being eternal) but in simultaneous persons experiencing the same event from differing contexts, so that Reality exists fro God in a higher order than a human can know. That is worth its own discussion, but for here it seemed to me worth its mention as part of the framework.
So, for humans the goal seems to be for us to learn to love and do goodness. Yet we already know that freedom to choose means that some will choose to rebel. And that rebellion leads to great evil and suffering, indeed no better than that can come of it where God is rejected, as all goodness comes from Him. How then, some ask, can God allow suffering in this way? Why is evil allowed to happen, and why is its punishment deferred and the good allowed to be harmed? One way to consider this, is the fact that humans often learn through comparison. We know good music because we hear sounds we do not like, we know good health because we know illness, and so on. Consequently, we learn to appreciate good in part because we see what evil is and does, and good people do not wish to advance evil. Also, it is important to learn another key truth, one which many people do not want to be so – we all do evil, to some degree. Evil is that quality which not only wants to harm someone, but it can also be that selfishness that treats another person as a thing. Jesus taught about a rich man who went to hell. What is interesting is, we never heard that this rich man was dishonest or violent or failed to go to temple, or any of those things. The sole offense of this man, was that he saw someone in need and chose not to help. The sin was in choosing to make that beggar an object rather than a person, and in so doing rebel against God’s command that we love one another, which shows up over and over again in the Bible and in every true faith. By ‘true faith’, I mean to say that although I am a Christian and believe Christ’s Gospel is the true gift of God and the Salvation of the World, I agree with C.S. Lewis that myths are often echoes of God’s truth, so that what is true in Christianity may also show up in different places – God is not silent about hope and mercy, so we should not be surprised if there is truth in surprising places.
Doing good is hard. Not sinning is hard. Focusing on God’s will instead of my own is hard. I don’t know that I can do any of the three for more than a few minutes, and if I think I have, I have just committed the sin of pride, don’t you know! It is extraordinarily easy to sin, to do what we know is wrong, even when we very much want to do the right thing. Keep that in mind, it’s important. We all sin, even when we try hard to be good. We all love goodness and we al teach goodness to our children, yet it remains a hard thing to do. I don’t mean the easy business of being nice to folks and showing them respect, though enough people have a hard time with that, I mean going out of our way to help someone, doing the right thing when it costs us something.
Life is a university, and we are each on our own schedule. What’s right for one person may be very different from what is right for someone else in terms of goals and specific skills, but we all live by a code which commands us to think, speak, and act by a standard we cannot meet all the time. Before you claim that such a regimen is cruel, consider that any skill is always taught as never-ending improvement. Artists always seek something better, engineers people seek more efficiency, business people seek ever-more effective solutions, scientists always seek deeper comprehension, and so on. We all pursue prefection, even if we touch it so rarely. Should we be so surprised to learn, that God wants us to learn to be more and more perfect? Yet as I said, we all fail the mark, and there are three reasons for that. First, if you have ever known someone who seemed perfect, you may notice that they are very different from regular people. If you like golfing with the guys, you enjoy the sense that you are all peers. One guy may be a great driver but his putting is off, while each of the others has his own strengths and flaws. But if one of the guys in your foursome is Tiger Woods, then as good as he is, he may have a hard time fitting in. The idea is not that God holds us down to keep us from getting where we want to be, but knowing that we will fail, God helps us remember that we are all human, none of us is Superman. Second, we all need God. Just as we all must die one day, we all sin and cannot be everything all in ourselves. Even Jesus took care to have His disciples take part in some of His miracles (like the feeding of the 5,000, and even Peter was able to walk on water when Jesus did it); we are family, one with each other, and no man can truly say he needs no one else. Third, it is not right to say that knowing we would do evil, God created evil in order to make men sin. Rather, it is true to say that God chose to make men free, and knowing that men would use that freedom to choose evil in various times and places, God not only chose to forgive men their sins, but also to use that evil for good purposes. We do not always see this, but it is true nevertheless. When we see someone suffer, for instance, it moves our heart to act in compassion, which is good. When we see injustice, we are moved to create justice. When we see sickness, we are moved to help healing. In our arrogance, some blame God for the evil done, not realizing that evil is temporary, and one day will be destroyed. Even death is only real for a little while, measured against the eternal life God grants us. But because God is eterrnal, the things of God are also eternal, and no good thing is ever lost forever, but only set aside until its time. So it is eventually a different reality which comes to be; one where every bad and foul thing is undone, but only every good thing remains. Then we are able to appreciate all good things without cost or compromise, and all that is right will be full advanced. Our lives seek that goal.
Is there a test? Yes, there are many of them, as is always the case in school. But just as a good school can be a wonderful place for a child, so too the education of a soul does not need to be hard or cold, and the purpose of these tests is not to frighten us or browbeat us, but to help us see how far we have come, and to choose our next stage. And this, if I may be so bold, is where the Commission of Christ comes into the matter.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came to earth as a man, to live among us as one of us. This already sets Christ apart from so many religions based on a distant and impersonal god. Yet Jesus did more; he was entitled to wealth, influence, and power, yet He lived as a poor itinerant preacher, who died after being wrongfully accused of sedition by men who knew He was innocent. Jesus could have escaped this fate, but accepted it in order to do the will of God, that He should die for the sins of the world. This claim is admittedly controversial, but in this place I will not elaborate; I simply state what I know to be absolute truth. As a result, God acted as a human in order to save humans from their chosen path of evil, and knowing this salvation has been made for us is essential to understanding our identity and purpose. For someone living in this world, knowing that God loved us enough to live as one of us and die for what we did in hatred of Him is powerful, radical information. If life is a school, well, Christians are kind of the Student Council. We are charged with reporting who God is, what He wants for us, and why. And like any Student Council, we are a mix of people who do a good job, people who get a big head about the title, and all kinds of others. We are learning just like anyone else, in fact we may not be the best students and we are not really the teachers, unless in some rare case God so uses us, which He does with anyone whose work pleases Him.
Why do we suffer?
Why does evil exist?
Why are we here?
… and the like. These questions are of a kind, and near as I can tell no answer yet has ever been perfect, nor do I think ever will be so. This is because God made billions of individual people, one by one. It seems to me that we each have an answer that is right for us, one which is unique because we are unique.
The people on one side of this debate seem to be very bitter and prone to blame God for whatever they don’t like. They blame God for the existence of evil, basically saying that they are not responsible for any wrong they do, because they believe that God set them up for a fall. This is not merely erroneous, but quite arrogant and a very dangerous attitude to hold in practice; it is in the same catageory as the man who knows he is drunk but figures if he has a problem driving, he can blame it on the bar, on the road, on the other driver, anyone but himself. Such people also fail to consider the purpose of asking the basic questions – presuming God exists, it is quite foolish to imagine that we can come up with a better defense for our behavior than he can for His position, or that we hold any standing wherein he is compelled to accept us as moral equals. The proper purpose of such questions, then, is not to try to catch God out as some kind of criminal, but to gain understanding and perspective. This, I think, was one of the key lessons of the book of Job.
Another contention that has become popular, is the notion that this life is a test. Pass it and you get great rewards, but fail it and you are in for a bad eternity. This claim and the many variations on it are quite common, but even a casual inspection shows flaws in the premise. After all, there are different kinds of tests, but generally from my experience there are two varieties. First is the type of test to determine the quality or nature of something, like a blood test for various diseases or to check blood cell counts. This kind of test results is a prescribed regimen for the subject. . The other type of test is certification. It can be initial certification, like NASA testing prospective astronauts to make sure they can withstand the rigors of training, or the aptitude tests given to high school students to determine whether they can handle the material of a college curriculum, or it can be confirmation of successful completion of a mission, like a home inspection to be sure a house is ready for move-in, or final examinations in a course. What both varieties of test have in common, is the course of action which precedes or follows the testing. Therefore, it seems to me reasonable to say not that we are going through a long test in this life on Earth, but we are in a kind of school. And that changes a lot of the rules and presumptions, once you think about it.
The starting point is God. Like it or not, the most essential reality in the universe is its Creator and Master. Not merely ‘master’ as in the guy with the keys or the most powerful being, but ‘master’ in the true sense, a being so perfect in power, authority, and essence that he rules by right. And everything besides God was made by God, and owes all to Him. It all starts there. Obviously, there are certain people who cannot accept this, and so they rebel. So, even before we get into our own condition and needs, there is rebellion against the Sovereign Lord. This is important to the resolution prepared for us by God.
Perspective is a critical factor to judgment. People see from a limited viewpoint, and for humans omniscience is never possible, although we fool ourselves many times into thinking we have the full picture. The only entity who truly enjoys omniscience is God, and that is worth thinking about. How can a being know more than one perspective? One possibility is if that being can be more than one person, so that perspectives may be tested against other perspectives, not only in time (God being eternal) but in simultaneous persons experiencing the same event from differing contexts, so that Reality exists fro God in a higher order than a human can know. That is worth its own discussion, but for here it seemed to me worth its mention as part of the framework.
So, for humans the goal seems to be for us to learn to love and do goodness. Yet we already know that freedom to choose means that some will choose to rebel. And that rebellion leads to great evil and suffering, indeed no better than that can come of it where God is rejected, as all goodness comes from Him. How then, some ask, can God allow suffering in this way? Why is evil allowed to happen, and why is its punishment deferred and the good allowed to be harmed? One way to consider this, is the fact that humans often learn through comparison. We know good music because we hear sounds we do not like, we know good health because we know illness, and so on. Consequently, we learn to appreciate good in part because we see what evil is and does, and good people do not wish to advance evil. Also, it is important to learn another key truth, one which many people do not want to be so – we all do evil, to some degree. Evil is that quality which not only wants to harm someone, but it can also be that selfishness that treats another person as a thing. Jesus taught about a rich man who went to hell. What is interesting is, we never heard that this rich man was dishonest or violent or failed to go to temple, or any of those things. The sole offense of this man, was that he saw someone in need and chose not to help. The sin was in choosing to make that beggar an object rather than a person, and in so doing rebel against God’s command that we love one another, which shows up over and over again in the Bible and in every true faith. By ‘true faith’, I mean to say that although I am a Christian and believe Christ’s Gospel is the true gift of God and the Salvation of the World, I agree with C.S. Lewis that myths are often echoes of God’s truth, so that what is true in Christianity may also show up in different places – God is not silent about hope and mercy, so we should not be surprised if there is truth in surprising places.
Doing good is hard. Not sinning is hard. Focusing on God’s will instead of my own is hard. I don’t know that I can do any of the three for more than a few minutes, and if I think I have, I have just committed the sin of pride, don’t you know! It is extraordinarily easy to sin, to do what we know is wrong, even when we very much want to do the right thing. Keep that in mind, it’s important. We all sin, even when we try hard to be good. We all love goodness and we al teach goodness to our children, yet it remains a hard thing to do. I don’t mean the easy business of being nice to folks and showing them respect, though enough people have a hard time with that, I mean going out of our way to help someone, doing the right thing when it costs us something.
