Contrarian Views

Do Americans want to be free people?

2011-09-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

Anything and everything worth doing takes effort, time and money to get done. Nothing has ever been free and nothing will ever be free. Everything has a cost.

Free people pay their own way, sometimes with saved money and occasionally with borrowed money. Dependent people expect others to pay for the things they want.

Do Americans want to be free people?

If we want to be free, we can’t continue to punish hard work through higher taxes and we can’t continue to reward laziness through entitlements.

Tax Extensions

2011-04-13T09:52:00.000-07:00

As a resident and tax payer of Long Beach, I was very discouraged to read the Press Telegram Op-Ed by School Superintendent Steinhauser followed a few days later by a letter to the editor from Police Chief McDonnell in support of extending the temporary state taxes that are set to expire.

The temporary state taxes were sold to taxpayers as a solution to the state budget crisis. These temporary taxes did not solve the budget crisis. Extending these taxes will not solve the budget crisis either.

Superintendent Steinhauser claims that unless these taxes are extended, Long Beach will become Detroit. Long Beach may be on its way to becoming Detroit, but not for the reason Superintendent Steinhauser suggests. Property values in Long Beach have already been declining for quite some time. Detroit became Detroit due to excessive taxation, not a lack of taxation. The tax base in Detroit just packed their bags and moved. The same will happen to Long Beach and the rest of California if our leaders don’t learn to live on less just like the taxpayers have had to do and continue to do.

I look forward to a day when our public servants care as much about those paying the bills as they do about those benefitting from the payments.

Update: Letter to editor in Press Telegram

Fair Competition

2009-08-21T14:13:00.000-07:00

All of the major sports leagues in America have a commissioner to ensure fair competition between the various teams in each sports league. These commissioners make decisions based on what is best for the long term interests of each league. For the most part, each commissioner remains neutral as to which teams succeed or fail.

Government in America works best when those in positions of government authority act as commissioners; ensuring fair competition between individuals, businesses, and industries. When government remains neutral and makes decisions in the interest of all citizens, individuals and entities prosper or fail by competition. Those with the best ideas, best products, best services, and best prices win while those who are inferior lose.

Would anyone in their right mind ever claim the commissioner of a league should also own a team in the league in order to keep the competitors honest? Of course not; the job of the commissioner is to arbitrate and the job of the competitors is to compete.

Likewise, only a knucklehead would claim government should create an enterprise to compete with the private sector.

If government would do a better job of ensuring fair competition between health insurers and health care providers, perhaps our glorious leaders could get back to doing something important like investigating steroids in professional sports.

A tale of two narratives

2009-07-02T09:15:00.000-07:00

Bernie Madoff is rightfully receiving universal condemnation and ridicule for swindling investors out of 50 billion dollars. He is always described, among other things, as a rogue, thief, scoundrel, and criminal, . His financial “victims” are said to be “ruined” and “suffering”.

Meanwhile, Michael Jackson is receiving universal acclaim as a musical genius, even as his financial records indicate a negative net worth of over 500 million. Apparently, Michael Jackson swindled creditors out of over 500 million dollars. His financial victims are never mentioned or even acknowledged in media reports.

Perhaps 1 billion dollars is the line of demarcation. Probably not. Expecting the media to be fair and truthful is always expecting way too much.

Cultural Evolution

2009-01-29T08:27:00.000-08:00

Can Free Markets Survive In a Secularized World?

The 18th Century English cleric and theologian John Wesley was troubled by a paradox that emerged as his teaching spread. He, like other Protestant thinkers stretching back to Calvin, taught that one could honor God through hard work and thrift. The subsequent burst of industry and frugality generated by Wesley’s message improved the lot of many of his working-class followers and helped advance capitalism in England. But, “wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion,” Wesley observed, and subsequently pride and greed are growing more common, he complained.

The emergence of what Max Weber described as the Protestant ethic represented an important point in the evolution of capitalism because it combined a reverence for hard work with an emphasis on thrift and forthrightness in one’s dealings with others. Where those virtues were most ardently practiced markets advanced and societies prospered. And, as Wesley foresaw, what slowly followed was a rise in materialism and a reverence of wealth for its own sake.

Believe

2009-01-27T09:46:00.000-08:00

Change

So . . . we're going to have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, a man instrumental in the pardoning of terrorists as top terrorism watchdog, and a woman whose husband gets tens of millions from foreign governments in charge of implementing foreign policy.

We Want a King

2009-01-26T09:56:00.000-08:00

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 1 Samuel 8: 19 – 20

Less than a week after President Obama took his oath of office, most of my fears about his presidency have been confirmed. I could probably spend the next four years criticizing President Obama and his administration just like so many others spent the last eight years criticizing President Bush and his administration.

However, just like the criticism of President Bush was misplaced, my criticism of President Omaba would also be misplaced. President Obama seems to be mostly doing what he was elected to do by a majority of the voters. The majority of Americans want to feel like their security and livelihood is in the hands of someone who is loved and popular throughout the world.

I could criticize President Obama, but the real culprit is the majority of Americans who need a wake up call before secular, and then Islamic, values become American values. America is catching up to Europe way too fast for my tastes.

Stimulus or Burden?

2009-01-21T14:28:00.000-08:00

Government deficit spending can stimulate an economy. However, most government spending, most of the time, is a burden on the economy and our lives, not a stimulant.

Our lives are not improved simply by having more money circulating in the economy and lower unemployment numbers. Our lives are only improved when our time spent working can pay for more of the things we want or when we can spend more time doing the things we enjoy and consider important. Hard work has its own value, but very few of us consider employment the ultimate goal.

Economies grow when more goods and services are purchased during a defined period of time than where purchased during the previous defined period of time. Therefore, if government borrows or prints money to increase spending for the period, the economy will be considered to be growing as long as the private sector does not reduce spending by more than the government increased its spending.

If government spending alone could improve our lives, why not just have government pay for everything? Because there are also negative consequences of deficit spending, that's why.

When government borrows money, less money is available to be borrowed by the private sector without an increase in the amount of interest paid to service the loans. This has not been a problem in the United States recently because China has been willing to take the money they have made off of their exports to America and lend it back to America at reasonable rates, but if the United States decides to start printing money to pay for the deficit spending, China is not likely to lend money back to America if they believe they will be paid back with a cheaper currency. When government prints money, the money supply increases, and the value of each denomination decreases because more are available. This is called inflation which hurts those who save and invest.

Government spending rarely comes with an expiration date. New infrastructure that gets built during recessions needs to be maintained long after the economy recovers. Money spent on social programs creates a dependency from recipients who learn to love handouts more than self reliance. Bureaucracies created by government spending have a life of their own which includes the survival instinct.

Citizens end up paying for government spending with higher taxes or lower purchasing power or higher costs for debt or all of the three. In the end, we may have more actual money, but less real purchasing power and less time doing what we enjoy.

The only real ways the government can stimulate the economy would be to start a business and then the sell the business to private investors or start selling government assets like land and buildings. The citizens of the Untied States really don’t need any more long term obligations/burdens to go along with Social Security and Medicare.

America needs more workers, more affordable housing, and more places to create attractive communities. It's time to start developing government land in places like Utah and Montana. It's time to open America to more immigrants who want to prosper in the land of the free. It's time to really stimulate the economy. Sorry Robert Redford and Ted Turner. You don’t get to hog the best places for yourself anymore.

Best Practices

2008-12-23T15:19:00.000-08:00

There are many different ways a team, or enterprise, or person can compete to win. Superior God gifted talent and physical assets provide a great head start or advantage, yet rarely does the first or most gifted competitor persevere until the end. Some teams, like the Dallas Cowboys of the early 90’s, some companies, like Microsoft, and some athletes, like Michael Phelps, can simply overwhelm anyone and anything that gets in their way, but most of the time, the difference between the winners and the losers is a matter of small intangibles, not complete superiority.

Competition is the key to economic success in any free market system. In fact, a free market system with competition is the only path to widespread individual economic success. New products get invented and improved processes get developed when innovation is rewarded at an individual level. Countries, companies, and individuals stagnate when innovation is ignored or discouraged.

The current worldwide recession has renewed the old debate regarding government regulation. Those on the left claim our governments were asleep at the wheel as BIG business raped and pillaged the citizenry. Those on the right claim the mortgage crisis that initiated this recession was a result of BIG government mandates, not unfettered capitalism.

As with most difficulties in life, a symptom of our economic problems is getting all of the attention while the real problem is barely mentioned or acknowledged. Government regulation, or the lack of regulation, is not our root problem. Our increasing unwillingness as individuals to compete with each other is the root cause of our economic problems.

BIG business spends more time and makes more effort to agree with competitors on sets of industry wide “best practices” than on actually trying to be better than the competitors. BIG Unions reward conformity for employees willing give up individual rewards for group rewards. BIG government is more than willing to enable many of these best practices through rules and regulations.

Why should we be surprised when Newspapers and Automobile companies are no longer profitable when every company in their industry is just like every other company in their industry. They all build the same kind of cars the same way and they all tell the same stories the same way and they all look alike and they all sound alike and they all act alike.

Circuit City had a great business for many years by hiring experienced and knowledgeable salespeople to assist consumers wanting to buy consumer electronics. Circuit City made money, their employees made money, and their customers were happy with the great service at Circuit City. All was good at Circuit City until Best Buy started building bigger stores and hiring younger less experienced sales people at a lower wage rate. Rather than continue to do what Circuit City did best, their management decided the way to compete with Best Buy was to be more like Best Buy so Circuit City started cutting experienced staff and hiring inexperienced staff. Circuit City is now in bankruptcy court because the consumers of electronic goods didn’t need another Best Buy.

Government regulations are not necessarily and impediment to competition, but regulations do tend to place a bigger burden on smaller companies than on BIG business. We won’t break out of this recession if our government leaders enact rules that require conformity. The only way out of this or any recession is to revive the competitive spirit by allowing the nonconformists and contrarians to compete with the established companies and all of their “Best” practices.

A World Where...

2008-11-12T15:19:00.000-08:00

My friend posting a comment as anonymous wrote, “I feel it in my bones that something cataclysmic is coming.” Hyperbole? Perhaps! Written after the writer has spent two tours of duty in Iraq; maybe not.

Most of us living in America now have learned about the range of human achievement and depravity through books of history and the reporting and experiences of others. Most of us living in America now have never come close to the depravity end of this spectrum. Most of us feel immune to the worst of what humanity has to offer, but my friend, serving in Iraq, did experience and live depravity up close and personal. He no longer feels immune.

I don’t yet share his pessimism, but I do know depressions and wars and heartaches are just as normal for humanity as prosperity and peace and happiness. Americans have enjoyed many years of relative peace and prosperity. Could we handle the depravity end of the spectrum? Could we even imagine a world where laws are routinely ignored, where justice is a quaint concept, where poverty is most common, and where wealth and power rule supreme?

Change and Hope

2008-11-07T09:46:00.000-08:00

The American electorate, as a whole, has chosen to have a future of safety nets, while rejecting a future of liberty. Not that Senator McCain ever advocated, or would ever advocate liberty, but the election of Senator Obama should be interpreted mostly as a vote to relieve the fear many Americans have. Fear of losing their ability to earn an income, fear of not being able to afford health care, and fear of a future run by corporations. Our choice of President-elect Obama may not be the most principled choice, but it is a pragmatic choice when considering all of the uncertainty exposed by the financial crisis, executive pay, and the loss of jobs to outsourcing.

Americans have rejected opportunity in favor of certainty. When we go to bed at night, we want to know we will be able to sleep in a bed the next night, regardless of our ability to earn a living for ourselves and our families. Most Americans, including many Republicans, are tired of being afraid.

Perhaps in 4 or 8 or 12 years, the majority of Americans will vote for the pendulum to swing back in favor of liberty, but I suspect that individual liberty, as envisioned by the signers of the American Constitution, is a fading concept of the past. The world is too complex, governments are too powerful, and corporations are too unprincipled, for individuals to ever again feel free to determine their own destiny.

President-elect Obama ran on change and hope. Washington will change from a central government that debates and determines individual rights to a government that debates and determines group rights. Future legislative fights will be group against group.

I can’t imagine ever joining a union or any other group. I don’t even feel comfortable describing myself as an evangelical because it sounds like I have joined a political group.

I may be spending the rest of my life preparing to die as a dinosaur. I hope not.

Election Prognosis

2008-10-30T11:26:00.000-07:00

I’m usually not in the prediction business, but why do we have these big elections every four years if pundits can’t take advantage of the opportunity to make fools out of themselves? Since I fancy myself a pundit, here goes:

Modern presidential elections are decided by undecided boobs who vote for the most attractive candidate as well as devious insiders who game the system to their candidates advantage. Almost always, the best looking, best sounding, and best funded candidate wins regardless of the issues.

John McCain and Barrack Obama are both easier on my ears than Bush, Gore, or Kerry. John McCain is more clear and more specific when he speaks while Barrack Obama is more pleasant, more eloquent, and less prone to verbal mistakes. Slight edge Obama.

Neither McCain nor Obama would ever be mistaken for a Kennedy or an Eisenhower, but both seem equally presentable. Both also have attractive wife’s. However, since Cindy McCain is beyond attractive; she is gorgeous, slight edge McCain.

Personally, I could easily sit down and have a beer with John McCain and listen to stories about his life, while if I ever had contact with Barrack Obama, I couldn’t get away from him quick enough. However, I can’t judge undecided’s by how I feel, so I give likeability a tie.

Campaign money and campaign operatives are where this election will be settled. A little grease in the palm of the right campaign official in a few key states may turn a state or two and a horde of lawyers ready to challenge any and all polling irregularities can shine the media focus in the wrong places. (The media would probably cover the wrong events anyway without the lawyers, but the lawyers will make sure it happens.)

I don’t trust the polls, but I do trust the money. Big edge Obama.

McCain needs a miracle.

Update: Bob Krumm is calling Pennsylvania for the lawyers.

Hole Rule

2008-10-15T09:31:00.000-07:00

When we find ourselves in a hole, it is usually prudent to stop digging.

The shovel for many holes is the good intentions of the digger.

Way back in 1977, the United States Congress enacted a new law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The purpose for this new law was for the Federal Government to monitor and ensure that local banks were making loans to home buyers in low and moderate income areas. Then in 1992, congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act which allowed Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to assume responsibility for home loans made to low income buyers.
FHEFSSA established risk-based and minimum capital standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas.

Low income buyers are not at all responsible for the current financial mess, but as low income buyers were approved for home loans that did not meet traditional credit standards, the demand for houses and the asking price for houses increased [basic economics]. As prices increased, fewer buyers qualified for traditional home loans which meant that more and more home buyers needed sub-prime loans backed by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As more and more low and middle income buyers took advantage of sub-prime loans, more and more middle and high income buyers took advantage of lax lending standards to purchase new homes. Many of these buyers were investors and speculators. This Ponzi scheme finally reached a point where many buyers, not even able to pay their interest only loans, walked away from their property and mortgage with nothing to lose but their credit rating. Prices plummeted, banks ended up with more debt than equity, and new lending stopped.

The solution to the problems caused by easy credit seems to be more easy, perhaps even easier, credit for banks and businesses.

At some point we will have to suffer the consequences of easy credit. Perhaps it is time to stop digging.

Taxpayer Bailout

2008-09-30T07:43:00.000-07:00

I am amused at how the word “taxpayer” gets attached to the word “bailout” when referring to the Paulson Plan and other congressional proposals to loosen the credit markets. Add another word, “crisis”, and we have created a narrative that makes the solution for relieving the tight credit markets unacceptable to the general public.

I don’t recall the 200 billion dollars the Federal government pledged to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as a “taxpayer bailout” of greedy home owners who chose to live in a flood zone. I don’t recall the words “taxpayer bailout” ever being used in regards to the way FEMA spends money and guarantees loans after any natural disaster. Social Security, for those who fail to plan for retirement, Amtrak and farm subsidies, and most every other extra Constitutional program of the Federal government are never referred to as “taxpayer bailouts”. Can you even imagine National health care being referred to as a “taxpayer bailout” for those who don’t want to pay for health care?