Life is a university, and we are each on our own schedule. What’s right for one person may be very different from what is right for someone else in terms of goals and specific skills, but we all live by a code which commands us to think, speak, and act by a standard we cannot meet all the time. Before you claim that such a regimen is cruel, consider that any skill is always taught as never-ending improvement. Artists always seek something better, engineers people seek more efficiency, business people seek ever-more effective solutions, scientists always seek deeper comprehension, and so on. We all pursue prefection, even if we touch it so rarely. Should we be so surprised to learn, that God wants us to learn to be more and more perfect? Yet as I said, we all fail the mark, and there are three reasons for that. First, if you have ever known someone who seemed perfect, you may notice that they are very different from regular people. If you like golfing with the guys, you enjoy the sense that you are all peers. One guy may be a great driver but his putting is off, while each of the others has his own strengths and flaws. But if one of the guys in your foursome is Tiger Woods, then as good as he is, he may have a hard time fitting in. The idea is not that God holds us down to keep us from getting where we want to be, but knowing that we will fail, God helps us remember that we are all human, none of us is Superman. Second, we all need God. Just as we all must die one day, we all sin and cannot be everything all in ourselves. Even Jesus took care to have His disciples take part in some of His miracles (like the feeding of the 5,000, and even Peter was able to walk on water when Jesus did it); we are family, one with each other, and no man can truly say he needs no one else. Third, it is not right to say that knowing we would do evil, God created evil in order to make men sin. Rather, it is true to say that God chose to make men free, and knowing that men would use that freedom to choose evil in various times and places, God not only chose to forgive men their sins, but also to use that evil for good purposes. We do not always see this, but it is true nevertheless. When we see someone suffer, for instance, it moves our heart to act in compassion, which is good. When we see injustice, we are moved to create justice. When we see sickness, we are moved to help healing. In our arrogance, some blame God for the evil done, not realizing that evil is temporary, and one day will be destroyed. Even death is only real for a little while, measured against the eternal life God grants us. But because God is eterrnal, the things of God are also eternal, and no good thing is ever lost forever, but only set aside until its time. So it is eventually a different reality which comes to be; one where every bad and foul thing is undone, but only every good thing remains. Then we are able to appreciate all good things without cost or compromise, and all that is right will be full advanced. Our lives seek that goal.
Is there a test? Yes, there are many of them, as is always the case in school. But just as a good school can be a wonderful place for a child, so too the education of a soul does not need to be hard or cold, and the purpose of these tests is not to frighten us or browbeat us, but to help us see how far we have come, and to choose our next stage. And this, if I may be so bold, is where the Commission of Christ comes into the matter.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came to earth as a man, to live among us as one of us. This already sets Christ apart from so many religions based on a distant and impersonal god. Yet Jesus did more; he was entitled to wealth, influence, and power, yet He lived as a poor itinerant preacher, who died after being wrongfully accused of sedition by men who knew He was innocent. Jesus could have escaped this fate, but accepted it in order to do the will of God, that He should die for the sins of the world. This claim is admittedly controversial, but in this place I will not elaborate; I simply state what I know to be absolute truth. As a result, God acted as a human in order to save humans from their chosen path of evil, and knowing this salvation has been made for us is essential to understanding our identity and purpose. For someone living in this world, knowing that God loved us enough to live as one of us and die for what we did in hatred of Him is powerful, radical information. If life is a school, well, Christians are kind of the Student Council. We are charged with reporting who God is, what He wants for us, and why. And like any Student Council, we are a mix of people who do a good job, people who get a big head about the title, and all kinds of others. We are learning just like anyone else, in fact we may not be the best students and we are not really the teachers, unless in some rare case God so uses us, which He does with anyone whose work pleases Him.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Decisioning
Believe it or not, I’m still around. Frankly after the delay since my last post, I’m surprised anyone still stops by, thanks. OK a few personal remarks, to try to explain for the absence and sort out where to go from here. Mom’s breast cancer returned, and it came back mean, which – well, I will leave off the details and just say she went in for surgery last Tuesday, and she’s home now recuperating, which is another way of saying she feels tired and woozy and has noticed that there is absolutely nothing on TV she wants to see. But, all things considered not a bad situation. The family came together for obvious reasons, and everyone has packed up and gone back home except for my brother who lives there anyway.
The other thing which ate up so much time, besides my job and trying to be a good husband and father that is, is that I am finishing up the Spring semester at UHV. I turned in a final case for Managerial Economics, a term paper for Information Systems, a Powerpoint presentation for the IS paper, and I took my Economics final, which was pretty heavy in Quant. material, being a hands-on course in things like determining optimal production and pricing for a company or deriving an appropriate costing solution for product development, real micro-economics stuff. I got lucky though; I was nowhere near done with my Finance term paper this week past because of spending so much time at the hospital, but apparently everyone else had the same problem, so the professor of my Finance class pushed back both the Final exam and the term paper due date to this coming weekend instead. The IS course has a take-home final, which makes it sound easier than it is, but at least I can work at my own pace. That is, of course, providing I keep a diligent pace. This also means that my posting is likely to be sporadic this week, as well, but I will try to improve on last week.
That brings me, roundabout, to today’s topic. For all the hoo-dah about how important it is to elect the right leader who will somehow make all the right moves and make everything as it should be (lemme give you a hint – that’s not going to happen, even if [x] your favorite candidate [x] were to win in every election) Real Life makes you do a lot things yourself. It’s up to you who you choose to be, how you live your life and with whom, what you let bother you and what you make sure you always do, and what you never do. It’s up to you what kind of credibility you establish, what kind of work ethic you use to kick yourself out of bed and into gear every day, what you do about pain and loss, what you do about ego and hypocrisy, all of that. I see the news try to tell folks it’s not their fault they bought a house they knew they couldn’t afford, that if someone else gets rich that must somehow mean you got cheated, that Society – especially Hollywood – knows better than your family about honor and morality. Whether you believe that or not is your lookout, but in the end you make the decisions, and whatever comes of it is your baggage. You won’t get “fair”, that does not exist and it won’t do you any good to whine about it. We live in a world with better civil rights, a cleaner environment, more responsible government, and higher living standards than ever before in History. Someone will always be better off than you, but that does not make them wrong for doing well, and there will always be someone worse off than you, but that is no cause for you to feel guilty about it, unless you personally and deliberately caused their loss. In any case, it’s not a race, we all die sooner or later and if you think it’s about class justice or righting some perceived slight, you’re on your way to filling up your plate with spite and bitterness when you could have joy and hope.
Make good decisions. From where I sit, those are the ones which care about people and don’t aim to bring someone, anyone, down out of envy or pique. Instead, learn, think, then build on those things that you will always be glad you did.
[steps down from soapbox]
The other thing which ate up so much time, besides my job and trying to be a good husband and father that is, is that I am finishing up the Spring semester at UHV. I turned in a final case for Managerial Economics, a term paper for Information Systems, a Powerpoint presentation for the IS paper, and I took my Economics final, which was pretty heavy in Quant. material, being a hands-on course in things like determining optimal production and pricing for a company or deriving an appropriate costing solution for product development, real micro-economics stuff. I got lucky though; I was nowhere near done with my Finance term paper this week past because of spending so much time at the hospital, but apparently everyone else had the same problem, so the professor of my Finance class pushed back both the Final exam and the term paper due date to this coming weekend instead. The IS course has a take-home final, which makes it sound easier than it is, but at least I can work at my own pace. That is, of course, providing I keep a diligent pace. This also means that my posting is likely to be sporadic this week, as well, but I will try to improve on last week.
That brings me, roundabout, to today’s topic. For all the hoo-dah about how important it is to elect the right leader who will somehow make all the right moves and make everything as it should be (lemme give you a hint – that’s not going to happen, even if [x] your favorite candidate [x] were to win in every election) Real Life makes you do a lot things yourself. It’s up to you who you choose to be, how you live your life and with whom, what you let bother you and what you make sure you always do, and what you never do. It’s up to you what kind of credibility you establish, what kind of work ethic you use to kick yourself out of bed and into gear every day, what you do about pain and loss, what you do about ego and hypocrisy, all of that. I see the news try to tell folks it’s not their fault they bought a house they knew they couldn’t afford, that if someone else gets rich that must somehow mean you got cheated, that Society – especially Hollywood – knows better than your family about honor and morality. Whether you believe that or not is your lookout, but in the end you make the decisions, and whatever comes of it is your baggage. You won’t get “fair”, that does not exist and it won’t do you any good to whine about it. We live in a world with better civil rights, a cleaner environment, more responsible government, and higher living standards than ever before in History. Someone will always be better off than you, but that does not make them wrong for doing well, and there will always be someone worse off than you, but that is no cause for you to feel guilty about it, unless you personally and deliberately caused their loss. In any case, it’s not a race, we all die sooner or later and if you think it’s about class justice or righting some perceived slight, you’re on your way to filling up your plate with spite and bitterness when you could have joy and hope.
Make good decisions. From where I sit, those are the ones which care about people and don’t aim to bring someone, anyone, down out of envy or pique. Instead, learn, think, then build on those things that you will always be glad you did.
[steps down from soapbox]
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Rights of the Unpopular
I’m worried, and I think maybe you should be, too. The media had a lot of fun covering the April 3 raid by law enforcement on the FLDS’ so-called “polygamist compound” just outside San Angelo. The FLDS members have been roundly mocked, and in the public eye have been branded as outlaws and malcontents. If the charges against them are true, the FLDS members have engaged in conduct so far outside acceptable mores, that the leaders of that group should expect to never step outside a prison again in their lives.
But that’s the rub. There are, to be sure, problems with the legal case. First, it turns out that the call which started the raid may well be a hoax.
And a state judge has ruled that the FLDS has the right to challenge the legality of the raid.
Law enforcement and Child Protective Services have reacted defensively, almost in paranoia, arguing that concern for the children trumped any legal rights the FLDS had. This is where I think a line was crossed. Look, I don’t think there’s any chance I could conclude that the FLDS is the kind of group I could ever sympathize with, but even so the last I checked even the strangest kooks have rights. The Constitution protects the Klan, the New Black Panthers, Scientology, and all sorts of groups whose beliefs offend the general sentiment. It’s been twenty days since the raid, and more and more it’s looking as though there was not much in the way of ‘probable cause'. I mean, what evidence has the state shown to the media?
It turns out the phone call which prompted the initial warant is probably a hoax. So right from the start, a reasonable person could worry about whether this raid should have happened. The state has not shown any other evidence it had prior to April 3 which would justify its actions;
The motive for the raid, we are told, is the fear that children were being abused. Well, aside from being dressed strangely, the kids I have heard about all turn out to be pretty healthy, well-fed, not abused so far as anyone has been able to determine so far. And after nearly three weeks, I have to believe that if there was evidence of abuse, we’d have seen it. Instead, all we see are claims it happened, even though the FLDS unanimously says such behavior not only never happened, but would be considered sinful if it happened.
Some folks have gone on to claim that the FLDS leaders must be guilty, since they have not spoken out in public. But there are two problems with that claims – first, the FLDS women have come out and denied the claims, as do the FLDS’ lawyers. As for anyone else, last I checked the 5th Amendment and the old Miranda ruling say a person is not required to speak at all, especially to the press.