Only about 60% of American adults pay Federal Income taxes in any given year and the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 33% of the total. So if the taxpayers were to pay for the Paulson Plan, the rich would be bailing out the rich. However, since there isn’t a relationship between federal taxes and federal spending, the idea that taxpayers are really paying for anything specific nowadays is laughable. The verbiage “taxpayer bailout” is a hyper-narrative to create controversy, and nothing more.

I can live with worthless investments and meaningless money. I will still get up and go to work in the morning and hug my wife and kids when I get home from work at night. What really bothers me though is living in a society where words have become meaningless.

Human Nature and Government

2008-09-15T10:46:00.000-07:00

Within the soul of every human being is a desire to be free; a desire to make the individual choices that create the most individual happiness and fulfillment. However, none of us are islands of individual happiness and fulfillment. Our individual happiness and fulfillment could not exist without the love, affirmation, and support of many other people who also have their own desire for individual happiness and fulfillment.

When two or more people who depend on each other for happiness have different ideas about what makes for happiness and fulfillment, conflict between the two or the group is inevitable. Often times, this conflict results in one, or both, or all of the people in a relationship trying to exert control over the others. This happens in both one on one relationships like marriage and group relationships like government.

Throughout most of history, this conflict for happiness and fulfillment was resolved by the person or persons with the most power and strength, often through devious and evil methods, exerting their power and strength to control others. Governments were controlled by Kings and Leaders with the biggest and usually most ruthless armies. Families were controlled by men who possessed more strength than women. Even the Catholic Church turned into an organization controlled by the powerful. The Greeks and Romans dispersed some of this authority to more of their citizens, but government still boiled down to having those with power making most of the decisions and controlling those without power.

Early Americans had a better idea for allowing more freedom and individual choices. The American founding fathers (and mothers) said every human has certain rights that can't be taken away or abused by government. They said everyone has the right to freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), not just the humans with power. They believed every citizen in America should pursue their own objectives as long as those objectives did not interfere with the freedom of their co-citizens. Obviously, America never completely obtained this ideal, but it was still a noble idea.

I have come to realize there is no right way for me to make others do the things I want them to do or to make others pay for the things I want. (Thy shall not steal.) Therefore, my view of government is that government should protect it's citizens from force and fraud, but very little else. I believe government should be small and limited. Apparently, most Americans now believe more like the Greeks and Romans where the majority get to use the coercive force of government to get the minority to succumb.

Where did this guy come from?

2008-09-11T11:28:00.000-07:00

This story can’t possibly be true, can it?

The Best I Could Hope For

2008-09-09T08:08:00.001-07:00

Why would a Republican care if a Democrat is experienced, prepared, or competent, and why would a Democrat care if a Republican is experienced, prepared, or competent? Is someone who is accomplished in the functions of government we oppose better or worse for the country than someone unaccomplished in the functions of government we oppose? I think I would prefer an incompetent leader to a competent leader running government if government is trying to enforce laws I disagree with.

Like most beliefs being promoted by the Democratic Party, I don’t understand the attacks coming from Democrats against the experience and competence of Sarah Palin. However, as an opponent of the beliefs of the Democratic Party, if America is going to have a President from the Democratic Party, Barrack Obama is about the best I could hope for.

More Slavery

2008-09-08T09:06:00.000-07:00

While we are on the subject of slavery, does it occur to anyone else, or just me, that National health care, like the Obama plan, is still another form of slavery where the young and healthy will be forced by law, to pay the bills of the old and unhealthy?

No Taxation Without Representation

2008-09-04T08:29:00.000-07:00

Many, if not most, American citizens who will be paying for my retirement have not even been born yet and won’t be voting for at least another 18 years. Not exactly the American way envisioned by our American founders.

Young and healthy taxpayers will be forced by the Federal government to pay for my well being in old age. Not exactly the end of slavery envisioned by Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists.

Making Matters Worse

2008-06-09T15:01:00.000-07:00

The price of gasoline at the pump reflects the relationship between the supply of available gasoline and the demand for gasoline. Government intervention that lowers the price of gasoline without government intervention that also increases the supply of gasoline can only result in a shortage of available gasoline. Government intervention that reduces the profits for selling gasoline without government intervention that also reduces the demand for gasoline can also only result in a shortage of available gasoline.

Senator McCain wants to declare a holiday on gasoline taxes. Senator Obama wants to make oil companies pay a windfall profit tax on the excess (sic) profits from gasoline. Is it asking too much to ask for a serious Presidential candidate who understands that government intervention is causing the problem of gasoline shortages and higher prices, not leading to the solution of more gasoline and lower prices.

The market solution that will lower the price of gasoline is to allow existing oil companies to explore and drill in more places and for new competitors to enter the oil industry with the expectation of making an above average profit. More production of gasoline will lower the price of gasoline and meet the demand for gasoline.

Shall They Dance

2008-06-06T10:28:00.000-07:00

Sun-Tzu, the Chinese General and military strategist circa 400 B.C. is attributed with being the first to say, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”.

I suspect Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will each be giving the words of General Sun-Tzu much consideration as long as they both remain in politics. Publicly, they will appear to be close friends, yet privately, they will always remain close enemies.

Barack Obama desperately needs the support of Hillary Clinton voters, but at the same time, he cannot appear to need Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton desperately wants to be President of the United States, but at the same time, she cannot appear to be a sore loser.

A Vice President Clinton would be closer and less of a pain in the rump to a President Obama than a Senator Clinton would be, but a Clinton on the ticket could add to the scandals sticking to Senator Obama.

The Vice Presidency could be a stepping stone to becoming President, but it isn’t a stepping stone Senator Clinton needs.

No matter what happens in the November election, expect lots of tap dancing from these two for years to come.

The Road Less Traveled

2008-06-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

The rising price of gasoline has made my commute to and from work much faster and much safer. “Faster” because there are fewer cars on the freeway during drive time hours and “safer” because traffic is moving at a steady pace instead of too slow or too fast.

For me, the higher price of gas is worth the time I am saving driving back and forth to work. I am getting better gas mileage and I am enjoying my commute more.

At some point, the gas market will adjust. Fewer drivers using gas or the same drivers using less gas is lowering the demand and higher profit for gas producers is increasing the supply. Additionally, employers will have to find ways to compensate employees for their higher cost of living caused by higher gas prices.

There will come a time when the freeways are congested again and the risk of accidents will increase again. For now, I will enjoy the high gas prices while it lasts.

The Republican Soul

2008-02-03T10:19:00.000-08:00

Has there ever been a major Presidential candidate more terminally constipated than Mitt Romney? If you answered Al Gore or John Kerry, you might be right, but do Republicans really want their own version of a poll-taking, script-reading, position-parsing, consultant-driven, image-building, hair-coloring, privileged-class pretzel of a candidate? Do Republicans really want a candidate who is capable of buying an election without ever demonstrating the willingness to fight for or finance any of the positions important to Republican voters? Apparently some Republican voters do, but so far, not most. Apparently almost all of talk radio does, but not me.

Character still matters to many Republican voters. We celebrate politicians who become life-protecting, tax-cutting, government-reducing, freedom-protecting, law-enforcing legislators, once they fight to reform government, not when they are trying to buy our vote in an election; especially a Presidential election.

The Republican Party is left with some very flawed candidates this Presidential election cycle. Our Party needs to be tweaked and our nominating process needs to be reformed before the next election cycle in 2012. This year we go to the general election with the candidate we’ve got. If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the positions of the two major Parties will be different, but the soul of the two major Parties will be the same. Is that what we really want?

Freedom and Government

2008-01-24T11:43:00.000-08:00

In order for the citizens of any country to experience freedom, the government of their country must be limited in scope and small in size.

Freedom is incompatible with big government. Government can be small in scope (limited), yet still be big enough to restrict freedom when resources are taken from tax payers and spent by bureaucrats. Very small government is also incompatible with freedom. Government must be large enough to protect the innocent without being so large it encumbers the freedom of its citizens.

In the following graph, freedom is assigned a value between 0 (No freedom) and 12 (Maximum freedom). Taxes are assigned a value between 0 (No taxes at all) and 100 (Every citizen turns their entire paycheck over to the government).

As long as tax revenue is collected and spent by the government in a way that prevents one citizen from preying on another citizen, the tax revenue collected will be used to ensure and increase freedom. Citizens are allowed to do whatever they want, suffer the consequences and enjoy the benefits of their freedom, just as long as they don’t impede on the freedom of others.

However, once tax revenue is used for any purpose other than the protection of freedom, citizens begin to have less freedom, regardless of the intentions or morality of the stated purpose. Every last penny taken by government and spent by government has reduced the amount of money available for the taxed citizen to freely spend and has most likely also created a restriction against a certain free choice by the tax payer.

Of course citizens of most modern countries do have a right to restrict the freedom of their fellow citizens, but let’s be clear what is happening when we allow government to borrow, tax, and spend; the majority is practicing tyranny over the minority.

They Left Me (and I do mean left)

2008-01-21T18:50:00.000-08:00

The California Republican Party is encouraging voters to approve Propositions 94, 95, 96, & 97 to expand gaming revenues derived from casinos owned by four Indian tribes in California.

I have voted for Republicans since 1988 because I want to decrease the size, scope, and power of government, not because I don’t want to pay for big government. The funding of government is almost irrelevant, but the power of government is what needs to be limited and controlled.

By supporting these Propositions, California Republicans are saying the size of government is irrelevant, and all we should care about is the source of government spending. How pathetic.

One of Ronald Reagan’s most famous quotes is his statement that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. I know how he felt. The California Republican Party has left me.

Self Serving and Biased Analysis

2008-01-21T10:12:00.000-08:00

Way too many blog pundits, just like their predecessors and cousins in the traditional media, are making claims and predictions about the Presidential primaries based more on personal hunches than actual facts.

I find the political analysis of others to be interesting, but I don’t find very many pieces on the internet to be any more insightful than what I am hearing on talk radio, or reading in traditional media; which isn’t very insightful at all. The predictions and analysis by the experts has been consistently wrong since the 2006 elections.

At this point, all of the caucuses and primaries have amounted to nothing more than a pre-season where a few of the non-serious candidates have folded their tents and closed shop. The real season starts in Florida and then continues on Super Tuesday. On February 6th we will have plenty of facts to analyze. Until then, political punditry is merely speculation; nothing more. Most of the speculation is self serving or biased anyway.

Anecdotal Irony

2008-01-21T08:59:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in my reclining chair last night watching the third coldest football game in the history of the NFL on FOX feeling that perhaps the Global Warming zealots had suffered a serious blow to their religious beliefs when I decide to check CBS during a commercial time out. Apparently, the true believers at CBS just can’t be dissuaded by actual weather since they decided to air a rebroadcast of their show “The Age of Warming”. Did CBS get purchased by the Comedy Network when I wasn’t paying attention? You can’t make this stuff up. Even the fellow believers at NBC had to admit this morning on the Today Show that a larger percentage of the United States was below 10 degree Fahrenheit than ever before.

Of course anecdotal evidence like a football game in Green Bay in the middle of January doesn’t disprove the current theory of man-made Global Warming. However, anecdotal evidence like a retreating glacier in the Andes Mountains of Peru doesn’t prove the theory of man-made Global Warming either. Glaciers have expanded and retreated throughout History and always will. Football games in Green Bay in the middle of January have produced some great athletic spectacles throughout NFL history and always will.

Déjà vu not named Hillary

2008-01-16T11:26:00.000-08:00

I don’t want a President of the United States who will say and do whatever it takes to become President. A good President needs to have a soul and an ideology beyond getting elected.

Mitt Romney may have won the Michigan Primary last night, and he may have improved his chances for obtaining the Republican nomination, but he also may have revealed his true colors, and in effect, diminished his chances for the nomination.

It doesn’t matter how many times Romney is described as a true conservative by the conservative establishment, he still looks like Bill Clinton to me, and after his speeches in Michigan last week, I am beginning to think Romney and our former President are interchangeable. Both are professional panderers. Romney, just like former President Clinton, seems more concerned with getting elected than with advancing freedom and justice.

The term “conservative” may not mean the same thing to everyone, but if the term “conservative” doesn’t include the value of honesty, then I am not a conservative, true or otherwise. I suspect there are many other voters like myself who are finding Mitt Romney harder and harder to vote for because truthfulness is more important than being on the winning side.

Examen

2008-01-11T17:22:00.000-08:00

Tod Bolsinger at his very best. He really is a modern day Apostle.

Prayer That Changes Things

Debate Analysis

2008-01-07T15:53:00.000-08:00

Saturday evening’s New Hampshire Presidential debates televised on ABC were probably the best Presidential debates I have ever seen. Charles Gibson did a good job of introducing topics and then getting out of the way as the candidates clarified their own positions and mischaracterized the positions of some of the other candidates. Viewers had a good opportunity to hear the ideas and see the personalities of the major Republican and Democratic candidates.

Here are some of my thoughts on the debates:

Biggest Surprise: The Democrats, with the exception of Governor Richardson, sounded like adults trying to widen their appeal beyond the activist extremes in their party. They were all able to talk about domestic and foreign policy challenges without just bashing the Bush Administration. Richardson sounded like he was on pain medication. His friends and family need to begin gentle intervention.

Most Predictable Moment: John McCain has never delivered a funny line in a debate. Mitt Romney is flatter on his feet than President Bush. You had to know that at some point in the debate, John McCain was going to botch a good line and Mitt Romney was going to let him get away with it by botching the comeback even worse.

Best Communicator: Of all the candidates, Rudy Giuliani seems to always know where his is going with his comments. He gives just enough introductory information, just enough meat to make his point, and then ends with a quick close. Barack Obama is also good at making a point, but Obama’s points are way too generalized for my liking. I don’t need a complete explanation, but I do need a few specifics.

Biggest Winner: All of the candidates had multiple opportunities to turn any question into a campaign issue with a salient point. All of the candidates, Richardson excepted, were prepared, capable, and successful at presenting themselves and their major campaign themes. Of all the candidates thought, I believe Governor Huckabee did the most to demonstrate that he is different from the way he is being characterized by the conservative media. Huckabee won by making conservative points and taking ammunition away from his opponents. He also has a way of smiling at the right times and frowning at the right times to come across as very likeable.

Biggest Loser: Mitt Romney is smart, he knows the issues, even the details of the issues, but he usually comes across as too prepared and too robotic. He needs to convince voters he believes what he says and he needs to be more likeable to voters who want a President who can relate to their issues and their feelings. By running negative adds and then by wanting to get back to the issues when he was challenged about his negative campaign adds, Romney reinforced the feelings of voters who think he is a robot unable to relate to average Americans.

Finally in the Game: Fred Thompson was also a winner in the debate. He should be able to compete with Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huckabee going forward.

Enigma: Ron Paul is a complete enigma. He is completely right about the Constitution and completely wrong about foreign policy. Being right about the Constitution still wouldn’t get him elected even if he was also right about foreign policy. There are just too many Americans who want the Federal government dictating policies from Washington.

Running Mates: It is very interesting how the two candidates with the most to disagree about never even brought up the other candidate or his positions. I bet Giuliani is thinking Huckabee would make a good running mate and I bet Huckabee is thinking Giuliani would make a good running mate. I don’t think I could vote for either one unless they were running on the same ticket. The sum would be greater than the parts.

Phoniness Defeated Romney

2008-01-05T08:46:00.000-08:00

I agree with Michael Medved:

The message ought to be obvious: the core issue was phoniness, not faith-- and the religious and non-religious alike react badly to phoniness…

In other words, Non-Evangelicals appear to have been much more influenced by the religious variable in their distaste for Huck, than Evangelicals were influenced by that variable in their distaste for Mitt.

Those who insist, over and over again, that the Iowa Caucuses reflected “Christian identity politics” or a “tidal wave of Evangelical support” are basing their analysis on feelings, not facts; on vapors, not voters. It’s dishonest to say that a guy who just won a crushing state-wide victory, without even winning the majority of his own religious group, displayed a one dimension appeal to Christian zealots only.

This endlessly repeated story line is not only tired, it’s a lie.

and Mark Steyn Too:

As governor, as preacher and even as disc jockey, he's spent his life in professions that depend on connecting with an audience, and he's very good at it. His gag on "The Tonight Show" – "People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off" – had a kind of brilliance: True, it is cornball at one level (imagine John Edwards doing it with all his smarmy sanctimoniousness) but it also devastatingly cuts to the core of the difference between him and Mitt Romney. It's a disc-jockey line: the morning man on the radio is a guy doing a tricky job – he's a celebrity trying to pass himself off as a regular joe – which is pretty much what the presidential candidate has to do, too. Huckabee's good at that.

I don't know whether the Jay Leno shtick was written for him by a professional, but, if so, by the time it came out of his mouth it sounded like him. When Huck's campaign honcho, Ed Rollins, revealed the other day that he wanted to punch Romney in the teeth, Mitt had a good comeback: "I have just one thing to say to Mr. Rollins," he began. "Please, don't touch the hair." Funny line – but it sounds like a line, like something written by a professional and then put in his mouth.

Official Endorsement

2008-01-03T08:18:00.000-08:00

The official Contrarian Views endorsement for the 2008 Primary season is … none. There is just too much to dislike about all of the candidates at this point. I’m sure I will end up supporting the Republican nominee over the Democratic nominee, but I wish we had better choices.

I’ve been almost certain for years that I would never, ever, vote for John McCain, but as I look at the Republican field, he almost seems more acceptable than the rest of the bunch. I do think Fred Thompson has the most positions consistent with my beliefs, so I am hoping at some point he will find a way to communicate his small government beliefs, but if he doesn’t get more energy real fast, it will be too little too late.

...Derangement Syndrome

2007-12-28T10:11:00.000-08:00

Ten years ago Andrew Sullivan was my favorite online writer. He was not only one of the first to use an online journal as a way to increase his exposure and readership, he was also easily one of the best pundits on the internet. His opinions were fresh, his writing style was brief and clear, and he was impossible to categorize as being left or right. But after Sullivan developed Bush Derangement Syndrome, I could no longer relate to anything he wrote. His hatred for President Bush seemed to push him toward hating anything and everything associated with our President. It wasn’t enough for Sullivan to criticize the decisions of President Bush, he became unable to opine on matters Bush without demonizing everyone in the Administration and everyone who supported the President. His hatred for President Bush ruined his objectivity and my interest in what he had to say.

Hugh Hewitt has now become just as unreadable as Andrew Sullivan to me. He has developed such a bad case of Huckabee
Derangement Syndrome that he can no longer be considered to have an objective view of politics or much anything else.

As much as I like President Bush and think overall he has been a good President, part of me will be glad when his term in office expires. As much as I love politics, part of me will be glad when the 2008 election is done. I want to be able to read two of my favorite writers again. I sure hope …Derangement Syndrome is not fatal or final.

Appropriate Reaction

2007-12-28T09:40:00.000-08:00

Doesn’t it seem like the News and commentary regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is out of proportion to the significance of the event?

Ralph Peters has a Contrarian view of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s significance to the democratization of Pakistan.

Appropriate Force

2007-12-20T11:08:00.001-08:00

[PREVIOUS]

Almost daily, I will observe someone using an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes, it is one of my daughters as they learn a new activity or skill, but often it is an adult who doesn’t understand the relationship between force and success or has yet to learn the proper amount of force for the job at hand.

A good way to view the proper amount of force is to visualize what happens when hammering a nail. Someone experienced with a hammer and a nail will start with a few taps to get the nail started in the right direction, continue with a few pounds that are forceful enough to drive the nail, but not so hard the nail bends along its shaft, and then finish with a few taps to bring the nail flush with the board so as not to damage the board. Hammering a nail with appropriate force for each step is a skill that can be learned fairly quickly, but it is a skill that must be learned. First time hammerers rarely get the nail hammered correctly. Another mechanical example is the force needed to tighten a bolt. Too loose and the bolt will not stay in place; too tight and either the threads will be striped or the bolt will get stuck.

Inexperienced salespeople often have difficulty selling a product because they struggle to discern the right amount of pressure to apply to a potential buyer. Motivated newbie’s will tend to oversell and end up repelling a potential buyer while timid newbie’s will tend to undersell and miss some good opportunities.

The word “torture” gives the impression of a one size fits all method of extracting information. This is unfortunate because experienced interrogators need a wide range of rewards and punishments as a way to bribe and threaten an enemy combatant in order to extract the greatest possible useful information. The methods used will depend on various factors including the timeline for needing the information because some threats are more urgent than others, the personality of the enemy combatant, and the history of the enemy combatant.

Many forms of government sanctioned punishment have been discontinued due to mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse. Interrogating enemy combatants could also result in mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse, but all three can be minimized by allowing very experienced interrogators to use the appropriate force necessary to extract useful information.

Interrogation Toolbox

2007-12-18T10:46:00.001-08:00

[PREVIOUS]

The problem with the words “always” and “never” is that neither word leaves any room for the word “appropriate”. Both words demark extreme and inflexible positions.

My wife and I made the decision to only spank our children as a last resort if a child of ours was being intentionally defiant. I can count on my fingers the number of times I have spanked both of my daughters. As a parent, placing one of my daughters over my knees and swatting them on the butt was the hardest thing I ever had to do because I knew it would bring tears to their eyes and screaming to their lips and I couldn’t be certain they would understand why their punishment needed to reach that level of severity. In order to deliver the spank, I had to resist what I felt like doing and do what I knew was appropriate to do.

I will never know for certain whether we spanked too often or too little, but I do know for certain spanking is a necessary part of parenting when done at the appropriate time and with the appropriate amount of force. It is quite easy to compare the behavior of two 3-year-olds, one who has been spanked and one who has not been spanked, and know which one of the two understands the consequences of defiant behavior. If I had to guess, I would say we probably should have spanked a little more than we did, but I prefer knowing we may have under-spanked than worrying if we may have over-spanked.

Enemy prisoners need to know that the decisions they make regarding cooperation with interrogators have consequences. Some prisoners will willingly cooperate in order to receive benefits not given to other prisoners, while some prisoners will not cooperate regardless of the amount of hardship inflicted upon them. However, the majority of prisoners will cooperate based on consequences, both good and bad. Various levels of rewards and hardships must be included in the toolbox used by interrogators in order to extract the maximum amount of useful information from enemy combatants. Not every prisoner needs to suffer extreme hardship, but every prisoner needs to know extreme hardship is a possibility for lack of cooperation.

[NEXT]

To Torture or Not To Torture

2007-12-17T13:26:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking a lot about torture lately because I haven’t read anything persuasive regarding why torture should or shouldn’t be used as a means of interrogation.

The main argument for using torture as a means of interrogation is because torture can and has been used to gain useful information to save lives and apprehend murderers.

The main arguments against using torture are because the information gained is not trustworthy, the person being tortured may not know the information that is being requested, torturing prisoners makes the torturer just as evil as the enemy, and torturing an enemy’s prisoners will lead to the allies of the torturer being tortured if captured by the enemy.

Some religious writers who believe man is created in the image of God have also added additional arguments against torture because they feel torture has a dehumanizing affect on the torturer and the tortured which is displeasing (sinful) to God.

Taken alone, each of the arguments for and against torture make a lot of sense, but taken alone or even combined, none of the arguments make a compelling case for why torture should or shouldn’t be used because of the counter arguments to each one.

For instance, regarding the argument for torture, how many people need to be tortured for how many times before one life will be saved? Slight torture on one person for one time to save one life doesn’t seem all that bad but severe torture on a hundred people for a hundred times to save one life seems quite excessive.

Regarding the arguments against torture, why does it matter if some of the information is not trustworthy when all of the information extracted can be tested in other ways for accuracy and truthfulness? If the one being tortured is a murderer, how can torturing this person make the torturer just as evil unless the evil of murder is defined down morally? Additionally, if the enemy already has a record of cutting off the heads of live prisoners, how is torturing one of their combatants going to make them any more evil or dangerous to our allies since they are already as dangerous as a group can get?

The more I’ve thought about torture, the more I’ve realized I can’t make any big sweeping declarations regarding the rightness or wrongness of torture. However, I do have a few points to add to the debate which I will get started with in my next piece.

[NEXT]

Pundit Political Objectivity

2007-12-10T10:15:00.000-08:00

Is it possible to have an unbiased and objective view of events and people in the News?

I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh for the first time on a road trip from Chicago to Fort Smith in 1990. I became very excited as I listened to his radio show because for the fist time in my adult life I heard a radio broadcaster who believed in self reliance, personal responsibility, and capitalism, just like me. The fact that he was also against abortion endeared me to him and his program even more.

However, the more I listened to Rush, the more I realized he sounded just as confident, and just as bombastic, even when I knew he had his facts completely wrong. His demeanor never changed regardless of any view he was expressing. The confidence he projected when he was right sounded bloated when he was wrong.

I try to read and hear the diverse perspectives coming from many different reporters, analysts, and pundits; but like most everyone else, I have my favorites, and my time is limited. George Will is always solid when he is opining about human nature and economics. Hugh Hewitt has been at the top of my list for all things political, mostly because of his defense of religion and religious people in public life and for how gracious he is has treated me on the few occasions we have had contact.

Even though I haven’t written much lately, I have been following politics and the race for the White House. Most of the top tier of Republican candidates have a few attributes I like and a few I don’t. Candidate Huckabee is a good man with way too many government solutions for my taste. I can understand how Governor Huckabee is not the candidate for voters like me who lean libertarian, but I don’t understand all of the attacks against Governor Huckabee coming from conservatives like Will, Hewitt, and others that have crossed the line from criticizing his positions and record to criticizing his character.

The bias of Will and Hewitt seems to have affected their objectivity. If it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone.

The Little Engine That Could

2007-11-05T11:09:00.000-08:00

With all due respect to Notre Dame and all its blue-chip players, Navy's celebration should be our celebration.

John Feinstein is the author of "A Civil War: A Year Inside Army vs. Navy, College Football's Purest Rivalry." He has been a commentator for the Navy football radio network for 11 years.

Mike Huckabee

2007-10-25T09:42:00.000-07:00

Joe Carter, Mathew Anderson, and Justin Taylor make the conservative case for supporting Mike Huckabee.

I don’t like the Fair Tax and I don’t think a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage is a good idea, but I do agree Mike Huckabee deserves serious consideration from Republican Primary voters.

Nobel Peace Prize

2007-10-12T07:47:00.000-07:00

Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Update: Hehehehahaha...heh..ohhh...hahahahahehehehehahahahehehehehehehe...ohhh...hehehehehehehahahahahaha....

Tolerance at Columbia

2007-09-23T11:36:00.000-07:00

I am often amused, and sometimes frustrated, at how the word “tolerance” rarely actually means tolerance to those who call for others to be more tolerant. The loudest advocates of tolerance are some of the most closed minded members of our society. Disagreement is an essential attribute of tolerance, yet the staunchest advocates of tolerance demand that others agree with them.

For example, a heterosexual who believes there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not capable of being tolerant because this person does not have a disagreement with the homosexuals who feel the same way. The only heterosexuals who are capable of being tolerant to homosexuals are the heterosexuals who believe there is a moral difference between the two lifestyles, yet chooses to treat homosexuals the same as they treat heterosexuals.

Self government and democracy are most often credited for the greatness of America. As I observe the world, I’m not so sure. I see a lot of democratic organizations and democratic governments that aren’t so great. Majorities can be just as tyrannical as a single tyrant. I believe America became great because early on in our history the leaders decided that Americans had a right to be left alone. Diversity and true tolerance are a part of our historical fiber.

Many American Universities claim to support and allow tolerance, but few actually allow disagreement or divergence from political correctness in state schools or orthodoxy in private schools. Opponents of human caused global warming, evolution, or affirmative action are labeled ignorant or hateful and are never tolerated.

By inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, to speak at Columbia University, President Lee Bollinger is practicing tolerance if President Bollinger does not agree with the views of the Iranian President. I would like to believe we are witnessing tolerance at the University level, but I suspect we are witnessing a University and a University President who are intolerant of those of us who want to defeat radical Islam.

Cruelty to Animals

2007-08-22T09:15:00.000-07:00

Several times a year I hear a story in the news about a Pit Bull in Southern California killing a child. Pit Bull owners are quick to claim the individual dog or the individual owner is to blame for the death but the Pit Bull breed is no more dangerous than any other breed.

Amazing how some folks can rationalize just about anything. Of course the Pit Bull is the most dangerous breed of dog. This is precisely why Pit Bulls are used in dog fighting and why property owners in high crime areas use Pit Bulls to guard their property. Pit Bulls get the job done like no other breed.

Most of America is outraged by Michael Vick’s treatment of his dogs. Some in the minority are making the point that Michael Vick’s treatment of dogs is no worse than the way many animals are killed before becoming human food or killed during the sport of hunting.

A line of demarcation between moral and immoral behavior is the intentional infliction of pain. Moral people always make an effort to avoid inflicting pain on other living creatures, and when possible, make an effort to relieve the pain of other living creatures. There is a moral hierarchy that goes from humans through other mammals and then through other living creatures. Dogs and other mammals are not morally the same as humans, but humans still have a moral obligation to never inflict unnecessary suffering on other mammals, even, perhaps even especially, when the other mammals are our food.

Michael Vick will plead guilty and be punished for cruelty to animals. I don’t know if his punishment will fit his crime. However, I do know Pit Bulls are just as dangerous to humans as they are to other dogs. We should have just as much contempt for any Pit Bull owner who puts humans at risk by their ownership and failure to control their dog as we do for a dog owner who allows dogs to suffer.

Glass Houses

2007-08-16T08:15:00.001-07:00

I am amazed [not really] that this story about Glass Houses was never picked up by the national media.

The unfair Tax

2007-08-14T13:48:00.001-07:00

Death and taxes are referred to as the only two certainties in life. Of course there are certainly more certainties than these two, but an obvious certainty that relates to death and taxes is the word “fair”. We can be absolutely certain that when someone uses the word “fair” as a modifier, their idea or proposal may seem fair to them but it is anything but fair for most everyone else.

The Fair Tax is not only unfair to those Americans who have spent a lifetime, or anytime at all, saving for retirement, it is also a proposal based on ridiculous assumptions.

Basically, the fair tax would replace income and payroll taxes with a national sales tax. This change would have the immediate effect of rewarding those who are in debt, since those in debt bought before they earned, and punishing those with savings, since those with savings earned before they bought. Those who are in debt paid a lower sales tax when they bought and will payer a lower income tax when they earn. Those with savings paid a higher income tax when they earned and will also pay a higher sales tax when they spend. How is that fair?

The big hook of appeal of the Fair Tax is the claim it would Abolish the IRS. Is it logical to assume some employees cheat when calculating their Income Taxes but no Vendors will cheat when calculating their Sales Tax? Of course not; any and every tax system needs a form of oversight and enforcement. Black market, under the table, employment transactions in the current system will be replaced with black market, under the table, sales transactions in the new system.

The so-called Fair Tax also proposes to give money to those under poverty limits. This payment is called a “prebate”. Those who don’t work, or who don’t choose to do productive work, will have enough money to meet their basic needs. How can this prebate possibly exist without cheaters gaming the system? How can this prebate possibly function without tons of administrative costs for oversight?

The best tax system is a tax system that taxes a little bit in a lot of places. Ideally, it would tax so little that decisions are not influenced or controlled by the tax implications of the decision and cheating on taxes is minimized. The best society is a society that does not depend on government to tax, regulate, and spend.