So, a raid based solely on a phone call probably made by a person known to have made similar fraudulent calls in the past, fails to produce evidence supporting any of the main allegations. Instead of freeing the FLDS members and apologizing for the mistake, Texas doubles down and asserts unproven claims which appear to be meant to spin the group as dangerous in absence of any real evidence, and instead of sending the kids home sends them off to CPS and ‘foster families' while it continues to pursue charges in the absence of any probable cause. Look, if someone commits a crime and you can prove it, nail them to the wall, but I am very concerned about the idea that a group’s ranch can be raided and everyone held in custody without charges, on no substantive evidence whatsoever.
I don’t agree with the FLDS, but I cannot agree with denying them their rights. Prove the charges have merit, or let them go. Anything else would be an insult to the Constitution of the United States.
But that’s the rub. There are, to be sure, problems with the legal case. First, it turns out that the call which started the raid may well be a hoax.
And a state judge has ruled that the FLDS has the right to challenge the legality of the raid.
Law enforcement and Child Protective Services have reacted defensively, almost in paranoia, arguing that concern for the children trumped any legal rights the FLDS had. This is where I think a line was crossed. Look, I don’t think there’s any chance I could conclude that the FLDS is the kind of group I could ever sympathize with, but even so the last I checked even the strangest kooks have rights. The Constitution protects the Klan, the New Black Panthers, Scientology, and all sorts of groups whose beliefs offend the general sentiment. It’s been twenty days since the raid, and more and more it’s looking as though there was not much in the way of ‘probable cause'. I mean, what evidence has the state shown to the media?
It turns out the phone call which prompted the initial warant is probably a hoax. So right from the start, a reasonable person could worry about whether this raid should have happened. The state has not shown any other evidence it had prior to April 3 which would justify its actions;
The motive for the raid, we are told, is the fear that children were being abused. Well, aside from being dressed strangely, the kids I have heard about all turn out to be pretty healthy, well-fed, not abused so far as anyone has been able to determine so far. And after nearly three weeks, I have to believe that if there was evidence of abuse, we’d have seen it. Instead, all we see are claims it happened, even though the FLDS unanimously says such behavior not only never happened, but would be considered sinful if it happened.
Some folks have gone on to claim that the FLDS leaders must be guilty, since they have not spoken out in public. But there are two problems with that claims – first, the FLDS women have come out and denied the claims, as do the FLDS’ lawyers. As for anyone else, last I checked the 5th Amendment and the old Miranda ruling say a person is not required to speak at all, especially to the press.
So, a raid based solely on a phone call probably made by a person known to have made similar fraudulent calls in the past, fails to produce evidence supporting any of the main allegations. Instead of freeing the FLDS members and apologizing for the mistake, Texas doubles down and asserts unproven claims which appear to be meant to spin the group as dangerous in absence of any real evidence, and instead of sending the kids home sends them off to CPS and ‘foster families' while it continues to pursue charges in the absence of any probable cause. Look, if someone commits a crime and you can prove it, nail them to the wall, but I am very concerned about the idea that a group’s ranch can be raided and everyone held in custody without charges, on no substantive evidence whatsoever.
I don’t agree with the FLDS, but I cannot agree with denying them their rights. Prove the charges have merit, or let them go. Anything else would be an insult to the Constitution of the United States.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Jobs and Money
One of John Kerry’s biggest blunders in his 2004 run for the White House, was his inability to explain simple concepts or provide simple answers. Another was his elitist manner when dealing with regular Americans. One might expect that Democrats would have dissected the loss to make sure they did not repeat the mistake. Apparently not, judging by this year’s showtunes from Donk 08. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are reprising Kerry’s role with all the Everyman skills of Thurston Howell the Third.
So, let’s lay it down. People worry about having enough money to pay their bills and keep their families fed and healthy. To get that money, they want staedy jobs, because real Americans work for their money. So, the natural question is just where the jobs are going to come from. Clinton and Obama are trolling around blaming job losses on Republicans, often on no evidence at all, but even with that gambit they are finding it hard to sway voters much. The reason is simple, I think – if you have a job, you would care about how to protect it, but if you have already lost your job, what you want to know is not who some politician wants you to blame, but how and when you will get your next job. You want to know what, exactly, this yahoo is going to do to get you work.
It seems hard to believe that a career politician in a thousand-dollar suit who has never sweated a layoff in his or her life, is going to understand (let alone address) the job market in a way that will matter to you in any real sense. The voters know politicians much better than the politicians know the voters.
So, let’s lay it down. People worry about having enough money to pay their bills and keep their families fed and healthy. To get that money, they want staedy jobs, because real Americans work for their money. So, the natural question is just where the jobs are going to come from. Clinton and Obama are trolling around blaming job losses on Republicans, often on no evidence at all, but even with that gambit they are finding it hard to sway voters much. The reason is simple, I think – if you have a job, you would care about how to protect it, but if you have already lost your job, what you want to know is not who some politician wants you to blame, but how and when you will get your next job. You want to know what, exactly, this yahoo is going to do to get you work.
It seems hard to believe that a career politician in a thousand-dollar suit who has never sweated a layoff in his or her life, is going to understand (let alone address) the job market in a way that will matter to you in any real sense. The voters know politicians much better than the politicians know the voters.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The Davidian Raid 15 Years Later
April 19 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of one of America’s most shameful events; the murders of dozens of helpless victims, including two pregnant women and twenty-one children, at the Branch Davidian compound assault in 1993. While at the time the FBI repeatedly insisted, even under oath, that they used no incendiary devices nor fired any gunshots, overwhelming evidence since the raid has proven that the FBI and BATF were directly responsible not only for the destruction of the Davidian buildings, but also for shooting unarmed Davidians, then using their official positions to conceal and destroy evidence of the crimes. The evidence includes not only witness testimony and video coverage (including FLIR footage), but also casings at the scene and the admission in 1999 of the use of M651 CS canisters (after repeated denials under oath) “during the assault” (during which time loudspeakers attached to the tanks could be heard declaring “this is not an assault” as they ran into walls of bedrooms and tore out sections of the structure).
Forensic evidence was largely destroyed by the government immediately following the raid, including the bulldozing of the area to prevent recovery of ballistics and other objective data which could have supported key Davidian claims. Even so, autopsy evidence indicated that several Davidians were run over by armored vehicles, none of them found with any sort of weapon; the FLIR footage shown on the documentary provides compelling evidence that the FBI started the fires which destroyed the building, although this appears to have been unintentional; the video footage of the assault shows that federal agents surrounded the compound and fired into the building, preventing opportunity to flee the death trap (CS tear gas used in an enclosed space metabolizes to hydrogen cyanide), eventually firing CS gas into the kitchen storage area, which had no windows or exits, and where dozens of women and children fled; the FBI had no fire trucks on site during the raid; and despite agents’ insistence that saving children was their top priority, there is not even one case of an FBI agent saving a child from the building during the raid. Not one.
The FBI defended itself, basically, by lying about the facts and the evidence for years, destroying what it could, and then won in court because the Davidians could not produce exculpatory evidence the FBI had locked away or destroyed. The Branch Davidian raid became a touchstone for every conspiracy theory and worry of totalitarian government. I would go so far as to suggest that every major domestic uprising since 1993 has a connection to the Branch Davidian raid. Timothy McVeigh admitted that the Davidian raid strongly influenced his decision to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Even the April 19, 1995 attack date was chosen to recall the Davidian raid’s date. The Montana Freemen became much more militant and active following the Davidian raid, apparently in fear that the government would soon begin cracking down on anyone who got out of line. Politically, the raid was a disaster for the Clinton Administration. Attorney General Reno took full responsibility and offered her resignation, which President Clinton refused to accept. The Davidian raid and the deaths of 4 federal agents and 92 Branch Davidians gradually faded from the public eye, to be obscured by other media events and political scandals.
It would be easy to go overboard with this story, either as evidence for a conspiracy theory or to attack the Clinton Administration. There have even been attempts to connect Hillary Clinton to the deaths of the women and children at the compound, demonstrating just how rabid some of the claims have become. I even wrote the first part of this article with a lean towards the evil-government conspiracy angle. The matter takes on a different look when we step back a bit.
To be sure, the elements I cited are all true and have been painstakingly established over the last decade and a half. But there is more to the story, which needs to be considered.
First, the conflict began with an ATF raid on the Davidian compound on February 28, 1993. The raid was based on fears that the Branch Davidians were a “doomsday cult”, planning a violent attack on neighboring Mount Carmel or even Waco, Texas. While no evidence was ever produced to support the claim that the Branch Davidians intended to attack anyone, the group had come into possession of several hundred semi-automatic rifles, and while all of the known purchases were legal, there was an anonymous claim made that some of the rifles had been modified to fire as fully automatic weapons. Because of this claim (also never substantiated by evidence or any credible sitness), a search warrant was issued for the Mount Carmel compound, and because a large amount of firearms were involved, the ATF came armed to the teeth, with a lot of armed men and helicopters. The problem was, the ATF was sloppy in its surveillance and the Branch Davidians expected the raid, if not the specific tactics. What happened exactly, when the ATF tried to serve the warrant depends on who you ask, but there is no question that a lot of shooting happened, and a number of people were killed, including four federal agents and six Branch Davidians. The ATF set up a perimeter and a 51-day standoff began. The first salient factor to the tragedy, thus, was the assumption by each side that the other was violent and could not be trusted.
By the time of the April 19 raid, the authorities involved in the standoff included the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Guard, and an unspecified number of officials from the Treasury Department, Justice Department, the Attorney General’s office and the White House. This created the second salient factor to the disaster, a lack of clear command and simple communication.
The law enforcement and government agencies also had problems deciding media’s role in the crisis. The media by 1993 had exploded in capability and appetite, with 24-hour coverage and non-stop commentary. This exponentially increased pressure on law enforcement, as officials were badgered over and over for new updates and action. In addition, neither the ATF nor the FBI were equipped or trained for a prolonged siege on territory controlled by their adversary, and as the days turned to weeks, the authorities felt increasingly compelled to act, even without a clear and well-developed plan or worst-case analysis. This was the third salient factor in the crisis, an imperative to act whether or not the plan’s assumptions had been tested.
The combination of these three factors, in my opinion, led to the needless deaths of 76 people on April 19, 1993. They also helped to create a fear of discovery by the ATF and FBI, which led to destruction of evidence and a series of false accusations against Davidians to prevent a public outcry against the FBI and the ATF. That did not work out, however, as outrage from the raid’s casualties continued in the media, the Internet, and in virtually all public venues. This led to unexpected consequences for the authorities, the Clinton Administration in particular. It may be that seeing the results of the Davidian raid, the Clinton Administration decided to avoid any conflict where the outcome was not in firm control. It would explain Clinton’s sudden reticence to increase the U.S. military presence in Somalia, his delay in sending military aid to Rwanda, and the reason why Clinton was so late in keeping his promise to send troops to Bosnia. In the light of heavy casualties at Mount Carmel, where he had been given no reason to expect them, it is not at all surprising that President Clinton refused to take unilateral military action under any circumstances, and never again showed trust in his forward commanders. While the later military decisions may be criticized on their own merits, it should be noted that the Davidian raid was not the fault of the Clinton Administration. The available records show that AG Reno made clear that the children’s safety was the top priority, and when the April 19 raid was planned she asked for confirmation that the CS tear gas would not contribute to a possible fire. The Clinton Administration was in its early months and would not have yet become familiar with drill-down processes for checking claims by subordinates, especially in such an unanticipated domestic stand-off. It should also be noted that no appropriate agency existed to deal with a situation posed by the Branch Davidians, who represented no military threat yet refused to surrender, whose agricultural compound was well-suited for a prolonged siege while the FBI had to find ad-hoc accomodations. The records show that in addition to the ATF, the FBI and the National Guard, members of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and Delta Force were also present during the siege, showing that the government agents sensed that they were not in control of the situation, but unable to find a group trained and experienced in just this kind of situation. The Branch Davidians were not hostages, and interviews with Davidians and tapes of negotiations show that they were not intent on aggression, despite the media spin. The FBI was in charge but did not know what to do, and it appears the SAC was not at all willing to admit this to the Attorney General. It remains to be seen what will happen, the next time a large domestic group chooses to resist government attempts at mass arrest by force.