Mike Huckabee seems like a really good guy, but if he thinks changing one bad tax system for another bad tax system is a good idea, he isn’t a good choice to be the next President of the Untied States. If Governor Huckabee and others want to improve the tax system, they should start by reducing all taxes and limiting the role of government in our lives. Somehow, I don’t think Governor Huckabee could buy enough votes without proposing new ways to spend our money.

In the mean time, using the word fair, combined with the word tax, should be against the law.

The only way to Lose is to Quit

2007-08-07T10:04:00.000-07:00

I am surprised by the large number of people who believe situations in life must always be improving or life is getting worse when the lesson everyone learns about life as they age is that there are no straight lines to success.

How many couples can claim to have never broken up during the courtship process? Almost all couples go through periods of certainty regarding a lifetime together and periods of panic regarding a decision to spend a lifetime together. The certainty creates more intimacy while the panic creates fears, but both are part of the process of becoming a married couple. Life is not worse due to the panic periods; life becomes better as the periods of panic lead to the end result.

Most of the media and opinion makers focus on individual events when reporting about the success and failure of Iraq. Political punditry believes that bad news is proof of the failure of American involvement and good news is proof of the success of American involvement. I don’t look at the situation in Iraq like most of the pundits look at it.

To me, the situation in Iraq is progressing the way I would expect it to progress on the way to success; which means lots of unexpected and unforeseen events, many setbacks, a determined and sophisticated enemy, and a whole lot of Americans and Iraqis who are ready to quit. This is all part of the process of becoming a functioning democracy; life is not a strait line. The only way to lose is to quit.

Still More God is not...

2007-08-04T11:31:00.000-07:00

Joe Carter links to John Mark Reynolds satirical pieces Ten Commandments for Evangelical Leaders in Politic and L.O.S.E. (Lovingly Opposed to Sin and Evil) Position Paper 1.
The statement “God is not a Republican or a Democrat” can be understood one of two ways.

More fundamentalist readers of this statement within L.O.S.E. take it literally and believe we should do nothing God would not do. God pays no taxes. We should not pay taxes. God does not obey speeding laws. We should not obey speeding laws. In fact, God is not an American so we should not be Americans.

This causes our members that take their bumper stickers less literally (and more poetically) some difficulties. They point out that God also has no gender or single location. It has proven hard for some L.O.S.E. members to be metrosexual and omnipresent.

As a result these more “liberal” L.O.S.E. members understand the holy bumper sticker to imply that Christians can be in a political party, but cannot believe that God favors one party over any other or that one party is more godly than another.

As much as I love to read everything Joe Carter writes, I find some of the comments and commenter’s at his site to be very hateful towards anything and everything Christian. John Mark Reynolds himself makes an appearance in the comments to Joe’s piece and he cuts through the nastiness with some of the best comments about slavery and Christianity I have read anywhere. It’s well worth a peak.

The Value of a Large Brood

2007-08-03T09:58:00.000-07:00

Rusty Lopez writing about (over)protecting our children:
While someone may consider a certain practice as "overprotection", another may simply see it as an exercise in safety. And while someone may consider it a positive thing to let a child "learn the hard way", another may see such an approach as reckless abandon. It would seem that context, intentions, and application ultimately determine how "overprotective" any individual practice may be.

He then goes on to write:
Safety, as a way of life, is not a capitulation to the fear of reality, exemplified by a lack of faith in God; it is an acknowledgment of the realities of our physical existence, and of our responsibilities regarding such realities. These responsibilities are grounded in wisdom. It is, indeed, interesting that God chose to include the entire genre of Wisdom Literature in the Bible. While our culture may think "live and learn", the book of Proverbs exhorts us to, "Learn! Then live!"

I agree with Rusty, parenting is not a question of whether to protect our children or not protect our children. We have to protect our children as we prepare them to not need our protection any longer.

In the traditional American family, mothers have a tendency to over-protect as they nurture their children and fathers have a tendency to under-protect as they train their children. A balance between mothering and fathering provides the right amount of protection and preparation.

However, in a dysfunctional family the balance is lost. This is why so many of the sons of well intentioned single moms end up unprepared to handle adult responsibilities. This why marriage is so necessary to always raising the next generation of Americans. This is why husbands and wives must both fight their desire to dominate a marriage as they both maintain purposeful and assertive respect for each other.

There is also something to be said for large families. Families with more than two children are functionally better for raising children to be adults because it is harder for parents to over-protect their children when the brood is larger. Perhaps this is one of the reasons European society seems so immature compared to America now and one of the reasons America seems headed in the wrong direction.

Update: I bet none of these kids are over-protected.
Among the "fun facts" listed on Discovery Health's Web page devoted to the Duggars: A baby has been born in every month except June; the Duggars have gone through an estimated 90,000 diapers, and Michelle, 40, has been pregnant for 126 months - or 10.5 years - of her life.

Mayor Giulini's Economic Soul

2007-08-03T09:14:00.000-07:00

Mayor Giuliani is advocating free market reforms for improving health care in America.

Most Republicans believe in expanding individual choice and decision-making. I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. Instead of being more like Europe, we need to be more like America.

Of course he is right about health care. However, his free market solution to health care will also solve many of the other problems in America now, including reliance on oil from the Middle East. So why is he advocating government mandates when it comes to energy, but free market solutions when it comes to health care? Why does he trust Americans to make their own health care choices but not their own energy choices? Why does he trust health care providers to be innovative and efficient but not energy providers? Does Mayor Giuliani have an economic soul or is he just making appeals to different voting blocks?

Stealing From our Children

2007-08-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

Many politicians, especially members of the Democratic Party, like to equate cutting tax rates with stealing money from our children.

Writing today at RCP, Robert Samuelson projects the cost and size of our current Federal commitment to retirees.
Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs that serve older people -- already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Samuelson also asks some very good questions:

Little wonder politicians stay silent. But think tanks ought to be thrilled, because these changes pose basic questions about government. What should it do? For whom? Why? How big can it grow without weakening the economy? Does that matter? Is social justice more important than economic growth? Do gains in life expectancy and the well-being of the elderly justify significant changes in Social Security and Medicare?

Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicare prescription benefits, are all well intentioned programs of a benevolent Federal government. The only problem with the plan is the source of the benevolence. Most of the retirement benefits in 2030 prescribed by our Federal government will be paid by workers who aren’t even old enough to vote today and many of the benefits will be paid by workers who aren’t even born yet.

Mandating benefits that are paid by non-voters is clearly taxation without representation. But even worse, mandating benefits to be paid in 2030 and beyond really is stealing from our children. If politicians were truly concerned about our children, they would stop this Ponzi scheme immediately. I’m not holding my breath, though.

Knuckleheads

2007-07-30T15:05:00.001-07:00

Just Drill, Baby by Pete Du Pont.

Selected excerpts:

First, we are not running out of oil. In 1920 it was estimated that the world supply of oil was 60 billion barrels. By 1950 it was up to 600 billion, and by 1990 to two trillion. In 2000 the world supply of oil was estimated to be three trillion barrels.
...
But ethanol is not a good gasoline substitute. It takes some seven gallons of oil to produce eight gallons of corn-based ethanol--diesel fuel for the tractors to plant and harvest the corn, pesticides to protect it, and fuel for trucks to transport the ethanol around the country. So there is not much energy gain, nor with all the gasoline involved does it help with global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And ethanol yields one-third less energy per gallon than gasoline, so that mileage per gallon of ethanol-blended auto fuel is less than gasoline mileage.

Sometimes it is hard for me to believe how incompetent our Federal Government has become. Oil, Nuclear Power, and even coal can solve all of the energy needs of America, but our elected representatives are choosing to use tax money to promote ethanol production. What absolute knuckleheads!

The Tide (of opinion) Has Turned

2007-07-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

From A War We Just Might Win at the New York Times.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

I wonder if any of the editors at the New York times ever read any of their own editorials.

Mayor Fiscal Conservative?

2007-07-26T10:58:00.000-07:00

Pundits keep claiming that while Mayor Giuliani is not a social conservative, he is most certainly a fiscal conservative. Perhaps, Mayor Giuliani, writing at RCP, could change a few of their minds.

America needs to become energy independent.

Why? Do we also need to become textile, agriculture, manufacturing, IT, and service independent? What is unique about energy? Wouldn’t most fiscal conservatives be in favor of purchasing goods and services from where each can be produced with the most value?

Presidents Nixon and Carter talked about energy independence, but not a lot got done.

Great, President Nixon and Carter were two of the least fiscally conservative Presidents of my lifetime and now Mayor Giuliani is referencing them as reliable authorities.

It will require setting goals, sticking to them and energizing the American people to achieve them. It will require expanding our reliance on a much more diverse range of energy sources that America can control.

Soviet style fiscal conservatism is not fiscal conservatism to most real fiscal conservatives.

But it is embarrassing that Brazil is so far ahead of America in the use of ethanol.

Why? Does America have to always lead? Don’t fiscal conservatives believe lots of small experiments are superior to national directives? If Brazil is successful, can’t America copy their success or purchase ethanol from them? Are we sure we want to use food for fuel? Do we want or need more corn fields instead of drilling holes?

The government needs to help business establish competitive, cost-effective technologies in the short-run.

President Nixon and Carter might even know this sounds a lot more like Lenin than it sounds like Reagan.

We can sell our advances to countries like China and India.

Just like we used to buy from China and India when each of those two countries were centrally controlled. Oh wait, we didn’t buy from them when they were centrally controlled; we started buying from them when they started allowing entrepreneurs to individually make economic decisions.

Mayor Giuliani may be right about the war on terror, but when he pens a piece like this, he is only going to get support from those who think Nixon and Carter were good Presidents.

Influence

2007-07-25T13:32:00.000-07:00

Disney stubs out smoking from its films
Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out cigarette smoking in its films, saying smoking scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

Mr Markey, who has called for tougher action to stop children from smoking, said it was “time for other media companies to similarly kick the habit and follow Disney’s lead”.

“We know that the presence of smoking in a movie significantly influences a child’s decision to start,” he said. “This is troubling given the fact that a vast majority of smokers begin smoking before their 18th birthday. I am pleased that Disney is embracing a policy that is consistent with the long-term public health of the nation.”

Wouldn’t the Hollywood depiction of any behavior be a significant influence on a child’s decision to start or stop the depicted behavior? Bad behavior portrayed in a positive way could influence a child to behave badly and good behavior portrayed in a negative way could influence a child to abandon or reject good behavior.

Could you ever imagine any of the following headlines?
Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out premarital sex in its films, saying premarital sex scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

or
Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out lying to parents in its films, saying lying to parent scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

or
Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out religious bigotry in its films, saying religious bigotry scenes in future Disney-branded movies would be “non-existent”.

I don’t think so. Disney and congress aren’t really interested in promoting good behavior and discouraging bad behavior; both are only interested in the politically correct influence on their bottom lines.

More God is not...

2007-07-24T10:04:00.000-07:00

Joe Carter on Politically Correct Politics

From this truism, though, some people derive the false assumption that since God does not provide his imprimatur for a particular party platform that the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican is morally neutral. This is almost certainly false. Political choices are almost always moral choices. Such decisions are fraught with moral danger and each Christian, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must determine for themselves how best to follow their conscience.

Obviously some decisions are easier than others. Despite the excuses we may make for our historical-cultural setting, no Biblically oriented evangelical should ever support a candidate who condones such evils as "outrages against human dignity" (i.e., slavery, racial segregation, torture, abortion). Other times the options may force a choice among the lesser of two or more evils (pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton, pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani, or a pro-life third party candidate?). In each case, though, the choice should be to follow one's conscience in applying Biblical principles to political decisions.

Unfortunately, some Christians wish to maintain the illusion of political neutrality even when it conflicts with our moral obligations.

In the name of Christ

2007-07-23T10:52:00.000-07:00

Affirming and defending the truth of the Gospel narratives in the Bible is practically a no-brainer. Affirming and defending the actions of professing Christians is a whole different matter. Hugh Hewitt links to an essay by Bill Lobdell in the L.A. Times about his journey from unbeliever, to believer, to Religion writer, to loss of faith.

Selected excerpts:

On wanting to become a Religion writer:

I wanted to report objectively and respectfully about how belief shapes people's lives. Along the way, I believed, my own faith would grow deeper and sturdier.

My desire to be a religion reporter grew as I read stories about faith in the mainstream media. Spiritual people often appeared as nuts or simpletons.

In one of the most famous examples, the Washington Post ran a news story in 1993 that referred to evangelical Christians as "largely poor, uneducated and easy to command."

On the Catholic Priest sex scandal:

At the time, I never imagined Catholic leaders would engage in a widespread practice that protected alleged child molesters and belittled the victims. I latched onto the explanation that was least damaging to my belief in the Catholic Church — that this was an isolated case of a morally corrupt administration.

But then I began going over the documents. And interviewing the victims, scores of them. I discovered that the term "sexual abuse" is a euphemism. Most of these children were raped and sodomized by someone they and their family believed was Christ's representative on Earth. That's not something an 8-year-old's mind can process; it forever warps a person's sexuality and spirituality.

Many of these victims were molested by priests with a history of abusing children. But the bishops routinely sent these clerics to another parish, and bullied or conned the victims and their families into silence. The police were almost never called. In at least a few instances, bishops encouraged molesting priests to flee the country to escape prosecution.

The judge ruled in the favor of Uribe, then pastor of a large parish in Whittier. After the hearing, when the priest's attorney discovered I had been there, she ran back into the courtroom and unsuccessfully tried to get the judge to seal the case. I could see why the priest's lawyer would try to cover it up. People would be shocked at how callously the church dealt with a priest's illegitimate son who needed money for food and medicine.

On the lack of grace by Mormons towards ex-Mormons:

The people at the conference were an eclectic bunch: novelists and stay-at-home moms, entrepreneurs and cartoonists, sex addicts and alcoholics. Some were depressed, others angry, and a few had successfully moved on. But they shared a common thread: They wanted to be honest about their lack of faith and still be loved.

In most pockets of Mormon culture, that wasn't going to happen.

Part of what drew me to Christianity were the radical teachings of Jesus — to love your enemy, to protect the vulnerable and to lovingly bring lost sheep back into the fold.

As I reported the story, I wondered how faithful Mormons — many of whom rigorously follow other biblical commands such as giving 10% of their income to the church — could miss so badly on one of Jesus' primary lessons?

On TBN:
SOME of the nation's most powerful pastors — including Billy Graham, Robert H. Schuller and Greg Laurie — appear on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, benefiting from TBN's worldwide reach while looking past the network's reliance on the "prosperity gospel" to fuel its growth.

TBN's creed is that if viewers send money to the network, God will repay them with great riches and good health. Even people deeply in debt are encouraged to put donations on credit cards.

"If you have been healed or saved or blessed through TBN and have not contributed … you are robbing God and will lose your reward in heaven," Paul Crouch, co-founder of the Orange County-based network, once told viewers. Meanwhile, Crouch and his wife, Jan, live like tycoons.

I began looking into TBN after receiving some e-mails from former devotees of the network. Those people had given money to the network in hopes of getting a financial windfall from God. That didn't work.

I spent several years investigating TBN and pored through stacks of documents — some made available by appalled employees — showing the Crouches eating $180-per-person meals; flying in a $21-million corporate jet; having access to 30 TBN-owned homes across the country, among them a pair of Newport Beach mansions and a ranch in Texas. All paid for with tax-free donor money.

He was thrilled to tell me that he had stopped getting dialysis because Hinn had said people are cured only when they "step out in faith." The decision enraged his doctors, but made perfect sense to Gibson. Despite risking his life as a show of faith, he wasn't cured in Anaheim. He returned to Canada and went back on dialysis. The crowd was filled with desperate believers like Gibson.

It’s hard for me to blame non-believers for a lack of faith when a believer can lose his faith and when so much evil is done in the name of Christ. Oh well, perhaps we can revive our image by being strong on anti-Global Warming proposals and by insisting tax payers foot the bill for all of the corruption in Africa.

No Difference?

2007-07-18T08:12:00.000-07:00

Some professing Christians maintain that God is not a Republican or a Democrat. These professing Christians must also believe that God approves of a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby. At least two, and probably all three, leading Democrats believe abortion should be a covered expense in their universal health care proposal.
Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal. She provided a bruising critique of Bush administration policies and Republican conservatives on abortion rights and contraception policy.

The Leader we need is the Leader we've got

2007-07-17T14:11:00.000-07:00

President Bush, the leader we would never reelect, is the leader we need, and thankfully, the leader we’ve got.

Rich Lowry has the details.

Selected excerpts:
Bush is as confident and upbeat as ever. Even once-friendly commentators like the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan wish he'd show some strain and worry as the war drags into its fifth year. But Bush must have confidence and optimism written into his DNA. As leaks, GOP defections and plummeting approval ratings swirl all around him, he remains resolute: The Iraq war must, and can, be won.

He curtly rejects the suggestion that he will be forced by troop constraints to pull back the surge come next spring, no matter what. "I'm sure that in the bowels of the Pentagon, people are looking at troop rotations and troop movements," he says. "That is not the primary objective of our commander on the ground -- next question."

Nor will Bush allow the political environment to constrain his policy. He cites his decision to go forward with the surge in January, even though the "outcry was quite significant." He knew what people were thinking: "How can he possibly do this? Didn't he see, didn't he hear?"

What he saw was a war effort that was stumbling, so he removed his top generals and brought in Gen. Petraeus and his surge plan. His confidence in Petraeus is total: "My job ... is to say to David Petraeus, 'I trust your judgment, I trusted you going in and I trust you now.'" He calls Petraeus "the most credible person in the fight at this moment."

Bush says that one of his most important audiences is not just the American public, but the enemy, who "thinks we're weak." He says "these are sophisticated people and they listen to the debate." They doubt "that we're going to be tough enough. I really believe that the additional forces into Iraq surprised them -- a lot."

In trying to game out the future U.S. policy in Iraq, there is an intense focus on the periphery -- what is Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinking, what's the Lugar-Warner plan? But what's still most important is the center of this storm, where President Bush sits, apparently in no mood whatsoever to budge.

On the Run

2007-07-17T10:35:00.000-07:00

I’ve noticed over the years how the major networks and newspapers are very good at uncovering and reporting about corruption in government and business, but completely derelict at uncovering and reporting about corruption within their own news industry.

Jack Kelly writes a good piece today about progress in Iraq that starts with a refutation of CNN reporting.
CNN's Michael Ware said in a broadcast Jan. 30 that Ramadi is "the true al Qaida national headquarters." If that were true, al Qaida is in bigger trouble in Iraq than most of us realize.

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt devoted his show last Wednesday to the (overwhelmingly negative) opinions of Iraq war veterans on the demands of Democrats that U.S. troops be pulled out. One call was from "Bruce in Upland," whose son is a soldier currently serving in Iraq.

"I will speak for my son who right now is bored out of his mind in Ramadi, because he hasn't heard a shot fired in combat now in about six or seven weeks," Bruce said.

I am encouraged to see this specific critique of mainstream media.

Mr. Kelly then goes on to describe a dynamic taking place among the Iraqi people.
U.S. intelligence thought there were about 1,000 al Qaida in Baquba when Operation Arrowhead Ripper began June 19. Those who haven't fled have been killed or captured.

The smaller part of the reason for the dramatic improvement in Ramadi and Baquba is the change in strategy embodied by the surge. The larger part is the change of heart of most of al Qaida's former allies.

Mr. Yon was with U.S. troops in the Spring of 2005, when they fought insurgents in the Baquba suburb of Buhritz. Among "the most proficient at killing our people," he said, were the 1920s Revolution Brigades.

In April the 1920s Revolution Brigades attacked al Qaida and asked for U.S. help. Last week Mr. Yon returned to Buhritz with a leader of the group, "Abu Ali."
Mr. Yon asked Abu Ali why his group switched sides. "Al Qaida is an abomination of Islam," he replied. "Cutting off heads, stealing peoples money, kidnapping...every type of torture they have done."

Sheikh Abdul Sattar al Rishawi, founder of the Anbar Salvation Council, gave similar reasons for his change of allegiance.

When al Qaida ran Baquba, it would amputate the two fingers used to hold a cigarette of any Iraqi caught smoking. Men who refused to grow beards were beaten, as were women for the "sexually suggestive" behavior of carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag, Mr. Yon said. He recounted finding the bodies of beheaded children.

Al Qaida's brutality has alienated the overwhelming majority of Sunnis as well as the Shias who were the primary targets of its attacks. When the U.S. can provide them with protection, ordinary people are turning on al Qaida with a vengeance.

Most of al Qaida's leaders and many of its foot soldiers escaped from Baquba, and probably will try to establish another "capital" elsewhere. But they're running out of places to go.

The U.S. Senate is debating today about a proposal to require withdrawal of American troops. Some of our politicians are either clueless or actually want al Qaida to win in Iraq.

Joe's EO 100

2007-07-17T09:43:00.001-07:00

Imagine my surprise at being listed in Joe Carter’s EO 100 list of Christian blogs.

Joe has once again displayed uncommon grace and graciousness by including microbes [like me] on his list.

He listed some really great blogs and writers. I have no illusion that I belong on such a list other than to know there is room in Christian blogging for someone who doesn’t belong with the big guys, but can still sometimes bring a unique perspective to Christian thinking.

I am also encouraged that so many of the sites I visit and include in my sidebar are included in Joe’s list.

Courage

2007-07-16T09:14:00.000-07:00

When I wrote my recent piece on President Throwback, I didn’t mean to imply that I think President Bush is courageous or that he is a hero. Political courage, while rare, is not the same as real courage.

In our present age, when political courage is practically nonexistent, real courage is abundant. The real heroes, the ones with genuine courage, are the men and women of the United States military, who have volunteered to serve since 9/11. These men and women who volunteer for an unpopular war, who endure hardship in the desert heat and other extreme conditions, who risk their lives bringing murderers to justice, who sometimes return home without some of their body parts, who sometimes return home in caskets, who always return home changed, are the ones exhibiting true courage. These men and women are the heroes who are truly courageous in what they are doing.

Soldiers are different from politicians. Soldiers don’t avoid a fight when the cause is noble. Politicians only fight for money and votes; avoiding all other confrontations, including noble causes. Soldiers risk their lives while performing their duty. Politicians won’t even risk reelection, as they avoid their duty.

The United States may become the first country in history where the government has twice voted to lose a just war that the soldiers have won. What a striking contrast between the soldiers with courage and the powerful without it.

Should we...because we can?

2007-07-15T14:54:00.000-07:00

Rusty links and then comments on a couple of news articles chronicling the cost and experience of a modern day prom night. He then finishes his piece by asking, “Do Christians think, by mimicking such a culture's every move, that they are evangelizing to them?”

I often tell my daughters that just because they can [mimic others] doesn’t mean they should [mimic others]. Of course my admonition is often the exact opposite of what they are hoping to hear because it is usually in response to them asking if they can do something I am less than enthusiastic about. Hopefully, this is a lesson my daughters are learning even as my point goes in one ear and out the other when they hear it.

This principle of purposeful behavior is not only applicable when deciding against bad behavior. Sometimes, even good behavior shouldn’t be mimicked. Just because Saddleback has been successful with a certain Church model doesn’t mean other Churches should automatically copy what they are doing there. Just because one person is successful at personal evangelism doesn’t mean God expects all of us to be personal evangelists. It’s sad how many people define success in terms of what they are good at doing.

In order to salt the earth, believers must be in the world, but not of the world. Of course Rusty is asking a rhetorical question where the obvious answer is “no” because mimicking the world is being of the world. As Rusty implies, most of what passes for Christianity nowadays, is indistinguishable from modern culture. Christians should be noticeably different. Believers in Christ have to offer an alternative to the world focus on self. Followers of Christ should be directing focus away from self and onto the purposes of God.

Just because we can follow others doesn’t mean we should always follow others. It is perfectly OK with God for each of us to be unique. After all, he created each and every one of us as an individual. It is just as OK for our group and our group focus to be unique as long as our purpose conforms to God’s leadership. Along the way, we may attract a few converts who need to break the shackles of modern culture.

President Throwback

2007-07-13T09:39:00.000-07:00

Modern leaders are the men and women who are first to get out in front of a parade. Throughout government, politics, business, and the Church, these modern leaders have become masters at spotting trends and then adopting policies and positions that reflect the trend. Perhaps it has always been this way since most people desire acceptance as much or more than they desire righteousness. Probably, periods of relativism, like nowadays, adds to this dynamic.

When we read biographies and auto-biographies of great leaders of the past, we never read about how these leaders distinguished themselves by following or getting out in front of the pack. Stories of great leaders of the past are usually stories about how these leaders battled conventional wisdom, sometimes at great personal sacrifice, in an attempt to counter and change conventional wisdom.

President Bush is a throwback to the past. He just doesn’t fit the profile of a modern leader. Peggy Noonan, and other pundits, seem to think leadership means acting and thinking in ways that please the masses and those who already agree with you. President Bush, like other modern leaders, could achieve high approval ratings by taking and following polls instead of taking and maintaining unpopular stands. He could easily rally conservatives by being more combative with his opponents. Instead, he has chosen to stick to his convictions.

The next President of the United States will be much more popular than the current one. He or she will say most of the things voters want to hear and do most of the things voters want done as America becomes more and more like the rest of the world. Cheerful, positive, and confident, even in defeat, will once again become leadership traits of the past. Someday, my great grandchildren will be inspired by the biography of President Bush.

Consequences of withdrawal

2007-07-12T12:44:00.000-07:00

Marine on the Hilltop

Selected Excerpts:
Also, if we withdraw in the face of the enemy (or set a date for withdrawal), al Qaeda will claim a huge victory — and make no mistake, our withdrawing won’t be a hollow victory for al Qaeda: It will be an enormous and very real triumph for the terrorist network.

Finally, with so much at stake, and no one left except the bad guys to fill any vacuum left by withdrawing U.S. forces (before the bad guys are soundly defeated), the region will become far more unstable than it is now. And I cannot begin to imagine the horrors the Iraqi people who voted in free elections, who supported us, who provided intelligence to us, and whose kids were photographed with us, would be subjected to (and believe me, the Iraqis know that too).

Progress is being made in Iraq. Successful counterinsurgencies take years. Failure or retreat — including withdrawal before the work is finished — is not a reasonable option (I am constantly amazed that it is even a consideration). The soldiers in Iraq — every bit as book-smart and street-savvy as that young Marine in Korea years ago — understand this. Why Congress doesn’t, is beyond me. Or perhaps they really do, but they also know that it is not politically expedient to support an effort that has been so-maligned in the public eye. And there is no doubt in my mind that some would sell their very souls to save their elected skins.

God is not...or is He?

2007-07-12T10:16:00.000-07:00

One of the most nonsensical, overused, and silly clichés I’ve ever heard is the statement, “God is not a Democrat or a Republican.” Literally, this statement is true, but so is the statement, “God is not a baseball bat.” I could just as easily make the statement, “God is not a Catholic or a Hindu”, and be just as assured I am making a true statement. However, we would never hear such a statement because a Catholic wouldn’t dare claim God is as much Hindu as Catholic and a Hindu wouldn’t dare claim God is as much Catholic as Hindu.

People may want a God created in their own image, but God’s attributes are immutable (fixed and eternal). Holiness, goodness, and righteousness are what God defines these to be, and evil is what God defines it to be; not what voters, and politicians define these to be. I doubt God is perfectly aligned with either major political party in America, but unless God is completely amoral, which from a Christian point of view is inconceivable, God is either more in line with Republican philosophy and policies, or more in line with the philosophy and policies of the Democrats. He can’t be both and it is highly unlikely he is exactly in between the two.

Just as God is not amoral, Disciples of Christ are not amoral either. Since our primary objective as followers of Christ is to become Disciples and to make Disciples, we are obligated to take a stand on the moral issues of our time. Disciples of Christ act in ways that are consistent with their beliefs. We cannot claim abortion is the taking of an innocent human life without acting to stop these immoral acts anymore than we can claim the Church is the body of Christ without supporting the Church.

Every government policy has a moral component. Every change to government policy has a moral consequence. With humility, every Disciple of Christ must take a stand and support the political party which most represents their understanding of God.

What good is Christianity, and what good is being a Disciple of Christ, if our beliefs do not influence our actions?

Withdraw the Troops?

2007-07-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that those in politics and the media who keep calling the problems in Iraq a civil war are reading from last years script. The enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda and the only way Iraq, America, or the world could lose is to abandon the Iraqi’s.

Michael Yon
In the more than two years since that awful day in May 2005, I’ve witnessed innumerable instances of the work of terrorists of many stripes. One clear indicator of just how bad a terrorist group is, is when battle-hardened soldiers—and writers like me who travel with them—don’t find it hard to believe a story which purports that al Qaeda had baked a child and set his roasted body out as the main course at a lunch for his parents.

People at home might find it incredible, improbable, even impossible. Yet here in combat with al Qaeda, the idea is no more improbable-sounding than someone saying “The chicken crossed the road.” Maybe the chicken crossed the road. Maybe not. The veterans I’ve been talking with here have no difficulty imagining the chicken crossing the road, or al Qaeda roasting kids. Sickening, yes. Improbable, no.

Withholding Support

2007-07-10T09:10:00.000-07:00

I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor in the Gray Davis recall election because the L.A. Times published a hit piece on him a couple of days before the election. The L.A. Times is at it again by publishing a hit piece on Fred Thompson just before he announces his candidacy for President. The L.A. Times article makes me want to start supporting Fred Thompson.

However, Governor Schwarzenegger has turned out to be a horrible, horrible, governor. [I didn’t vote for him when he ran for reelection.] Therefore, while Senator Thompson gets kudos for being the subject of an L.A. Times hit piece, I will be withholding my support for him, and all of the other candidates, until I have seen how they deal with the press over an extended period of time through a few up and down periods in their campaigns.

8 Things

2007-07-09T10:36:00.000-07:00

Rusty at New Covenant has tagged me with a meme to write 8 things you don’t know about me.

I can’t believe you don’t know this stuff, but here goes:

I filmed a United States Marine Corp recruiting commercial in 1978 with Francis Cherry, former Governor of Arkansas from 1953 to 1955.
While in High School, I once drove my 1969 Plymouth GTX at 150 miles an hour.
Before becoming a Christian in 1989, I loved arguing with Christians about their silly beliefs, and I still do.
I have never broken 80 in a round of golf, but I still believe, someday I will.
I have four bothers and four sisters.
I completed the 1995 LA marathon as my future wife waited for me in some very bad weather.
I won the Crane Industries Ping Pong championship in 1977.
I once worked for Tucker, Duck, and Rubber company in Fort Smith Arkansas.

Don’t forget to register your vote on my Presidential poll.

What Bono doesn't say about Africa

2007-07-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

Celebrities like to portray Africa as a basket case, but they ignore very real progress.

Bottom Line:

Why do aid organizations and their celebrity backers want to make African successes look like failures? One can only speculate, but it certainly helps aid agencies get more publicity and more money if problems seem greater than they are. As for the stars — well, could Africa be saving celebrity careers more than celebrities are saving Africa?

In truth, Africans are and will be escaping poverty the same way everybody else did: through the efforts of resourceful entrepreneurs, democratic reformers and ordinary citizens at home, not through PR extravaganzas of ill-informed outsiders.

The real Africa needs increased trade from the West more than it needs more aid handouts. A respected Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda, made this point at a recent African conference despite the fact that the world's most famous celebrity activist — Bono — was attempting to shout him down. Mwenda was suffering from too much reality for Bono's taste: "What man or nation has ever become rich by holding out a begging bowl?" asked Mwenda.

Perhaps Bono was grouchy because his celebrity-laden "Red" campaign to promote Western brands to finance begging bowls for Africa has spent $100 million on marketing and generated sales of only $18 million, according to a recent report. But the fact remains that the West shows a lot more interest in begging bowls than in, say, letting African cotton growers compete fairly in Western markets (see the recent collapse of world trade talks).