Forensic evidence was largely destroyed by the government immediately following the raid, including the bulldozing of the area to prevent recovery of ballistics and other objective data which could have supported key Davidian claims. Even so, autopsy evidence indicated that several Davidians were run over by armored vehicles, none of them found with any sort of weapon; the FLIR footage shown on the documentary provides compelling evidence that the FBI started the fires which destroyed the building, although this appears to have been unintentional; the video footage of the assault shows that federal agents surrounded the compound and fired into the building, preventing opportunity to flee the death trap (CS tear gas used in an enclosed space metabolizes to hydrogen cyanide), eventually firing CS gas into the kitchen storage area, which had no windows or exits, and where dozens of women and children fled; the FBI had no fire trucks on site during the raid; and despite agents’ insistence that saving children was their top priority, there is not even one case of an FBI agent saving a child from the building during the raid. Not one.
The FBI defended itself, basically, by lying about the facts and the evidence for years, destroying what it could, and then won in court because the Davidians could not produce exculpatory evidence the FBI had locked away or destroyed. The Branch Davidian raid became a touchstone for every conspiracy theory and worry of totalitarian government. I would go so far as to suggest that every major domestic uprising since 1993 has a connection to the Branch Davidian raid. Timothy McVeigh admitted that the Davidian raid strongly influenced his decision to destroy the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Even the April 19, 1995 attack date was chosen to recall the Davidian raid’s date. The Montana Freemen became much more militant and active following the Davidian raid, apparently in fear that the government would soon begin cracking down on anyone who got out of line. Politically, the raid was a disaster for the Clinton Administration. Attorney General Reno took full responsibility and offered her resignation, which President Clinton refused to accept. The Davidian raid and the deaths of 4 federal agents and 92 Branch Davidians gradually faded from the public eye, to be obscured by other media events and political scandals.
It would be easy to go overboard with this story, either as evidence for a conspiracy theory or to attack the Clinton Administration. There have even been attempts to connect Hillary Clinton to the deaths of the women and children at the compound, demonstrating just how rabid some of the claims have become. I even wrote the first part of this article with a lean towards the evil-government conspiracy angle. The matter takes on a different look when we step back a bit.
To be sure, the elements I cited are all true and have been painstakingly established over the last decade and a half. But there is more to the story, which needs to be considered.
First, the conflict began with an ATF raid on the Davidian compound on February 28, 1993. The raid was based on fears that the Branch Davidians were a “doomsday cult”, planning a violent attack on neighboring Mount Carmel or even Waco, Texas. While no evidence was ever produced to support the claim that the Branch Davidians intended to attack anyone, the group had come into possession of several hundred semi-automatic rifles, and while all of the known purchases were legal, there was an anonymous claim made that some of the rifles had been modified to fire as fully automatic weapons. Because of this claim (also never substantiated by evidence or any credible sitness), a search warrant was issued for the Mount Carmel compound, and because a large amount of firearms were involved, the ATF came armed to the teeth, with a lot of armed men and helicopters. The problem was, the ATF was sloppy in its surveillance and the Branch Davidians expected the raid, if not the specific tactics. What happened exactly, when the ATF tried to serve the warrant depends on who you ask, but there is no question that a lot of shooting happened, and a number of people were killed, including four federal agents and six Branch Davidians. The ATF set up a perimeter and a 51-day standoff began. The first salient factor to the tragedy, thus, was the assumption by each side that the other was violent and could not be trusted.
By the time of the April 19 raid, the authorities involved in the standoff included the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Guard, and an unspecified number of officials from the Treasury Department, Justice Department, the Attorney General’s office and the White House. This created the second salient factor to the disaster, a lack of clear command and simple communication.
The law enforcement and government agencies also had problems deciding media’s role in the crisis. The media by 1993 had exploded in capability and appetite, with 24-hour coverage and non-stop commentary. This exponentially increased pressure on law enforcement, as officials were badgered over and over for new updates and action. In addition, neither the ATF nor the FBI were equipped or trained for a prolonged siege on territory controlled by their adversary, and as the days turned to weeks, the authorities felt increasingly compelled to act, even without a clear and well-developed plan or worst-case analysis. This was the third salient factor in the crisis, an imperative to act whether or not the plan’s assumptions had been tested.
The combination of these three factors, in my opinion, led to the needless deaths of 76 people on April 19, 1993. They also helped to create a fear of discovery by the ATF and FBI, which led to destruction of evidence and a series of false accusations against Davidians to prevent a public outcry against the FBI and the ATF. That did not work out, however, as outrage from the raid’s casualties continued in the media, the Internet, and in virtually all public venues. This led to unexpected consequences for the authorities, the Clinton Administration in particular. It may be that seeing the results of the Davidian raid, the Clinton Administration decided to avoid any conflict where the outcome was not in firm control. It would explain Clinton’s sudden reticence to increase the U.S. military presence in Somalia, his delay in sending military aid to Rwanda, and the reason why Clinton was so late in keeping his promise to send troops to Bosnia. In the light of heavy casualties at Mount Carmel, where he had been given no reason to expect them, it is not at all surprising that President Clinton refused to take unilateral military action under any circumstances, and never again showed trust in his forward commanders. While the later military decisions may be criticized on their own merits, it should be noted that the Davidian raid was not the fault of the Clinton Administration. The available records show that AG Reno made clear that the children’s safety was the top priority, and when the April 19 raid was planned she asked for confirmation that the CS tear gas would not contribute to a possible fire. The Clinton Administration was in its early months and would not have yet become familiar with drill-down processes for checking claims by subordinates, especially in such an unanticipated domestic stand-off. It should also be noted that no appropriate agency existed to deal with a situation posed by the Branch Davidians, who represented no military threat yet refused to surrender, whose agricultural compound was well-suited for a prolonged siege while the FBI had to find ad-hoc accomodations. The records show that in addition to the ATF, the FBI and the National Guard, members of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and Delta Force were also present during the siege, showing that the government agents sensed that they were not in control of the situation, but unable to find a group trained and experienced in just this kind of situation. The Branch Davidians were not hostages, and interviews with Davidians and tapes of negotiations show that they were not intent on aggression, despite the media spin. The FBI was in charge but did not know what to do, and it appears the SAC was not at all willing to admit this to the Attorney General. It remains to be seen what will happen, the next time a large domestic group chooses to resist government attempts at mass arrest by force.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Sorry for the Silence
Over at Right Wing News, John Hawkins observed some time ago that a successful blogger needs to blog steadily. Thus, I suppose, is one cause of my drib-drab numbers. Then again, I wouldn’t say I blog for popularity, and surely it does not pay the bills. I write when the Muse strikes me - which in my case may be described as an irresistible itch to post some of the stuff I write, because I write a great deal more than I post, in consideration that few enough people are really that interested in the political implications of Sox implementation protocols, or the cyclical nature of news themes. Anyway, I try to post what might have some interest for readers.
I have to admit that I also get distracted. Three classes again this spring means a lot of work in Finance and Economics, which I find interesting but not even many of my fellow students seem to do so, which is a warning against posting too much of my school work on the blog. Also, my mother’s breast cancer has recurred, and she will have to have a double masectomry next week. The situation seems to be relatively under control, but I have to admit I have spent some more time with family for obvious reasons.
I have to admit that I also get distracted. Three classes again this spring means a lot of work in Finance and Economics, which I find interesting but not even many of my fellow students seem to do so, which is a warning against posting too much of my school work on the blog. Also, my mother’s breast cancer has recurred, and she will have to have a double masectomry next week. The situation seems to be relatively under control, but I have to admit I have spent some more time with family for obvious reasons.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Obama Swift-Boats Himself
In the late spring of 2004, things looked bright for the Democrats. Media spin was making Americans doubt the war in Iraq, ignore the war in Afghanistan, wrongly believe the economy was in trouble, and the Democrats had settled on Senator John Kerry for their presidential nominee, a decorated veteran who fought in Vietnam. Polls showed Kerry in good position and the Democrats were sure that they were about to regain the White House.
Then it all fell apart. The economy’s strength became impossible to deny, the successes in the Middle East wars reminded many Americans that the cause was worth its price, but even so the Kerry campaign felt it had a good chance. Then Kerry’s boastful war record finally came under serious scrutiny. While some Republicans tried to discredit everything Kerry did in uniform, and some Democrats tried to blame everything on a Conservative conspiracy, the facts revealed by other Swift-Boat veterans from the Vietnam conflict raised reasonable doubts about the veracity of Kerry’s hero claims, forced him to backtrack from a false claim to have fought in Cambodia in 1968, and reminded America of Kerry’s shameful hypocrisy as a war protestor, not because of his stance against the war, but such things as throwing “his” medals over a wall then somehow displaying the same medals in his office years later, or attending unsanctioned and illegal negotiations with the North Vietnamese government while still commissioned as a U.S. Navy officer. What did Kerry in, though, was not his position or actions in themselves, so much as it was his refusal to admit false claims or apologize for insults to the U.S. military and the nation. Democrats refused to accept the fact that Kerry had damaged his own campaign through his actions and behavior, and denounced the collapse of Kerry’s credibility as ‘swift-boating’, a term which has clearly different meanings to different audiences. The objective verdict for the Kerry campaign would have to say that the man shot himself down, in part because his character in fact was much different from the image he sold to voters.
Back to 2008 and Barack Obama. Enjoying a commanding lead over rival Senator Clinton for the Democratic nomination race, wanted to close her campaign out in Pennsylvania. Most political race followers know what happened then: Playing the class envy card that has become the hallmark of the modern Democrats, Obama discussed why believed Pennsylvanians were unhappy with the present condition, saying that they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
That, folks, is a very, very stupid thing for any candidate to say. But in Obama’s case it’s much worse, because Senator Obama has run on a claim that he rises above the cheap rhetoric, that he stands for the ideals held by all Americans, that he wants to focus on what unifies and advances America. That statement, no matter how he tries to backtrack or rephrase it, effectively proved that Obama is by no means the man he claims to be, that his prime claim to credibility has been proven a lie in front of the whole nation. Obama’s “clarification” during this week has been received for what it is, a self-serving and dishonest attempt to duck what he really said, and denial about the damage he did to his own reputation and credentials.