Today, as I sip my Rwandan gourmet coffee and wear my Nigerian shirt here in New York, and as European men eat fresh Ghanaian pineapple for breakfast and bring Kenyan flowers home to their wives, I wonder what it will take for Western consumers to learn even more about the products of self-sufficient, hardworking, dignified Africans. Perhaps they should spend less time consuming Africa disaster stereotypes from television and Vanity Fair.

Tough or Kind Parenting Dilemma

2007-07-03T09:08:00.000-07:00

A dilemma I sometimes face as a parent is trying to teach my children to be both tough and kind. Someone who is tough is able to ignore the physical and emotional pain that prevents softer individuals from accomplishing worthwhile goals. Someone who is kind is able to understand and then relieve the physical or emotional pain of others, or avoid causing others to feel pain.

I don’t want my daughters to find a balance between “tough” and “kind” which leaves them a little bit tough and a little bit kind. I want them to understand how to be both extremely tough and extremely kind. When I punish them based on their behavior, I am teaching them a lesson in toughness, but I worry that they will learn a lesson in [the lack of] kindness that I don’t want them to learn. When I allow them to make bad decisions and not suffer the consequences, I am teaching them a lesson in kindness, but I worry that they will learn a lesson in [the lack of] toughness that I don’t want them to learn.

I always try to model the behavior I expect from my daughters and I also try my best to explain to them the concepts behind why I behave the way I do, but I don’t have a tool for measuring the results of my modeling and explanations. I hope and pray [a lot] that they are learning both.

Climate Facts

2007-06-18T09:32:00.000-07:00

High price for load of hot air

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

Political Irony

2007-06-12T15:55:00.000-07:00

Politics and irony were made for each other. Immigration reform has been a top priority of President Bush from the time he announced his intention to seek the Presidency. For his first six years as President, the leadership of George W. Bush helped increase the Republican majority in Congress. For these same six years, Republicans in Congress showed little interest in comprehensive immigration reform.

Most Democrats, who also wanted immigration reform, spent the first six years of the Bush Presidency attacking the integrity, character, and public policies of President Bush. The political tactics of personal destruction succeeded against President Bush in the 2006 elections as a Democratic majority was elected to Congress. Finally, President Bush had a Congress that was willing to attempt immigration reform.

There was just one little problem though. After six years of personal attacks against President Bush by his opposition, he no longer had the political capital and clout to persuade members of his own party to support new immigration legislation. Foiled again!

It’s weird how the war in Iraq has played a part in blocking immigration reform. It’s amazing how many checks and balances are built into the American political system.

Well done founding fathers.

Learning From Lincoln

2007-06-08T13:44:00.000-07:00

Learning from Lincoln's Wisdom by William Kristol

Selected Excerpt:
The generation of World War II is mostly gone. The generation that directly heard tell of World War II from its parents is moving on. We have exhausted, so to speak, the moral capital of that war. Now we face challenges almost as daunting as those confronting the nation when Lincoln spoke. The perpetuation of freedom in the world is no more certain today than was the perpetuation of our free institutions then. Of course, we have the example of Lincoln to guide us. And Ferguson's wry and sardonic account of the ways we remember him is heartening and even inspiring, almost despite itself or despite ourselves. But the failures of leadership of the 1840s and 1850s should also chasten us. Nations don't always rise to the occasion. And the next generation can pay a great price when the preceding one shirks its responsibilities.

Cracks in American Politics

2007-06-08T09:21:00.000-07:00

It’s probably better for America in the long run that the immigration bill has stalled in the Senate. Something needs to be done to address the problem of illegal immigration, but sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something when the something that you do has a good chance of making matters worse.

I don’t see any winners or heroes in the immigration debate. I believe President Bush was noble in his attempt to fix immigration, but I also think his primary argument was flawed. The reason there are jobs Americans won’t do is because there are employers who will not pay the price to have jobs done by legal American citizens.

I kept waiting for a spokesperson on either side of the debate to make compelling arguments for their side. I heard and read a few reasonable arguments on both sides, but I primarily heard and read appeals to emotion, with very few appeals to reason. Compassion for our fellow human beings has to be balanced by justice with long term expectations and consequences.

The debate over immigration has also exposed some real cracks in our political system. Congresspersons who base their political position on who donates the most money to their campaign, or which constituency shouts the loudest in opposition, or even which position is held by the majority of voters are not doing their job with honor. It’s not good for America when money, the vocal minority, or the tyranny of the majority determines public policy.

The job of a congressperson is to do what is right for America in the long run. For very good reasons, America was never intended to be a pure democracy. Citizens with core values, principles, and morals are supposed to elect representatives with similar values, principles, and morals and then the representatives are supposed to legislate based on these values, principles, and morals. When self interest is the primary value of those doing the electing, then self interest will be the primary value of those getting elected, and public policy will be based on individual selfish interests.

Is selfishness the legacy of the American experiment? Where are the American statesmen in the mold of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy? Where are the heroes? I have no doubt that many of our soldiers returning from Iraq will be the real leaders of the next generation. However, I worry that none of them will ever get elected.

Why no one's making more gas

2007-06-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

CNN Money of all places:

In short, investors, like the oil industry itself, are concerned that refining will one day revert to being a barely profitable business.

"These guys don't want to put money into a business that's historically cyclical," he said.

Over the last 25 years, McKee said the S&P 500 has generated percentage returns somewhere in the low teens, while refining has returned about half that.

"There's a good reason there's been some discipline in the capital markets," he said. "It's been a pretty tough story over a long period of time."

Deport them all?

2007-06-04T16:50:00.000-07:00

I can understand why many American citizens would want to deport adults from other countries who as adults came to the United States illegally or stayed in the United States illegally. However, I don’t understand Christians who want to deport everyone who is in the United States illegally. What about all of the illegal immigrants who were brought illegally to the United States by their parents as a child?

Not all illegal immigrants are the same. Do we deport someone who is now 18 years old who was brought illegally to America as a 2 year old and who has no other home except America? What about a 20 year old who was brought as a 5 year old? A 25 year old with a college education and a job who was brought as a 10 year old? Don’t some compassionate and reasonable exceptions need to be made in deciding the fate of illegal immigrants? Does anyone have a good reason for deporting those who were forced to migrate illegally by their parents?

What would happen if ...

2007-05-30T10:03:00.000-07:00

What would happen if a candidate for political office told voters he/she was going to take the political positions that gave him/her the best chance of being elected and then once elected, support the political positions that were the most popular with the voting public? What would happen if a candidate for political office told voters his/her personal opinions would never be a factor in setting government policy?

Memorial

2007-05-25T09:00:00.000-07:00

May God bless and protect all of the young men and women who volunteer to serve in the armed forces during times of military conflict. The earth could not be salted without the sacrifice and sense of duty of the young and patriotic Americans who risk their lives to preserve freedom.

May God heal all of the victims of warfare including the injured soldiers, innocent bystanders, and the families and friends of those who have been wounded or lost their life during military conflict.

May Americans remember all of the brave soldiers who have died or been injured protecting freedom throughout American history.

May God open the eyes of those in authority to lead and make important decisions with wisdom and humility.

May God protect the innocent, reward the good, and punish evil in our present time and in future times.

May I never forget how lucky I am.

Immigration Bill Thoughts

2007-05-21T11:49:00.000-07:00

I am on record as favoring more legal immigration and favoring the enforcement of current immigration laws. Nothing is worse than the confusion that results from having laws that are rarely or ever enforced. The best system would be a fair system that is enforced with the rule of law. A less than fair system, which the United States currently has, that is enforced, is still preferable to any system that is not enforced because people will at least act on reasonable expectations.

I applaud our President and the Senate leaders for attempting to solve the illegal immigration problem and for making an effort to deal humanely with all of the illegal immigrants presently in the United States. There is plenty of room in the United States for more of every race, creed, and ethnicity to share in our blessings and opportunities.

However, I have three major misgivings with the current immigration compromise. Two involve class and one involves security.

Workers in the United States should only be tied to a specific job until they can find a better job or until their employment contract expires. Upward mobility allows the underclass to become the upper-class as workers gain knowledge, perfect their skills, manage their careers, and sometimes own their own enterprises.

I don’t see how temporary workers could ever be anything except a permanent underclass. The temporary designation is not as bad as slavery, but it is not freedom either if the temporary workers can not progress into a better class as they develop marketable skills. I don’t mind if someone wants to come to America and work and then return to their home country, but I do have a moral problem with forcing them to return after they have performed for a paycheck but before they have been able to develop and market their skills.

I also don’t see how allowing more visas for professionals and less visas for relatives of American citizens will do anything except limit the upward mobility of existing citizens and force more families to consider illegal options to attain reunification. Do we really need more Doctors, Lawyers, and Accountants pursuing six figure incomes or do we need more workers willing to roll up their sleeves and build more houses, roads, and schools and produce more food and home products at a lower cost? I vote for more houses, roads, and schools. I also vote for stronger families which means allowing citizens to assist their relatives in becoming Americans.

Lastly, I would like to see provisions in the immigration bill that have some serious screening provisions for Islamic radicals. There may come a time in America when we will be fighting terrorists on our own streets. If we can stop them before they get here, there will be a lot fewer Americans who become victims of terrorism.

An immigration bill that becomes law needs to represent the best of American morality and justice. We should be able to do better than the current compromise.

Weasel

2007-05-13T16:01:00.000-07:00

I am personally against drinking and driving, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to drink and drive.

I am personally against cheating on my income taxes, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to cheat on their own income taxes.

I am personally against beating my wife, but I believe everyone has a right to beat their own wife.

I am personally against armed robbery, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to use a firearm in a robbery.

I am personally against slavery, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to own slaves.

I am personally against abortion, but I believe everyone has a right to choose to have an abortion.

I’m not smart enough to know if Mayor Giuliani’s political position on abortion is clever enough for him to win the Republican nomination or the general election, but I do know a weasel when I hear one.

Orthodox Fellows

2007-05-11T08:37:00.000-07:00

Rusty Lopez and Joe Carter are kindred spirits with Buz and me.

Joe: “Evangelism ain't Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News. “

Buz: “Jesus may have been a good teacher and all, but he was a terrible salesman. I say that, with the current idea of churches as a multi-level marketing scheme in mind. Some churches try to go so far to make the gospel (the story of Jesus and his plan of salvation) acceptible, that they practically tell the listener anything they want to hear, just so they will "become a Christian" (note that I put this in quotes because I believe that it is that local church's description of becoming a Christian, not the on presented in orthodox Christianity.)”

Rusty: “Making Converts [Oh, you mean the Great Commission... right? Wrong. It's to make disciples.]"

Dean McConnell on Romney

2007-04-21T11:37:00.000-07:00

Dean McConnell raises some valid concerns for Christians to consider before deciding to support and vote for Governor Romney.
When we vote for someone for office, we are voting for the entire person. We should consider what they believe, what they know, what their skills, gifts, abilities, talents and virtues are. We should also consider the evidence of their particular addictions, vices and shortcomings. I would not vote for anyone for public office who holds beliefs about reality that are absurd or who does not know information necessary to be an effective office holder. ...

Within the core of what someone believes are their religious beliefs. What someone believes about God, human nature, the origin of the universe, the order of the universe, the source of moral law, the source of rights, why human beings can learn language or learn anything at all, whether there are spiritual forces at work in the world, what factors affect human behavior and decision making, and what factors affect group behavior and decision making, are all of great importance and are all tied to one’s religious faith and belief. If one claims they are not tied to one’s religious faith and belief, that says something very clearly about what that person actually thinks and actually believes. What some Mormons believe about foundational ideas, as individuals, may be laudable. But what the Mormon Church historically has believed is not always Biblical, praiseworthy, or sensible.

Gun Fairness

2007-04-19T10:41:00.000-07:00

The argument over guns and gun control in the United States always flairs after a high profile shooting. This argument over whether it is safer to allow more guns or whether it is safer to allow fewer guns does not seem to have a resolution. Some people feel safer with less guns being sold and owned while other people feel safer having the right to own and use their guns for self defense.

Conflicting studies have shown both points of view to be true. Gun violence has gone down in some places when tighter restrictions on gun ownership were implemented and gun violence has gone down in other places when gun ownership restrictions were eased. Some of the most violent areas of the United States are the urban areas with the strongest gun control measures, yet rural areas where guns are part of the culture still have a share of gun crime.

Perhaps the argument needs to shift from which position creates the most safety to which position is the most fair. Is it fair to allow citizens to own guns that could be used in a gun crime? Is if fair to restrict citizens from owning guns that could be used for self defense?

We live in a country where freedom occasionally produces some very bad characters. We can and should sacrifice some privacy in order to stop some of the bad guys before they commit gun crimes. However, we won’t have fairness and we will eventually lose most of our freedom if we aren’t allowed to protect ourselves from the bad guys with our own guns. The ability to protect ourselves from crime is the only fair solution to the gun problem.

Attributes of a Serious Church: Respectful

2007-04-05T11:46:00.000-07:00

“Respectful” makes the list of attributes of a serious Church.

Respectful: Do the leaders of a Church make unnecessary demands on the members of a Church? Do the members make unnecessary demands on their leaders? Are visitors treated as honored guests or are visitors treated as sales prospects? Are those who disagree with the Church leaders given a fair hearing or are dissenters automatically condemned? Are non-believers treated as lost souls or are non-believers treated as less intelligent than believers? Does a Church treat those in and out of the Church with dignity?

Marriage counselors claim the first crack in a marriage is when the couple quits treating each other with respect. Most humans start every relationship with respect for each other; even more so for relationships that could lead to a marriage. Over time though, the closer we become to someone, the greater is our tendency to become more selfish and less respectful of the other person. We let our guard down and become who we really are where our primary concern is our own wants and needs. Long term relationships require a commitment to maintaining long term respect. Perhaps this is why so many marriages fail and so many friendships wither.

Relationships within a Church are no different. New Pastors and new members get treated with lots of fanfare, but over time, the daily grind usually takes its toll as individual wants and needs start to surface and become a priority. Sometimes Pastors end up making demands on members as if the members were employees who couldn’t survive without their next paycheck. Sometimes members end up treating Pastors like employees who should feel lucky just to have a job.

Serious Churches do not treat their Pastors as employees. The role of a Pastor is a calling to a particular place at a particular time. The responsibility of the Pastor is to minister to the Church and the Churches community. The responsibility of the Church is to take care of the Pastors and their families in a way that will allow the Pastors to accomplish their ministry. Serious Pastors do not treat the members of a Church as employees either. Volunteers in ministry are not pawns that need playing. Volunteers are the soul of a Church; they should be honored, not taken advantage of.

Belief in Christ can be supported with some very solid evidence, but belief in Christ is not solely a function of brain cells. Smart people can sometimes come to wrong conclusions. Mentally handicapped people can sometimes come to correct conclusions. There are plenty of very bright people throughout the world who do not believe in God or Christ the Savior. Many believers are under the illusion that spreading the Gospel is just a matter of educating the poor souls who have never been taught the truth. However, the minute we assume a superior to inferior relationship with non-believers, we usually eliminate the chance that they will hear what we have to say because we come across as disrespectful to their intelligence.

Serious leaders of serious Churches do not consider non-believers to be foolish. Serious leaders respect the intelligence of non-believers. Churches with leaders who use multi-level marketing techniques instead of Biblical evangelism are not serious.

Churches, like all organizations, have a tendency to become inbred over time. People tend to associate with like minds and leaders tend to identify others for leadership who agree with their point of view. Inbreeding can be an asset in maintaining high standards, but inbreeding can also be a detriment to making necessary changes. There are enough stories in the Bible of individuals stepping away from the crowd in obedience to God to remind Church leaders of the importance of contrarian views. Serious leaders of serious Churches encourage and respect dissent as much as they encourage and respect conformity.