With that said, no one should believe this seriously damages the Obama run to the Democratic party nomination; Obama’s numbers are still too much for Clinton to catch. And Obama’s base is going to stick with him all the way through the fall. This blunder won’t cause lifelong Democrats to back off their man. Where it hurts is where it happened – Pennsylvania and states just like it, where folks may be Democrat or Republican or whatever, but they hold hard and strong to certain values and rights, and a politician who does not support gun rights and freedom of expression and religion, a politician who does not respect the laws protecting our borders, while at the same time understanding that new citizens are welcome and valued, well, that politician is just not going to get support there. It’s not just what he said in Pennsylvania a week ago, but the whole message that is starting to come out about Obama, his hate-filled pastor of two decades, his class warfare rhetoric when he panders to areas with high unemployment, and Obama’s shocking inability to understand the values of small-town America. His behavior of the past month, coupled with lame excuses in place of squarely admitting his wrongs and asking for forgiveness, has demonstrated a callous character in Obama that will, in the general election, cost him three or four states that he would have won if he had spoken more as the man he claimed to be. And that kind of self-inflicted injury could easily prove the fatal cost to the fall election. But just like Senator Kerry before him, we can be sure that Senator Obama will simply pretend that he was a victim of conspiracy, never admitting that his own worst enemy looked back at him every time he saw a mirror.
Then it all fell apart. The economy’s strength became impossible to deny, the successes in the Middle East wars reminded many Americans that the cause was worth its price, but even so the Kerry campaign felt it had a good chance. Then Kerry’s boastful war record finally came under serious scrutiny. While some Republicans tried to discredit everything Kerry did in uniform, and some Democrats tried to blame everything on a Conservative conspiracy, the facts revealed by other Swift-Boat veterans from the Vietnam conflict raised reasonable doubts about the veracity of Kerry’s hero claims, forced him to backtrack from a false claim to have fought in Cambodia in 1968, and reminded America of Kerry’s shameful hypocrisy as a war protestor, not because of his stance against the war, but such things as throwing “his” medals over a wall then somehow displaying the same medals in his office years later, or attending unsanctioned and illegal negotiations with the North Vietnamese government while still commissioned as a U.S. Navy officer. What did Kerry in, though, was not his position or actions in themselves, so much as it was his refusal to admit false claims or apologize for insults to the U.S. military and the nation. Democrats refused to accept the fact that Kerry had damaged his own campaign through his actions and behavior, and denounced the collapse of Kerry’s credibility as ‘swift-boating’, a term which has clearly different meanings to different audiences. The objective verdict for the Kerry campaign would have to say that the man shot himself down, in part because his character in fact was much different from the image he sold to voters.
Back to 2008 and Barack Obama. Enjoying a commanding lead over rival Senator Clinton for the Democratic nomination race, wanted to close her campaign out in Pennsylvania. Most political race followers know what happened then: Playing the class envy card that has become the hallmark of the modern Democrats, Obama discussed why believed Pennsylvanians were unhappy with the present condition, saying that they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
That, folks, is a very, very stupid thing for any candidate to say. But in Obama’s case it’s much worse, because Senator Obama has run on a claim that he rises above the cheap rhetoric, that he stands for the ideals held by all Americans, that he wants to focus on what unifies and advances America. That statement, no matter how he tries to backtrack or rephrase it, effectively proved that Obama is by no means the man he claims to be, that his prime claim to credibility has been proven a lie in front of the whole nation. Obama’s “clarification” during this week has been received for what it is, a self-serving and dishonest attempt to duck what he really said, and denial about the damage he did to his own reputation and credentials.
With that said, no one should believe this seriously damages the Obama run to the Democratic party nomination; Obama’s numbers are still too much for Clinton to catch. And Obama’s base is going to stick with him all the way through the fall. This blunder won’t cause lifelong Democrats to back off their man. Where it hurts is where it happened – Pennsylvania and states just like it, where folks may be Democrat or Republican or whatever, but they hold hard and strong to certain values and rights, and a politician who does not support gun rights and freedom of expression and religion, a politician who does not respect the laws protecting our borders, while at the same time understanding that new citizens are welcome and valued, well, that politician is just not going to get support there. It’s not just what he said in Pennsylvania a week ago, but the whole message that is starting to come out about Obama, his hate-filled pastor of two decades, his class warfare rhetoric when he panders to areas with high unemployment, and Obama’s shocking inability to understand the values of small-town America. His behavior of the past month, coupled with lame excuses in place of squarely admitting his wrongs and asking for forgiveness, has demonstrated a callous character in Obama that will, in the general election, cost him three or four states that he would have won if he had spoken more as the man he claimed to be. And that kind of self-inflicted injury could easily prove the fatal cost to the fall election. But just like Senator Kerry before him, we can be sure that Senator Obama will simply pretend that he was a victim of conspiracy, never admitting that his own worst enemy looked back at him every time he saw a mirror.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Money Musing
You may have noticed that the media is making a big deal about the economy. If so, you are probably aware that, as usual, the guys on TV are not well educated about how the economy works. I guess High School for the Visual Arts and Morally Impaired never got around to adding Economics to the curriculum. But the economy is not really that hard to understand, provided you have the right foundation of knowledge. And when you understand the economy in context, all the whining and moaning becomes not merely annoying, but the signature of the idiot.
Let’s start with Free Trade. The middle class American lives pretty darn well, all things considered. In fact, no one on the planet a century ago had it as good as ordinary folks do today. The reason, putting it bluntly, is free trade. You see, ever since the first merchant figured that it was ridiculous to expect every single person to individually provide everything he needed for himself, and that with a little organization and a decent chance to let folks make their own deals, everyone could benefit and live better. Shoes, for example. Ever try to make your own shoes? I remember we did something like that in Indian Guides, making our own moccasins which hurt our feet because they were too loose and gave no support or traction. Turns out training a person to make and repair shoes for everyone else worked out much better. Same thing for iron smithing; not everyone is able to make their own nails and horseshoes and so on, so it makes sense for one or two guys to do it for the whole village. And so on, everyone learning to do what they were the best at, for which service and product they were rewarded in trade. Yeah, that’s where money comes in, because when everyone already has enough chickens and cheese, barter doesn’t work out. Anyway, the word “trade” comes from that, people learning to do specialized work. And that, folks, is all Free Trade is trying to do – carry on that same very good idea to its natural extension. Different parts of the world have different resources of material and labor, and everyone benefits by producing what gives them the best advantages. Everyone knew that a while back, and it was kind of obvious – during Reagan’s years, Free Trade was West Germany and no Free Trade was East Germany, but we can still see it today, this time South Korea is Free Trade and North Korea is no Free Trade. Simple when you pay attention.
I sense the Free Trade haters are not done, though. One imagines the harangue that we are sending all our jobs away. Bollocks, that. For as long as I can remember, the classic definition of Full Employment has been an Unemployment rate of 5% or less. This is because there is always a certain amount or churn going on, the dynamics of technological development, new businesses coming in while other businesses close. And we have essentially enjoyed full employment conditions for more than a decade now. I’m not praising either President Bush or President Clinton too much on that count, because while I commend them for basically letting business work, they really did not do much else that made a difference in growth. I do think the tax cuts helped us recover more quickly from the 2001 recession, but in the main the principle for solving Unemployment is don’t do anything to impede companies creating jobs. Of course, the haters will return with the claim that the ‘new’ jobs are all lousy ones. That brings up an interesting thing a lot of workers would do well to consider; just as businesses have to review their parctices and the products they offer every so often, to make sure they are relevant and providing what the market wants, so too do workers need to watch what happens in the working world. The guys who made horse and buggy equipment had to adapt to a changing world, same for retail distribution, manufacturing, you name it. Today’s business environment is faster, far more efficient, yet also safer and cleaner ecologically than ever before. One reason why the ecology special interest groups go on about carbon dioxide so much, is because for the most part American businesses have addressed every serious contaminant and pollutant; while individual companies break the law, it is hardly the pervasive industry problem it was 50 years ago. So yes, the modern worker not only has to have a college degree where half a century ago a high school diploma was acceptable, he had also plan on continuing his education throughout his career, with industry-specific certification and effectiveness programs. But if he does that, he will continue to see his life grow in comfort and security. The middle class world I knew as a kid was one where most folks had black-and-white TVs, one car, and no real luxuries. Today, even people we call “poor” live better than that. I don’t pretend it’s easy, but the business world rewards people who improve themselves, and not those who make excuses.
No matter what anyone tells you, there is no sure way to get rich quick. There is, however, a pretty fool-proof way to get rich over time. Do the best job you can for your employer, because even if your boss is a jerk, people tend to be aware of how someone works. Always keep an eye out for how you can improve your position, but only within ethical bounds and with respect for the company (it’s a small world, and people who step on others to get ahead are more and more getting caught). Enjoy your wages, but save at least 15% of it, more if you can. Stocks pay a higher return than CDs or bonds, but if you go that way you have to accept some risk, which is not dangerous as long as you always do your homework and know the company in which you invest. Buy what you need, not all of what you want, and plan financial goals.
People with common sense have probably shrugged by now – all of this should be obvious. I am writing partly just to vent, but also because somehow obvious truths get drowned out by Gorish malcontents, so repeating the obvious seems to be a necessary civic duty.
Let’s start with Free Trade. The middle class American lives pretty darn well, all things considered. In fact, no one on the planet a century ago had it as good as ordinary folks do today. The reason, putting it bluntly, is free trade. You see, ever since the first merchant figured that it was ridiculous to expect every single person to individually provide everything he needed for himself, and that with a little organization and a decent chance to let folks make their own deals, everyone could benefit and live better. Shoes, for example. Ever try to make your own shoes? I remember we did something like that in Indian Guides, making our own moccasins which hurt our feet because they were too loose and gave no support or traction. Turns out training a person to make and repair shoes for everyone else worked out much better. Same thing for iron smithing; not everyone is able to make their own nails and horseshoes and so on, so it makes sense for one or two guys to do it for the whole village. And so on, everyone learning to do what they were the best at, for which service and product they were rewarded in trade. Yeah, that’s where money comes in, because when everyone already has enough chickens and cheese, barter doesn’t work out. Anyway, the word “trade” comes from that, people learning to do specialized work. And that, folks, is all Free Trade is trying to do – carry on that same very good idea to its natural extension. Different parts of the world have different resources of material and labor, and everyone benefits by producing what gives them the best advantages. Everyone knew that a while back, and it was kind of obvious – during Reagan’s years, Free Trade was West Germany and no Free Trade was East Germany, but we can still see it today, this time South Korea is Free Trade and North Korea is no Free Trade. Simple when you pay attention.