[Previous][Next]

Attributes of a Serious Church: Humility

2007-04-04T12:09:00.000-07:00

“Humility” makes it onto my list of the attributes of a serious Church.

Humility: Does a Church know what it doesn’t know? Is a Church careful to differentiate between opinions and facts or does a Church present opinions as facts? Can a Church demonstrate the claims it is making with solid evidence or does a Church consider evidence and proof unnecessary?

I love hearing personal testimonies just as much as I love a solid Bible teacher. The lives of believers can illustrate many of the principles contained in the Bible. All believers have a story to tell about the interaction we have with our living Savior. In our stories, we have a tendency to give God credit for the good that enters into our lives. God is good; he does control the universe; he does deserve the credit. However, knowing that God is good is not the same as knowing that God wants everything we want.

The Gospel is not a method for getting what we want. Last week I heard Joyce Meyers, number seven on the Church Report list of the fifty most influential evangelical leaders, say she knows God exists because of everything HE has done in her life. Using her own logic, she would also have to know that God does not exist if she was murdered in a concentration camp because of everything HE did not do in her life.

Joyce Meyers’ egotistical lack of humility completely misrepresented the Gospel. I’m sure there are people who believe in God because they want to be like Joyce Meyers or other well known and successful evangelical leaders, but the God who makes people healthy, wealthy, and happy is not the God of the Bible. People in the Bible tremble in humility before an all powerful God. They do not pray as though they were rubbing a Jeannie in a bottle.

My wife thinks that I think I am always right. I know I have many doubts and uncertainties, but I choose not to talk about my doubts because resolving my doubts are part of my thought process before topics leave my mouth or keyboard. My self censor method still does not make me always right. I can be almost certain all of my individual opinions are right and still know that at some point some of my opinions will prove to be wrong. After all, I am only human and this is a site for my opinions.

Churches are led and comprised of humans as well. There is not a single human who will be right all of the time, but the credibility of humans and their institutions is based on being right most of the time. Serious leaders of serious Churches are obsessed with maintaining the highest standard of credibility. Serious Churches do not mix the timeless truths of the Gospel with evolving personal opinions.

[Previous][Next]

Attributes of a Serious Church: Integrity

2007-04-02T10:22:00.000-07:00

Today, “Integrity” gets added to my list of the attributes of a serious Church.

Integrity: Is truth the highest value? Are the orthodox essentials emphasized more than the less important beliefs or are all beliefs considered equal? Is the Pastor clear about the difference between provable facts and arguable opinions? Does a Church practice what the Pastor preaches?

Several years ago Greg Koukl wrote a piece about the six essentials of Christian faith. The whole piece is worth reading, but here is the summary:

The six essential doctrines would be: the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, man's fallenness and guilt, salvation by grace through faith by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, and belief that Jesus is the Messiah. And you have a seventh doctrine that strikes me as a functional necessity, that is the ultimate authority of Scripture without which none of the other truths can be affirmed or asserted with confidence.

Christianity has become the ultimate cafeteria religion with each individual believer picking and choosing what to believe and what to ignore. In some ways this is good. God did not create any of us to be robots or carbon copies of other believers. Through our physical, mental, and emotional differences and gifts, we become the earthly representatives of Christ as the body of Christ.

However, in other ways, Cafeteria Christianity has neutered the transforming power of the Gospel when there is no clear distinction between essential beliefs and non-essential beliefs. Churches really start to develop problems when personal opinions get raised to the level of essential beliefs. My passion and your passion can be completely different and together we can form the body of Christ if and only if we have the essential beliefs in common.

Obviously, the Gospel contains more than six or seven truths. Many Churches consider baptism by emersion an essential truth. I don’t see anything wrong with a few items being added to the list of essentials as long as a good argument can be made that the added item truly is an essential. Bible versions, dress codes, worship styles, as well as unique interpretations of Scripture are not essentials and should not be considered essential by a serious Church.

Most sermons and most discussions in Church involve non-essential beliefs. Our wisdom increases as we live and learn all of the truths of God contained in Scripture. However, there are many debatable interpretations of parts of Scripture. Pastors who give a fair representation to views other than their own are serious teachers. Pastors who can only present one point of view, which is their own, are not serious about teaching. I will have more to say about this in a later attribute.

A Church can only get where it is going if it knows where it is going and if it is committed to getting there. In most Churches, the Pastor is figuratively the leader of the band; the lighthouse illuminating a clear path; and the football referee resolving conflicts. There is absolutely no point in having a person spend hours and hours each week preparing and delivering a sermon if the sermon is not followed by actions on the part of the believers in the Church. Serious Churches have serious Pastors who deliver serious sermons for serious believers to follow and act. Churches that ignore the teaching of the Pastor are not serious.

[Previous][Next]

Attributes of a Serious Church: Sacrificial, Frugal, and Transparent

2007-03-29T13:47:00.000-07:00

So far, the items on my list of the attributes of a serious Church include, “Purposeful”, “Holy”, “Non-Manipulative”, and “Introspective”. Today, “Sacrificial”, “Frugal”, and “Transparent” get added to my list.

Sacrificial: Do the leaders and members of a Church live below the rest of the people in their community? Do the leaders and members of a Church tithe before they shop or do they shop before they tithe? Do leaders of a Church live in homes nicer than the Church facilities or are the Church facilities at least as nice as their homes?

Believers can’t buy everything their neighbors buy, own everything their neighbors own, wear everything their neighbors wear, drive the same cars as their neighbors, vacation like their neighbors, and do everything their neighbors are doing if the believers are tithing a sacrificial amount of income to their Church. Non-believers who do not tithe will always have more disposable income.

Members often complain about the amount of resources that are spent constructing and maintaining Church facilities. Their argument is based on the belief that changing the hearts of others shouldn’t require buildings or facilities. Families shouldn’t require multiple bathrooms, multiple cars, multiple televisions, backyards, parks, and all sorts of other external items, but we do, and so does the Gospel require an appropriate external representation of the People who belong to a Church.

Church facilities do not need to be elaborate, but every building, every vehicle, and all other Church property should be built, cleaned, and maintained as if honored guests were coming for dinner, because they are. Every visitor to a Church is an honored guest.

Serious leaders of serious Churches maintain appropriate facilities by sacrificing some of their own comfort and personal desires. Churches with leaders who live in houses nicer than their Church facilities are not serious.

Frugal: Do the leaders of a Church who are responsible for budgeting and spending treat the financial gifts to the Church as holy resources? Do the leaders of a Church sweat the financial decisions of the Church even after an appropriate time and amount of prayer? Do the leaders of a Church honor the contributions coming from those living on minimum wage or fixed incomes?

“Spend it or lose it” is the mantra within government organizations. Every leader of every government agency knows that if they don’t spend their allotted budget, they will have less to spend the following fiscal year. “If” to spend is never even considered. “Where” to spend is the only question that most government leaders ever ask themselves.

Most Churches aren’t much different than most government agencies when it comes to budgeting and spending. Leaders spend every penny that is offered and then hope for more. Wouldn’t it be great to be sitting in Church on a Sunday morning when the leaders give some of the offering back because it isn’t needed? Crazy fantasy, I know!

Frugal does not mean cheap. Paying the lowest price rarely results in getting the best value. Churches that spend the appropriate amount, at the appropriate time, for the appropriate purposes are serious Churches. Churches that spend what they get when they get it are not serious.

Transparent: Is the Church open and honest in all matters or does the Church hide the reason for a decision or the outcome of a decision in order to avoid embarrassment or conflict? Do believers in a Church confess their sins openly and honestly?

Churches are comprised of humans who, like all humans, hate to be embarrassed and tend to avoid conflict. Leaders want to be perceived as less mortal, more right, less inclined to making mistakes, and above criticism. Church leaders carry the extra burden of high moral and ethical expectations from the regulars at their Church. When leaders want to be perceived as pure, and followers want to perceive their leaders as pure, lots of dishonesty and secrets transpire in order to maintain the illusion of purity.

As a young Catholic, I had regular meetings with a Parish Priest through a confessional window. I confessed what I thought were my sins because I was expected to confess my sins. My confessions and the absolution of my sins were not particularly meaningful to the rest of my life because I knew God already knew what I had done. Later, as an adult, a Priest explained to me that he was representing a community of believers during the sacrament of confession in order to allow believers a way to confess how they had sinned against the community. Confession isn’t about telling God what he already knows; confession is about the health of a community.

Protestant Churches don’t have formal confessions or regular confession time. Perhaps regular or formal confessions would conflict with my “Non-Manipulative” attribute, but Protestants are expected to confess their sins to one another.

Serious leaders of serious Churches are honest and open about their decisions and their mistakes. Serious leaders ask for forgiveness when they hurt their Church. Churches that maintain an illusion of purity are not serious.

[Previous][Next]

Attributes of a Serious Church: Non-Manipulative and Introspective

2007-03-28T11:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I started a list of the attributes of a serious Church. The first two were “Purposeful” and “Holy”. Today “Non-Manipulative” and “Introspective” get added to the list.

Non-Manipulative: Do the leaders of a Church speak the truth without the addition of emotional manipulation? Do the leaders of a Church inform believers or do they control believers?

Occasionally I will take a peak at TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) as a reminder of why so many otherwise rational people reject the Gospel. As I watch, I can visualize silly believers being led around with a hook in their nose. From the health and wealth presentations, to the ridiculous hairdos, to the forced tears, to the use of fear, to the fake compassion; there is very little but manipulation. God have mercy on their souls. Most people, believers and non-believers, can see right through the drama, but the wake of TBN programming has made true Gospel presentations more difficult.

Sadly, while not as obvious as TBN, most Churches have developed and use their own manipulative techniques in an effort to get desirable results. From parking lot attendants pointing people into parking spaces, to roping off sections of pews, to telling people to get up and shake hands with a stranger, to the inappropriate use of the words “always” and “everyone”, most Churches end up as little versions of TBN.

“Bring a Friend” to Church events are manipulation to the second power. Not only are the leaders of the Church manipulating the regulars in order to get the regulars to do something they may not normally do, but the regulars who succumb to this manipulation then have to go out and manipulate others in order to get others to do what they would normally not do.

Manipulation, no matter how innocent or how small, has a negative effect on people who would otherwise be open to the truth of God. Most of the unbelieving people throughout the world are less likely now to listen to the Gospel because of their past experiences of being manipulated by believers. Serious leaders of serious Churches speak the truth and allow the Holy Spirit to work in the lives of listeners without resorting to dishonest manipulative techniques.

Introspective: Does a Church constantly evaluate and reevaluate the effect it is having on its community? Is a Church just as cognizant of the negative effects of ministry as they are of the positive effects of ministry? Is a Church working at becoming holy?

You can’t get where you are going if you stay where you are. Likewise, a Church can’t get where it’s going if it stays where it is. Becoming more holy requires change. Knowing how to change and what to change requires measurements, analysis, and wisdom.

I can’t even count the number of times I have heard a Church leader claim that Churches need to be outwardly focused, not inwardly focused. This statement is often followed by a sermon about how much evil exists in the outside world. These leaders believe the good people in the Church would have a transforming effect on the people outside of the Church if the good people in the Church were more concerned about the people outside of the Church.

Perhaps, a transforming outward focus has been true in the past and will be true again at some point in the future, but presently in 2007, the people in the Church haven’t even been able to transform themselves, so it is very unlikely they will be able to transform the world. In fact, almost 2000 years after the crucifixion, the world is still the world.

Most studies comparing the lives of believers with the lives of unbelievers show very little difference between the two groups. An outward focus makes no sense when the people in the Church are the same as the people outside the Church.

Serious leaders of serious Churches know that the people inside the Church need to change before the world would or even could ever change. The serious leaders of the serious Churches start with changing themselves before changing others.

[Previous][Next]

Attributes of a Serious Church: Purposeful and Holy

2007-03-27T11:56:00.000-07:00

My family has started attending a new Church on Sunday morning. So far, this assembly of believers and their Pastor seem like a good fit for my family. For the first time in a long time, we are hopeful about joining a serious community of committed believers.

As I sat in Church last Sunday, I realized I had been looking for a serious Church. The Church I was sitting in felt serious, but since I have never actually defined and articulated the attributes of a serious Church, I couldn’t be sure. Feeling serious and being serious may not be synonymous. I need a set of benchmarks to know if my feelings are an accurate reflection of a truly serious Church.

Here are the first two items of my initial list of what I consider to be the attributes of a serious Church. I will continue the list in later posts. Perhaps I will add or subtract from the list later after I have had more time to reflect. I always appreciate comments at my site, but I am particularly interested in criticism of this list. Thanks in advance for your comments.

Purposeful: Do the leaders of a Church have clearly defined goals? Do the activities and methods of a Church produce results that achieve the clearly defined goals?

My experience with Church has been that most Churches do what they do because they have always done it that way. The only results that gets measured are the number of people attending Sunday morning services and other activities. Some additions to the service and other new activities get created to increase head count, but it is rare for a Church to eliminate methods or problems that may be keeping people away.

“Bring a Friend” to Church sounds like a good idea to most Church leaders, but do these special Sundays ever increase the number of long term commitments to Christ? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Many believers are frustrated by these special Sundays. I can almost guarantee when I visit a small Church that there is a “Bring a Friend” event planned in the near future. Perhaps these Churches are small because of the way they conduct evangelism. I will have more to say on this topic in some other attributes on my list.

Holy: Does a Church care just as much about driving sin out of the Church as they care about getting new people in the Church?

There will always be sin in the people inside and the people outside of the Church. Imperfect people are tasked by Christ with spreading the Gospel to an unbelieving world. Getting people to hear the good news and assisting those in need are essential to living the Gospel, but increasing the crowd should be a result of a serious Church, not the only or even primary goal of a serious Church.

People who have been reborn with Christ should feel a desire to be more holy and less sinful. Help in becoming more holy comes from the prompting of the Holy Spirit, a Pastor who accurately and faithfully teaches the word of God, and other believers who are also making the effort to drive sin from their lives. Satisfied people are not serious believers. Becoming more holy only happens when a person makes a commitment to battle their own demons and appropriately confront the demons in others.

Iron really does sharpen iron. “Nice” and “friendly” have never sharpened anything. Churches are packed with nice and friendly people who are satisfied living in sin and tolerating sin. These Churches are not serious.

[Next]

Criticism

2007-03-26T10:01:00.000-07:00

Critics are often accused of negativity, blamed for a lack of harmony in organizations, and viewed as destructive. Of course, all three perceptions are nonsense. The very best people in the world are the people who are self-critical and the very best organizations in the world are the organizations that allow and even encourage criticism. Criticism is the key component to continuous improvement. It is the feedback that tells people and organizations whether they are hitting or missing the mark.

I often read and hear others who claim that criticism is easy. These people believe it is more difficult to be positive. This too, is nonsense. Anyone can say what others want to hear using positive, yet insincere, affirmations. Positive affirmations are effortless, and without risk or cost. Criticism requires understanding, thought, and effort, as well as the risk of being rejected or misunderstood.

When my daughters were younger, I always knew instantly whether or not I was meeting their needs and expectations. I didn’t have to guess about the affect I was having on them. They told me exactly how they felt and I was then able to decide if I needed to adjust my behavior or provide them with a better explanation and rationale for my behavior. I loved their pure criticism. It made me a better father.

As they have grown, their criticism has started to change. They are not always so direct or honest anymore. Sometimes they want to hide how they really feel. Sometimes they try to be sensitive to my feelings. While other times they are a little manipulative, and less honest, in getting what want. I miss the purity of their criticism when they were younger.

I’m baffled that so few people acknowledge or even understand the virtue of criticism. I guess it’s just another part of living in a fallen world.

Environmental Optimization

2007-03-21T13:40:00.000-07:00

In my last piece, I argued for optimization over preservation, as my preferred goal for environmental stewardship. This goes against the traditional view of environmentalism. Preservation, the traditional goal of environmentalism, is a mostly mindless exercise. Protecting nature achieves the goal, while changing nature violates the goal. Preservation is simple to understand, simple to enforce, and simply wrong for the advancement of humanity.