I sense the Free Trade haters are not done, though. One imagines the harangue that we are sending all our jobs away. Bollocks, that. For as long as I can remember, the classic definition of Full Employment has been an Unemployment rate of 5% or less. This is because there is always a certain amount or churn going on, the dynamics of technological development, new businesses coming in while other businesses close. And we have essentially enjoyed full employment conditions for more than a decade now. I’m not praising either President Bush or President Clinton too much on that count, because while I commend them for basically letting business work, they really did not do much else that made a difference in growth. I do think the tax cuts helped us recover more quickly from the 2001 recession, but in the main the principle for solving Unemployment is don’t do anything to impede companies creating jobs. Of course, the haters will return with the claim that the ‘new’ jobs are all lousy ones. That brings up an interesting thing a lot of workers would do well to consider; just as businesses have to review their parctices and the products they offer every so often, to make sure they are relevant and providing what the market wants, so too do workers need to watch what happens in the working world. The guys who made horse and buggy equipment had to adapt to a changing world, same for retail distribution, manufacturing, you name it. Today’s business environment is faster, far more efficient, yet also safer and cleaner ecologically than ever before. One reason why the ecology special interest groups go on about carbon dioxide so much, is because for the most part American businesses have addressed every serious contaminant and pollutant; while individual companies break the law, it is hardly the pervasive industry problem it was 50 years ago. So yes, the modern worker not only has to have a college degree where half a century ago a high school diploma was acceptable, he had also plan on continuing his education throughout his career, with industry-specific certification and effectiveness programs. But if he does that, he will continue to see his life grow in comfort and security. The middle class world I knew as a kid was one where most folks had black-and-white TVs, one car, and no real luxuries. Today, even people we call “poor” live better than that. I don’t pretend it’s easy, but the business world rewards people who improve themselves, and not those who make excuses.
No matter what anyone tells you, there is no sure way to get rich quick. There is, however, a pretty fool-proof way to get rich over time. Do the best job you can for your employer, because even if your boss is a jerk, people tend to be aware of how someone works. Always keep an eye out for how you can improve your position, but only within ethical bounds and with respect for the company (it’s a small world, and people who step on others to get ahead are more and more getting caught). Enjoy your wages, but save at least 15% of it, more if you can. Stocks pay a higher return than CDs or bonds, but if you go that way you have to accept some risk, which is not dangerous as long as you always do your homework and know the company in which you invest. Buy what you need, not all of what you want, and plan financial goals.
People with common sense have probably shrugged by now – all of this should be obvious. I am writing partly just to vent, but also because somehow obvious truths get drowned out by Gorish malcontents, so repeating the obvious seems to be a necessary civic duty.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Writing Your Ticket
The Houston Chronicle had an article yesterday about an area high school student who was suing the University of Texas because they use race as a factor in their admissions processes.
The case may not be that strong, since the girl’s SAT scores were not particularly impressive. But what struck me as interesting, was that the story noted that she had been accepted at Baylor and Lousiana State Universities, both of them fine institutions with very good reputations. More than a few of readers commenting on the story, asked why the girl did not simply go where she had already been accepted? That question spurred this article.
Those who know me, know that I am pursuing my Master of Business Administration at the University of Houston at Victoria. I chose UHV for a number of reasons, including its AACSB accreditation, its low tuition, and the availability of online classes. I chose UHV over many other schools, schools which are worth consideration in their own right but who could not meet my needs the way UHV serves. I wonder how many people are aware of the significance of their school choice?
We live in an amazing age, not least because many of the old assumptions and stereotypes have been lifted from hindering individuals. So it is, that a 47-year-old like myself with a Bachelor’s degree in English Literature can rebuild himself as an accountant, on the strength of his resume and the acquired academic credentials. OK, sure, so I spent two decades doing accounting work so my resume wil lactually be applicable, but my point is that in the modern age, I can correct the mistake of a liberal arts degree by earning my MBA with a concentration in Accounting.
What I am saying by that, is that information is more important than ever, and we have actually passed from the Information Age to the age of Knowledge Management. Someone with the right education can effectively write their own ticket, certainly in comparison to folks who just ride along and hope things will bounce their way. But there’s more to it, than just getting a college education, or even an advanced degree. My wife’s sister earned a Master’s degree, but beyond hanging the diploma she has done nothing with it. The short answer there, is that she never considered why she was earning that Master’s degree, and so she had no plan for how it would help her achieve anything of substance. This happens a lot, though – a lot of students seem to just go from high school to college as if it were just grades 13 through 16, with everything planned out and the same for everyone. As a result, there is no greater plan in place, no strategy to use the degree as a tool for personal and career advancement. It does not help that we live in a world where success in business is wrongly considered a moral failing, that a man or woman who is financially successful must somehow be a bad person, unless of course they demonstrate the appropriate political opinions. The thing is, the old maxim started with the Bible verse that the love of money was evil, not the money itself. Many people who do not have money, are every bit as greedy and selfish as any miser from fairy tales and novels.
Anyway, if a person knows what they want to do, the proper degree from the right school can make a real difference in their chance at success. And by ‘the right school’, I actually do not mean those schools with huge reputations and equally huge tuitions. While some schools can help a student get an interview with a large corporation, and maybe a tiebreaker in some early hiring decisions, what I am talking about are the skills and tools a student can use to make their career something special, and the selection of the school which best suits the student’s needs and opportunities. In my case, for example, I am 47 years old, with 24 years of work experience. That means that a big-name school will do less for me than it will for some 22-year-old with no work experience; my resume works both for and against me. Also, with my work well-documented, I do not need a school name so much as I just need to certify my credentials. An MBA from UHV is as useful to me as one from UT or HBU. The AACSB accreditation, along with my learned skills, means that I will be significantly more formidable in my next career move, even if it is to remain with my present employer. The Accounting concentration matters because of my work experience, my personality, and the type of work I am most likely to find available. That’s not going to be the case for everyone, but it amazes me to see how – even among my UHV classmates – how few of them are aware of their own skill set and career preferences, and so how few of them are really ready for what they will do once they have their MBA in hand.
The case may not be that strong, since the girl’s SAT scores were not particularly impressive. But what struck me as interesting, was that the story noted that she had been accepted at Baylor and Lousiana State Universities, both of them fine institutions with very good reputations. More than a few of readers commenting on the story, asked why the girl did not simply go where she had already been accepted? That question spurred this article.
Those who know me, know that I am pursuing my Master of Business Administration at the University of Houston at Victoria. I chose UHV for a number of reasons, including its AACSB accreditation, its low tuition, and the availability of online classes. I chose UHV over many other schools, schools which are worth consideration in their own right but who could not meet my needs the way UHV serves. I wonder how many people are aware of the significance of their school choice?
We live in an amazing age, not least because many of the old assumptions and stereotypes have been lifted from hindering individuals. So it is, that a 47-year-old like myself with a Bachelor’s degree in English Literature can rebuild himself as an accountant, on the strength of his resume and the acquired academic credentials. OK, sure, so I spent two decades doing accounting work so my resume wil lactually be applicable, but my point is that in the modern age, I can correct the mistake of a liberal arts degree by earning my MBA with a concentration in Accounting.
What I am saying by that, is that information is more important than ever, and we have actually passed from the Information Age to the age of Knowledge Management. Someone with the right education can effectively write their own ticket, certainly in comparison to folks who just ride along and hope things will bounce their way. But there’s more to it, than just getting a college education, or even an advanced degree. My wife’s sister earned a Master’s degree, but beyond hanging the diploma she has done nothing with it. The short answer there, is that she never considered why she was earning that Master’s degree, and so she had no plan for how it would help her achieve anything of substance. This happens a lot, though – a lot of students seem to just go from high school to college as if it were just grades 13 through 16, with everything planned out and the same for everyone. As a result, there is no greater plan in place, no strategy to use the degree as a tool for personal and career advancement. It does not help that we live in a world where success in business is wrongly considered a moral failing, that a man or woman who is financially successful must somehow be a bad person, unless of course they demonstrate the appropriate political opinions. The thing is, the old maxim started with the Bible verse that the love of money was evil, not the money itself. Many people who do not have money, are every bit as greedy and selfish as any miser from fairy tales and novels.
Anyway, if a person knows what they want to do, the proper degree from the right school can make a real difference in their chance at success. And by ‘the right school’, I actually do not mean those schools with huge reputations and equally huge tuitions. While some schools can help a student get an interview with a large corporation, and maybe a tiebreaker in some early hiring decisions, what I am talking about are the skills and tools a student can use to make their career something special, and the selection of the school which best suits the student’s needs and opportunities. In my case, for example, I am 47 years old, with 24 years of work experience. That means that a big-name school will do less for me than it will for some 22-year-old with no work experience; my resume works both for and against me. Also, with my work well-documented, I do not need a school name so much as I just need to certify my credentials. An MBA from UHV is as useful to me as one from UT or HBU. The AACSB accreditation, along with my learned skills, means that I will be significantly more formidable in my next career move, even if it is to remain with my present employer. The Accounting concentration matters because of my work experience, my personality, and the type of work I am most likely to find available. That’s not going to be the case for everyone, but it amazes me to see how – even among my UHV classmates – how few of them are aware of their own skill set and career preferences, and so how few of them are really ready for what they will do once they have their MBA in hand.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Doctor Kissinger Is Wrong Again
When I was growing up, I was taught to respect the assumed intellect and genius of Henry Kissinger. It was only later that I began to see his limits and failings as a strategist. Granted, all humans make mistakes and we all have limits, and frankly the difference between a wise man and a foolish one, often comes down to the wise man knowing his limits. Which reminds me, I don’t see any evidence that Dr. Kissinger ever admitted making mistakes or failing as a strategist.
So anyway, time passes and Dr. Kissinger has decided to opine again on National Security. Considering his record on Vietnam and Détente, I am hardly surprised that he chose to lay low for so long, but here he is again, with a short article on what Dr. Kissinger calls “the three revolutions”. As always, Dr. Kissinger’s work reflects a sharp mind but also poor assumptions. He starts his article by claiming there are three simultaneous “revolutions” going on; Europe’s transformation into a single continental union, the Islamist international Jihad, and the “drift of the center of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans”. Ahem. The British have an apt phrasing for such hyperbole. The inane notion is dismissed as ‘balderdash’ and the person selling it is a ‘wanker’. While Dr. Kissinger may be offended by being dismissed in such a vulgar fashion, to my mind it is difficult enough getting folks to understand what is going on, without playing up the muddle of pretentious rhetoric and pompous egotism in its analysis. That is, these are not ‘revolutions’ at all, they are not even new in the way things go, and Dr. Kissinger’s assumptions are once again wrong and dangerous.
Before I go into those false assumptions, I would also like to comment on Dr. Kissinger’s observation that Americans are much more willing to sacrifice for a cause than Western Europeans. While this is true, Dr. Kissinger seems to believe this is something new, an error my father and grandfather could have corrected immediately. My father understood before the United States entered World War 2, that we would have to go in and win the damn thing, because while Europeans could be counted on to look after their own self-interests, only the British had a history of taking on the tough fights when it was someone else in danger. My grandfather would have said the same thing, noting that in World War 1 a major part of the conflict was both sides hoping to sway the United States. Even 90 years ago, the world knew that whatever side the United States was on, would win, and that the United States was the one nation which would help someone else for no reason beyond their conviction that it was right and necessary. Dr. Kissinger’s belief that this is some new trait, is well off the mark.
These sorts of errors also show in the “revolutions” Dr. Kissinger wants to sell in his article. You see, a revolution is not just some new event or behavior, but a substantial and radical shift in beliefs and culture. The American Revolution changed the world from monarchy to representative government, beginning in the American colonies. The Industrial Revolution changed how we live, work, and dream. While the conflicts are important, the changes in Europe are not revolutionary, but evolving commercial agreements. The Islamic Jihad is simply a new cycle of the same cult which provoked the Crusades and inspired piracy in the Mediterranean Sea for centuries. And the interest in the Pacific region is not new at all; trade with Asia was a priority at least as far back as Marco Polo, and the importance of democratizing the region goes at least as far back as the Spanish-American War. The situation is simply not what Dr. Kissinger claims.
Why is this important, and why is it relevant to the present condition? Because most people have a poor grasp of History these days, not only in the United States but around the globe. Europe has forgotten why Pontiers matters. They have forgotten why the Congress of Vienna was important. They have forgotten why the Council of Europe was formed after World War Two. So, the lessons will come slower and harder for Europe than they need to be, but History reminds us that Europe will learn what it knew before.
As for the Islamists, the threat is very real, but events do not occur in a vacuum. The modern Islamists lack the military power of the first Jihads, and they lack the moral force needed to sway opinion. It may be too much to hope for a Muslim version of the Reformation, but the movement can be stopped by a determined opposition, even in a unilateral action such as Dr. Kissinger disdains, should that defense be by a competent and motivated alliance or nation, such as already fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Kissinger himself admitted that no serious President of the United States would even contemplate abandoning Iraq or Afghanistan to the whims of the region’s aggressive powers. But he failed to properly count the historical record in addressing how the present Jihad’s mistakes and limits make it a serious threat, but not an unstoppable one.
As for the Pacific and Indian oceans and their influence, Dr. Kissinger seems unaware that population and GDP growth in the Asian continent and Indian subcontinent are by no means new, much less revolutionary, nor does simple catch-up through industrial progress mean that either region is poised to claim economic dominance, much less secure ownership of global influence beyond the scale of existing powers. Part of this is the continual liberal blunder of discounting military power (just as conservatives tend to overstate military power as an influence-builder), and the rather foolish presumption that recent history is the best indicator of long-range future developments. I do not mean to pretend that China, India, and the Pacific Rim will not play important roles in the 21st Century, but it seems strange to me how little Dr. Kissinger seems to have thought of their 20th Century history. To put it another way, China had a revolution which changed its government, but it is not a world revolution, nor should any one of the considered nations be judged without consideration of relevant events and actions with and by other nations, and of the known historical progression up to this point.
Dr. Kissinger asks what sort of goals can America “realistically” set for itself in the century to come, demonstrating his greatest failure. After all these years, Dr. Kissinger still does not understand that the United States does not set just ‘realistic’ goals, but unrealistic goals. Like a world where kings do not own serfs, a world where all people are free to live and work with the same rights as other people, a world where tyranny is disarmed and toppled from power, and one nation will change the world to establish Justice, even if it starts on its own to do so. After all these years, Dr. Kissinger still does not understand America, or her people.
So anyway, time passes and Dr. Kissinger has decided to opine again on National Security. Considering his record on Vietnam and Détente, I am hardly surprised that he chose to lay low for so long, but here he is again, with a short article on what Dr. Kissinger calls “the three revolutions”. As always, Dr. Kissinger’s work reflects a sharp mind but also poor assumptions. He starts his article by claiming there are three simultaneous “revolutions” going on; Europe’s transformation into a single continental union, the Islamist international Jihad, and the “drift of the center of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific and Indian Oceans”. Ahem. The British have an apt phrasing for such hyperbole. The inane notion is dismissed as ‘balderdash’ and the person selling it is a ‘wanker’. While Dr. Kissinger may be offended by being dismissed in such a vulgar fashion, to my mind it is difficult enough getting folks to understand what is going on, without playing up the muddle of pretentious rhetoric and pompous egotism in its analysis. That is, these are not ‘revolutions’ at all, they are not even new in the way things go, and Dr. Kissinger’s assumptions are once again wrong and dangerous.
Before I go into those false assumptions, I would also like to comment on Dr. Kissinger’s observation that Americans are much more willing to sacrifice for a cause than Western Europeans. While this is true, Dr. Kissinger seems to believe this is something new, an error my father and grandfather could have corrected immediately. My father understood before the United States entered World War 2, that we would have to go in and win the damn thing, because while Europeans could be counted on to look after their own self-interests, only the British had a history of taking on the tough fights when it was someone else in danger. My grandfather would have said the same thing, noting that in World War 1 a major part of the conflict was both sides hoping to sway the United States. Even 90 years ago, the world knew that whatever side the United States was on, would win, and that the United States was the one nation which would help someone else for no reason beyond their conviction that it was right and necessary. Dr. Kissinger’s belief that this is some new trait, is well off the mark.
These sorts of errors also show in the “revolutions” Dr. Kissinger wants to sell in his article. You see, a revolution is not just some new event or behavior, but a substantial and radical shift in beliefs and culture. The American Revolution changed the world from monarchy to representative government, beginning in the American colonies. The Industrial Revolution changed how we live, work, and dream. While the conflicts are important, the changes in Europe are not revolutionary, but evolving commercial agreements. The Islamic Jihad is simply a new cycle of the same cult which provoked the Crusades and inspired piracy in the Mediterranean Sea for centuries. And the interest in the Pacific region is not new at all; trade with Asia was a priority at least as far back as Marco Polo, and the importance of democratizing the region goes at least as far back as the Spanish-American War. The situation is simply not what Dr. Kissinger claims.
Why is this important, and why is it relevant to the present condition? Because most people have a poor grasp of History these days, not only in the United States but around the globe. Europe has forgotten why Pontiers matters. They have forgotten why the Congress of Vienna was important. They have forgotten why the Council of Europe was formed after World War Two. So, the lessons will come slower and harder for Europe than they need to be, but History reminds us that Europe will learn what it knew before.
As for the Islamists, the threat is very real, but events do not occur in a vacuum. The modern Islamists lack the military power of the first Jihads, and they lack the moral force needed to sway opinion. It may be too much to hope for a Muslim version of the Reformation, but the movement can be stopped by a determined opposition, even in a unilateral action such as Dr. Kissinger disdains, should that defense be by a competent and motivated alliance or nation, such as already fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Kissinger himself admitted that no serious President of the United States would even contemplate abandoning Iraq or Afghanistan to the whims of the region’s aggressive powers. But he failed to properly count the historical record in addressing how the present Jihad’s mistakes and limits make it a serious threat, but not an unstoppable one.
As for the Pacific and Indian oceans and their influence, Dr. Kissinger seems unaware that population and GDP growth in the Asian continent and Indian subcontinent are by no means new, much less revolutionary, nor does simple catch-up through industrial progress mean that either region is poised to claim economic dominance, much less secure ownership of global influence beyond the scale of existing powers. Part of this is the continual liberal blunder of discounting military power (just as conservatives tend to overstate military power as an influence-builder), and the rather foolish presumption that recent history is the best indicator of long-range future developments. I do not mean to pretend that China, India, and the Pacific Rim will not play important roles in the 21st Century, but it seems strange to me how little Dr. Kissinger seems to have thought of their 20th Century history. To put it another way, China had a revolution which changed its government, but it is not a world revolution, nor should any one of the considered nations be judged without consideration of relevant events and actions with and by other nations, and of the known historical progression up to this point.
Dr. Kissinger asks what sort of goals can America “realistically” set for itself in the century to come, demonstrating his greatest failure. After all these years, Dr. Kissinger still does not understand that the United States does not set just ‘realistic’ goals, but unrealistic goals. Like a world where kings do not own serfs, a world where all people are free to live and work with the same rights as other people, a world where tyranny is disarmed and toppled from power, and one nation will change the world to establish Justice, even if it starts on its own to do so. After all these years, Dr. Kissinger still does not understand America, or her people.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Chicken Little Economics
I have learned a simple lesson in handling MSM news; don’t trust them. So I wondered a bit about the whole subprime mortgage mess and all the recession talk (by the way, I seem to recall recession being suggested by the media every election cycle since Clinton left office. Interesting coincidence, that). So I looked up the basic facts:
There were 2.2 million foreclosures in 2007, compared to 1.2 million in 2006, and 0.85 million in 2005.
So there has been a rise in foreclosures for some time now. But what does it mean on the strategic level? Not as much as you might think. 67.8% of American households owned their own home at the end of 2007, compared to 68.9% at the end of 2006. While news reporters get hysterical in front of the camera, the actual ratio of homes foreclosed is about 1 in 50. That is, 49 out of 50 homeowners, or more, will make their payments and pay off their mortgage.
Not to ignore the problems that some homeowners are facing, but it means that the housing crunch we are seeing just now is actually not much more than a correction, as overpriced homes drop in value and people who cannot afford their hoems lose them. I would say that whose fault it is, that a particular home is foreclosed upon, is a case-by-case matter, as has always been the case.
My point is that while foreclosures are up, as well as delinquencies in paying for them, it’s not as if the home mortgage industry is about to collapse or we are headed for a genuine crisis as a nation. That is, as long as we do not overreact. Some moves may be defended on the basis that they are meant to restore consumer confidence, which actually creates most recessions when it falls significantly, but to some degree it becomes circular logic, and in any case someone has to pay for the bailout. Guess who that would be?
There were 2.2 million foreclosures in 2007, compared to 1.2 million in 2006, and 0.85 million in 2005.
So there has been a rise in foreclosures for some time now. But what does it mean on the strategic level? Not as much as you might think. 67.8% of American households owned their own home at the end of 2007, compared to 68.9% at the end of 2006. While news reporters get hysterical in front of the camera, the actual ratio of homes foreclosed is about 1 in 50. That is, 49 out of 50 homeowners, or more, will make their payments and pay off their mortgage.
Not to ignore the problems that some homeowners are facing, but it means that the housing crunch we are seeing just now is actually not much more than a correction, as overpriced homes drop in value and people who cannot afford their hoems lose them. I would say that whose fault it is, that a particular home is foreclosed upon, is a case-by-case matter, as has always been the case.
My point is that while foreclosures are up, as well as delinquencies in paying for them, it’s not as if the home mortgage industry is about to collapse or we are headed for a genuine crisis as a nation. That is, as long as we do not overreact. Some moves may be defended on the basis that they are meant to restore consumer confidence, which actually creates most recessions when it falls significantly, but to some degree it becomes circular logic, and in any case someone has to pay for the bailout. Guess who that would be?
Thursday, April 03, 2008
God and The Choice
How to get into trouble, 101. In a lengthy post last week, I discussed the dilemma of Heaven and Hell. One section which caused trouble for me later was this one:
“…while we Christians all confess our sins, we often repeat some of them, either out of weakness, a bad habit we have trouble breaking, or worst, we like that sin and are reluctant to really give it up. From that perspective, it seems hypocritical indeed to suggest that just being Christian gets you into Heaven, while even a nearly perfect life of goodwill and compassion would not help you if you are not Christian. The Bible seems to say the same, reminding us of non-Jews who pleased God in various places, and non-Christians whose faith impressed Jesus.”
and this one:
“…on the day when we stand before God, all evil will be destroyed. All that is good will be taken into Heaven. Whether we go to Heaven or Hell, then, will depend on whether our heart and desire were with the good works or the bad, whether we are aligned with goodness or clung to a badness we enjoyed. If that is so, the proper role of the Christian is to help people see what they cling to, especially our fellow Christians, so that they do not suffer for the old ways, but pursue what is truly right and good, and so enter the Third Heaven with a joyful spirit and a full heart.”
I did state at the time that all my words were a “poor attempt”, but I met up with some strong dispute and doubt about what I was trying to say. Mostly from fellow Christians. This article is a mix of trying to clarify what I was saying, why I said it the way I did, and to make a few observations about Christianity as it exists in the modern world.
First, to anyone unclear on the point: It is my unwavering conviction that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, the Messiah who redeemed Mankind from his sins, because of God’s love for us. It is not a quality we can earn or will ever deserve, but this does not matter because the Lord gives it freely to anyone who wants it. The reason I wrote what I did, though, was because I have met a great many non-Christians who see our evangelism as coercion and our God as a tyrant. Some of this is a matter of the devil’s lies, but it also comes from honest confusion to a degree. Since people are often curious about what happens after death, the qualities and nature of Heaven and Hell are vital parts of the discussion.
The plain fact is, that while the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are tremendously appealing to many people, the behavior and tone of many church leaders is offensive to non-Christians. Often, Christians come across as judgmental and angry, as looking down on other people who do not believe as they do. While I believe that this happens mostly with a minority of Christians, and that when it does it is the personality of the Christian rather than the will of God that creates the bristling antipathy. I had hoped to explain the faith in the light of reason, from the simple logic that if there is something after death, that we should seek and follow what we recognize and know to be good and right. To set aside the words when they get in the way, and to speak in terms which create common ground for a foundation of discussion. The purpose of that discussion would be to explore deeper questions, but without the sense of threats or compulsion. I believe that we still hold free will, even after we become believers. That’s part of what makes it hard to be a Christian, I think – we still live in the conditions created by the world and by our own past decisions, but we desire to serve the Lord and to do right. We will be imperfect, but because God’s definitions are based on His love and hope, rather than technicalities and traps, we work every day on drawing closer to Him, and we are able to accept our stumbles in the grace of knowing we will have help getting back up again. By my thinking, that blessing alone would make me glad to have a chance to know the Lord, but of course there is so much more. Oh, my.
Anyway, I have always taken the Bible seriously. Some folks may think I believe it too much, and others that I do not follow one passage closely enough to their liking. Ehhh, I pray about my walk and listen for the Lord’s will. That’s not to say that I think God tells me anything more than He tells other folks, but I would say that just maybe I listen to God and compare His word to what the Bible says. So far they always combine without conflict, and I don’t expect that to change. But anyway, the way I see it is that God is consistent, despite the jeers of some folks he does not forget or get confused. What He does, is stay true and straight, and wayward man gets angry because his own curving path takes him away from God, for which occasion he blames God. But there have always been people, in every nation and culture, who hear God and do what is right. If someone loves Justice, they love God, whether or not they ever voice the opinion. If someone cares for his fellow human bein, then they love God’s will, no matter whether their doctrine is perfectly aligned or not. If someone will accept loss rather than do what they know to be wrong, then that person pleases God, regardless of what they call Him, or even if they ignore Him. What’s more, a person can say all the right words, be called a leader of the church by thousands, yet remain an enemy of God – just look at Judas Iscariot.
So what’s the deal about choosing to enter Heaven? In my understanding, God makes Heaven possible for anyone, yet he compels no one. So even as C.S. Lewis observed that the gates of hell are locked from the inside, so too I think that the gates to Heaven are locked from the outside; first Jesus unlocked them as a man by the worth of His sacrifice on the cross, but also that any person who enters Heaven will choose to accept that gift. I never meant to imply that we deserve it or hold the power over its gates, but that no one will be dragged into Heaven against their will.
One thing which frankly bothers me about modern Christianity, is that it is rich and powerful. Here in Houston there is a huge church with thousands of members, and which pulls in millions of dollars a year in revenue. The pastor owns a lot of property, several fine cars, and his family lives like royalty. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, except that my company does work organizing charity work from churches, and this church stands out for its absence – it seems a lot of money goes in, but the poor and needy get no help from it. Other churches do a wonderful job of helping folks in need, of course, which is something I should emphasize – frankly the people in the most need often get the most help from churches and faith groups. But at the same time, churches often focus on money a lot, and more than a few seem intent on influencing politics. I realize this happens in other places, as well – every time a large group gets together, money and power are natural goals which always get emphasis. But that is just it, I think - Christians were originally the poorest and the weakest, and they held immense moral credibility because their faith was clearly not based on merely human priorities, but something greater than themselves. Again, such people exist today and are truly the saints who please God, but there are a lot of places where a well-dressed person who gives a nice ‘offering’ in the plate can get praised and assured of his eternal well-being, while his sin festers and his corroded heart waits in vain for repair. So, in these discussions I am not content to say that quoting the Bible or claiming membership in the right fellowship of believers is what impresses or pleases the Lord. The Lord chooses, and so do we. We can never trump Him, yet we must take care to understand – as well we may – the impact of our freedom.
“…while we Christians all confess our sins, we often repeat some of them, either out of weakness, a bad habit we have trouble breaking, or worst, we like that sin and are reluctant to really give it up. From that perspective, it seems hypocritical indeed to suggest that just being Christian gets you into Heaven, while even a nearly perfect life of goodwill and compassion would not help you if you are not Christian. The Bible seems to say the same, reminding us of non-Jews who pleased God in various places, and non-Christians whose faith impressed Jesus.”
and this one:
“…on the day when we stand before God, all evil will be destroyed. All that is good will be taken into Heaven. Whether we go to Heaven or Hell, then, will depend on whether our heart and desire were with the good works or the bad, whether we are aligned with goodness or clung to a badness we enjoyed. If that is so, the proper role of the Christian is to help people see what they cling to, especially our fellow Christians, so that they do not suffer for the old ways, but pursue what is truly right and good, and so enter the Third Heaven with a joyful spirit and a full heart.”
I did state at the time that all my words were a “poor attempt”, but I met up with some strong dispute and doubt about what I was trying to say. Mostly from fellow Christians. This article is a mix of trying to clarify what I was saying, why I said it the way I did, and to make a few observations about Christianity as it exists in the modern world.
First, to anyone unclear on the point: It is my unwavering conviction that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, the Messiah who redeemed Mankind from his sins, because of God’s love for us. It is not a quality we can earn or will ever deserve, but this does not matter because the Lord gives it freely to anyone who wants it. The reason I wrote what I did, though, was because I have met a great many non-Christians who see our evangelism as coercion and our God as a tyrant. Some of this is a matter of the devil’s lies, but it also comes from honest confusion to a degree. Since people are often curious about what happens after death, the qualities and nature of Heaven and Hell are vital parts of the discussion.
The plain fact is, that while the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are tremendously appealing to many people, the behavior and tone of many church leaders is offensive to non-Christians. Often, Christians come across as judgmental and angry, as looking down on other people who do not believe as they do. While I believe that this happens mostly with a minority of Christians, and that when it does it is the personality of the Christian rather than the will of God that creates the bristling antipathy. I had hoped to explain the faith in the light of reason, from the simple logic that if there is something after death, that we should seek and follow what we recognize and know to be good and right. To set aside the words when they get in the way, and to speak in terms which create common ground for a foundation of discussion. The purpose of that discussion would be to explore deeper questions, but without the sense of threats or compulsion. I believe that we still hold free will, even after we become believers. That’s part of what makes it hard to be a Christian, I think – we still live in the conditions created by the world and by our own past decisions, but we desire to serve the Lord and to do right. We will be imperfect, but because God’s definitions are based on His love and hope, rather than technicalities and traps, we work every day on drawing closer to Him, and we are able to accept our stumbles in the grace of knowing we will have help getting back up again. By my thinking, that blessing alone would make me glad to have a chance to know the Lord, but of course there is so much more. Oh, my.
Anyway, I have always taken the Bible seriously. Some folks may think I believe it too much, and others that I do not follow one passage closely enough to their liking. Ehhh, I pray about my walk and listen for the Lord’s will. That’s not to say that I think God tells me anything more than He tells other folks, but I would say that just maybe I listen to God and compare His word to what the Bible says. So far they always combine without conflict, and I don’t expect that to change. But anyway, the way I see it is that God is consistent, despite the jeers of some folks he does not forget or get confused. What He does, is stay true and straight, and wayward man gets angry because his own curving path takes him away from God, for which occasion he blames God. But there have always been people, in every nation and culture, who hear God and do what is right. If someone loves Justice, they love God, whether or not they ever voice the opinion. If someone cares for his fellow human bein, then they love God’s will, no matter whether their doctrine is perfectly aligned or not. If someone will accept loss rather than do what they know to be wrong, then that person pleases God, regardless of what they call Him, or even if they ignore Him. What’s more, a person can say all the right words, be called a leader of the church by thousands, yet remain an enemy of God – just look at Judas Iscariot.
So what’s the deal about choosing to enter Heaven? In my understanding, God makes Heaven possible for anyone, yet he compels no one. So even as C.S. Lewis observed that the gates of hell are locked from the inside, so too I think that the gates to Heaven are locked from the outside; first Jesus unlocked them as a man by the worth of His sacrifice on the cross, but also that any person who enters Heaven will choose to accept that gift. I never meant to imply that we deserve it or hold the power over its gates, but that no one will be dragged into Heaven against their will.
One thing which frankly bothers me about modern Christianity, is that it is rich and powerful. Here in Houston there is a huge church with thousands of members, and which pulls in millions of dollars a year in revenue. The pastor owns a lot of property, several fine cars, and his family lives like royalty. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, except that my company does work organizing charity work from churches, and this church stands out for its absence – it seems a lot of money goes in, but the poor and needy get no help from it. Other churches do a wonderful job of helping folks in need, of course, which is something I should emphasize – frankly the people in the most need often get the most help from churches and faith groups. But at the same time, churches often focus on money a lot, and more than a few seem intent on influencing politics. I realize this happens in other places, as well – every time a large group gets together, money and power are natural goals which always get emphasis. But that is just it, I think - Christians were originally the poorest and the weakest, and they held immense moral credibility because their faith was clearly not based on merely human priorities, but something greater than themselves. Again, such people exist today and are truly the saints who please God, but there are a lot of places where a well-dressed person who gives a nice ‘offering’ in the plate can get praised and assured of his eternal well-being, while his sin festers and his corroded heart waits in vain for repair. So, in these discussions I am not content to say that quoting the Bible or claiming membership in the right fellowship of believers is what impresses or pleases the Lord. The Lord chooses, and so do we. We can never trump Him, yet we must take care to understand – as well we may – the impact of our freedom.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Grand Theft Blog Article
More on this issue later, but for now you HAVE to read this account at Say Anything.
Short version of a classic:
Blogger writes article
Radio guy reads article, is impressed
Radio guy posts article without atribution
Blogger asks for attribution
Radio guy proves he is a thief and a jerk
Ending to be determined.
I don’t know exactly what I can do to help here, but heckling the radio yahoos is a start. They have their show here in Houston, so in addition to being thieves, idiots, and jerks, they are making H-town look bad.
Short version of a classic:
Blogger writes article
Radio guy reads article, is impressed
Radio guy posts article without atribution
Blogger asks for attribution
Radio guy proves he is a thief and a jerk
Ending to be determined.
I don’t know exactly what I can do to help here, but heckling the radio yahoos is a start. They have their show here in Houston, so in addition to being thieves, idiots, and jerks, they are making H-town look bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