The traditional view of environmentalism also has a very nasty underbelly. Preservation is achieved by the enforcement of laws enacted to limit the freedom of citizens to own and use land in the most optimal way. Preservation is achieved by imposing the will of some on the will of others. The “some” who impose their will are usually the elite who believe they know better than anyone else how to use and preserve resources.

Optimization, however, is not so simple to define, enforce, achieve, or even understand. Optimization for some farmers may mean higher yields per acre of land, while optimization for other farmers may mean more nutritious or flavorful produce. Some consumers of apples may want less expensive or larger apples, while other consumers of apples may want more flavorful or colorful fruit.

Some voters may want to use a publicly owned piece of land for hiking in a natural environment, while other voters may want to build a football stadium, and still other voters want to build a park or a golf course. For some, optimization is preservation, while for others, optimization is development.

Does every species of rodent, and every species of bird, and every species of plant, and every species of anything need protection from extinction? Perhaps God created every species with unique characteristics for the benefit of the environment, but it is far more likely that many species have characteristics that are harmful, not beneficial. Mosquitoes carry malaria and are extremely irritating. It’s clear to me that optimization means getting rid of both mosquitoes and malaria. Neither need protecting. Fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated and mosquitoes become extinct makes about as much sense as fear of what might happen if the Yankees lose the World Series.

Fear of what might happen if certain species of rodents become extinct is only slightly less silly than fear of what might happen if malaria is eradicated. However, what is extremely silly to me may not be silly to a rodent lover. Does a rodent lover have a moral right to impose his will on everyone else in order to ensure a rare species of rodent is protected? Does everyone else have a moral right to ignore a rare species of rodent while developing land inhabited by rare rodents?

Since optimization means different things to different people, who gets to decide the definition of optimization? The only fair way to decide who gets to decide the definition of optimization is the same as the only fair way to decide other matters.

The owner of a piece of property is the one most likely to care for his or her land and derive the optimum value out of the land. The owner of a piece of real estate can use free market commerce to determine the optimum value of a piece of land. He or she can preserve the land, develop the land, or sell the land based on the preferences of others willing to part with an appropriate amount of hard earned cash. All other methods for determining the appropriate and optimum use of land are forms of socialism, which is what most environmentalists want anyway.

Two out of Three

2007-03-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt links to a story in the Washington Post about Joe Carter.

I am extremely fond of two out of the three.

Stewardship

2007-03-16T11:34:00.000-07:00

As I read Chaplain Dave’s piece about his views regarding environmental stewardship, I thought this might be a good time to reexamine my own views and write a few of my own pieces on this topic.
He made it and us of the same "stuff", except we have that vital spark, the imago dei so that, among other things, we can have dominion, stewardship over and tend this, His creation. As such, we are inextricably connected to the Creation. We are to make our living from the earth. God set up a gloriously beautiful and intricate system - even in its fallen state - whereby we can draw life and sustenance from it. …

But with this gifting comes responsibility. I have to believe that His placing Adam in the Garden to cultivate and tend it - have dominion over it, didn't imply allowing his appetites to run amok, thus abusing it.

I think most people would agree with the sentiment of Chaplain Dave’s piece. Humans are unique among God’s creation in that we were given dominion over nature and we have the ability to affect nature more than any other creature. However, the application of Chaplain Dave’s sentiment is where morals need to be clarified and lines need to be drawn.

The goal of stewardship should be clear in our minds before we decide on the methods for practicing stewardship. Traditionally, conservation and environmentalism have been synonymous with preservation. I don’t have to think very long before I reject the traditional view. For a believer in God to accept the traditional view, the believer in God would have to believe that everything God created except humans was perfect in its original form. Certainly, God created the earth the way HE wanted it created, but this belief that humans are destroying God’s perfect creation doesn’t make sense; why would God give the imperfect dominion over the perfect? Mosquitoes, viruses, severe weather, diseases, predatory animals, and other aspects of nature that are harmful to humans need to be controlled or eradicated, not preserved.

I believe a better goal of stewardship should be optimization of the environment, not preservation of the environment. Sometimes preservation will be a method for achieving optimization, but preservation should never be the primary goal. Why would we want to preserve polio or HIV?

Refrigeration optimizes our environment by allowing foods to remain nutritious for longer periods of time. Pasteurization and irradiation have a similar optimization effect. Food processing may sound unhealthy, but the opposite is true. The processing of food has led to less expensive, more nutritious, and a greater variety of foods than ever before in human history which has led to healthier and longer lives for most people.

As much as I would love to play golf on a traditional seaside course in Scotland, I have no illusion that the golf would be better than a modern course in California where the fairways, bunkers, and greens are practically perfect. God created some very appealing golf venues, but humans have optimized the course for a better golf experience. As much as I would love to sit in Lambeau Field in late December and watch the Green Bay Packers against the Chicago Bears, I have no illusion that the football game would be better than if it was played indoors in Detroit or Indianapolis. Humans have optimized the football environment in order to experience the best football games.

The modern environment humans have created to live our lives is infinitely better than the natural environment we started with. I sometimes get a good chuckle out of serious environmentalists because it seems to me that the ones who are most serious about the environment are the ones with the most expensive and technologically advanced outdoor equipment. The best mountain bikes, the best hiking boots, the best outdoor clothing, etc…, all of which were created by humans wishing to optimize the outdoor experience. Shouldn’t a preservationist at least try to endure without modern equipment?

In my next piece, I will consider the methods of environmental stewardship.

Winning the Lottery

2007-03-08T10:20:00.000-08:00

According to George Will:
Conservatism comes in many flavors. None seems perfect for every conservative's palate; most should be satisfactory to most conservatives.

Conceptually, I agree with George Will. No voter is going to get everything they want in a candidate. We always have to accept a candidate who has at least one or two positions we consider frivolous or even wrong.

However, just as the current crop of American Idol contestants are way below the standards set in the Idol contest over the last few years, and none seem to have what it takes to be the next Idol, at this point, none of the current crop of Presidential candidates seem to have what will be needed to follow President Bush as President.

Most of the serious contenders have an attribute that is attractive to large blocks of voters. Barrack Obama is articulate, John McCain is a war hero, Hillary Clinton is a serious woman, Rudy Giuliani is confident, and Mitt Romney is congenial, but which one of these candidates possesses a package of abilities? None if you ask me!

Perhaps as the process unfolds, a strong leader and a good man or woman will emerge, but at this point, the likelihood of that happening seems about the same as me winning the lottery.

Dragons and Gnats

2007-03-05T15:14:00.000-08:00

One of the principles of the modern conservative movement, as well as a differentiator from modern liberalism, is a desire by conservatives to support and enact effective public policy changes. Most politicians, whether conservative or liberal, are concerned with looking good, but those of us who are not political, have had different priorities. In general, those on the left have been more concerned with equality of outcome, regardless of effort. The left wants to feel good about the policies they support. In general, those on the right are more concerned with equality of opportunity, regardless of results. The right wants the policies they support to be fair and effective, without concern for feelings.

Modern conservatism found a home in the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan became president. Modern liberalism has never produced a president, but as conservatives gravitated towards the Republican Party, liberals gravitated towards the Democratic Party.

For the last two decades, conservatives have accused liberals of being more concerned with symbolism than substance. For instance, a raise in the minimum wage does not help the poor, but support for a raise in the minimum wage makes politicians look like they care about the poor. Minimum wage is an ineffective, but symbolic, policy. Reducing CO2 from automobile exhaust will have a very minimal effect on human produced CO2, but support for reduced CO2 from automobiles makes politicians look like they care about global warming.

The focus on appearance by liberals led to political correctness. Looking good to large groups meant thinking like a group and talking like a group. Precise thoughts and precise words became less important as group orthodoxy become more important. President Clinton was a pragmatist, not a modern liberal, but he was the master of political correctness as President. He managed to appeal to large groups of people without ever saying anything specific.

For most of the time since Reagan, unelected conservatives have been able to resist political correctness. William F. Buckley spoke for William F. Buckley only. George Will spoke for George Will only. Both were considered conservatives, but other conservative never felt the need to associate or disassociate with either man. Conservatives accepted their differences. Conservatives didn’t need to appeal to a group or be accepted by a group. Ideas and beliefs, right or wrong, stood on their own. Advocates of beliefs and ideas, right or wrong, stood on their own.

When Senator Edwards hired two far left religious bigots to blog about his campaign last month, pundits on the right were unanimous in condemning him for hiring them. Shortly thereafter, both bloggers (ahem) resigned from their position in Senator Edwards campaign. Pundits on the right then patted themselves on the back for a job well done.

When Ann Coulter used a bigoted word to describe a thought she believed about Senator Edwards, pundits on the right jumped at the chance to demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right by unanimously condemning her. Pundits on the right did exactly what Ann Coulter said they would do if she used the word she wasn’t going to use because of the response it would illicit. How ironic, by trying so hard to prove and demonstrate the difference in civility between the left and the right, pundits on the right have become just like the left in practicing group think and enforcing group orthodoxy.

Like the rest of the mob, I believe the word Coulter used was offensive. She deserves to be criticized. Many on the right, including one of my favorite bloggers, Joe Carter, have been critical of her long before her CPAC remark. Gnats occasionally need a good swatting.

However, political correctness, group think, and enforced orthodoxy, is much more than an insignificant gnat. Political correctness is a cancer that has devoured the Democratic Party, and now with the internet and blogging, it is aggressively chewing at the heart of conservatism. It is a dragon that needs more than an occasional swat. Ann Coulter speaks for Ann Coulter only. When conservatives feel the need to dissociate from a lone agent, the war for freedom is over; the left has won.

As Buz intimated in his recent comment, 1984 is a little late in coming, but it is here.

Words and Sheep

2007-03-04T09:17:00.000-08:00

Conservatives and pundits are tripping all over themselves to condemn one remark made by Ann Coulter at the CPAC convention last week. My Goodness! Sheep on the left meet sheep on the right.

The words we use and the way we string words together are the best and most effective way to convey our thoughts and our beliefs. Political correctness is a cancer to good communication. When speakers and writers are limited to using inoffensive words, readers and listeners are left with more difficulty in understanding what is really being communicated. An evil heart can remain hidden behind nice words when words are considered more important than thoughts during communication.

I would much rather know that an acquaintance is a racist than have an acquaintance who is a racist and not know because my acquaintance was pressured to hide his racism by never using racist words. I would much rather know all of the weakness and bigotries of my neighbors than not know because I never hear them using offensive words.

There is no traditional American right to never be offended. Hopefully, there never will be. There is, however, an imperfect American tradition of tolerating behavior we consider offensive, but not criminal. Hopefully, there always will be.

I don’t like the word Ms. Coulter used in communicating her thought, but I do agree with her thought about the use of words. I wish she would have used a nicer word, but I understand how her thought would have been muted if she had used a nicer word.

Civility in politics should be the default standard, with an occasional variance for a particularly bad person or bad idea. Most Americans on all sides of politics are good people who do not deserve hatred or condemnation. However, former Senator Edwards is offensive to me for reasons that have nothing to do with effeminate mannerisms. Offensive people need offensive descriptions. The word “hypocrite” just falls a little short in describing Senator Edwards.

I hope I didn’t offend any sheep with this piece.

Health Care Anecdote

2007-03-02T10:21:00.000-08:00

My snoring and my wife proved incompatible very early on in our marriage. I don’t know how some women have the fortitude to endure the pain of childbirth, yet be unable to sleep with a few rustic sound effects. If I could endure her kicks, elbows, and complaints, why couldn’t she endure the gentle sounds of a loose flapping soft pallet?

I held out hope for as long as possible that my wife would eventually adapt to her new sleeping companion, but when my couch starting looking like the shroud of Turin, I figured it was time to consult with my doctor about possible solutions. My doctor recommended a sleep study which confirmed a diagnosis of Sleep Apnea.

Since then, I have been connected to a CPAP machine while I sleep. CPAP stands for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. CPAP therapy provides a constant airflow which holds the airway open so that uninterrupted breathing is maintained during sleep.

Initially, my Blue Shield medical insurance plan covered most the cost of the machine, the mask, and the head gear. I still have the original machine, but over the years I have had to have the mask and head gear replaced as it wears out. Last year I ordered a new face mask and head gear where I had to split the cost with Blue Shield. We both paid about $80.

Several nights ago, the mask that I only used for a few months broke when I accidentally dropped it on the floor. The medical supply company told me I would need to pay another $80 dollars co-pay to get it replaced. Searching the internet CPAP suppliers, I found the same mask for $60 without the co-pay.

I’m thankful I can get a lower price, but it seems that health care is broken when using insurance cost more than not using insurance. Perhaps my situation is not normal, but I’m wondering if Insurance, in its present form, needs to go away, and allow individuals more control over their own health care.

Preaching and Practicing

2007-03-01T14:28:00.000-08:00

Big families need big referees. The Walton’s make for nice family television, but in real life, lots of siblings means lots of fights. Asking my dad to resolve a fight meant needing a good answer when he asked us if we practiced what we preached. He didn’t have sympathy for any of us who were complaining about something we had previously done to a brother or sister or if we expected a sibling to do something we wouldn’t to do ourselves. My dad wanted the actions of his children to be consistent with the words of his children. He wanted us to learn and practice integrity.

Another question that was common when I was growing up was, “Do you put your money where your mouth is?”. People who sold Chevy’s were expected to drive Chevy’s. People who talked about Church were expected to support Church financially. Tough guys with big stories and no witnesses were expected to accept a bet they couldn’t repeat their claimed accomplishment and then pay the bet if they didn’t repeat it.

Putting your money where your mouth is and practicing what you preach are two ways of saying the same thing. Are your actions consistent with your words? Do you have integrity? Do you really believe the claim you are making?

Does Al Gore really believe CO2 is destroying the earth when his own house uses 20 times the energy of the average American house? Does Bono of U2 really believe tax money from the free world should be used to stop poverty in Africa when he pays a team of lawyers to practice tax avoidance strategies with his own money? Do Diane Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger not know their private jets are spewing CO2 all over our atmosphere? Did Rush Limbaugh think organized crime only sold herbs? Does Cingular Wireless really believe their customers are receiving quality service by waiting on hold for thirty minutes to talk to a customer service representative?

Integrity is mostly a matter of character and morality, but it also has another interesting attribute. Integrity increases effectiveness. People who “practice what they preach” and organizations that “put their money where their mouth is” are much more likely to be successful. Integrity attracts like minds and produces a full commitment from others. Hypocrisy, however, repels everyone except blind followers.

CO2 haters took a hit this week. I always love a happy ending.

Kruse on Science

2007-02-17T11:12:00.000-08:00

Michael Kruse makes some very interesting observations and some very valid points in his piece on the current relationship between politics, science, and money, in America.

Selected excerpts:
Centuries ago Renee Decartes wrote, “A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenue.” Thus the lobbyist we will have with us. Almost any public policy change has financial consequences for multiple parties. Some stand to benefit directly, while others will lose. Some will see competitor’s fortunes aided, while some will see competitor’s fortunes reversed. Competing interests are going to pursue courses that maximize their positions.

Within the climate change debate, frequent mention is made of Exxon’s efforts to “muddy the waters” on climate change science as they seek to limit regulation on their industry. Whenever a scientist or policy wonk publicly questions climate change, bloggers and media sources are quick to identify that the contrarian receives grants from firms and institutions that would stand to benefit from a muddied climate change science. These are legitimate issues to investigate insofar as they go but it only answers part of the “follow the money” question. To answer the other part we need to look into the very human enterprise of science.

The problem is that the determination of what is a “problem” becomes less a scientific question than a political one. If you want to get funding you better study what the funders see as “the problem.“ The late 1970s were a time of focused efforts in studying and developing energy alternatives. It was during the 1970s that Energy Secretary James Schlesinger became interested in the possible impacts of fossil fuels on global climate change; or as it was known then, “global cooling.” The global temperature had been declining from the 1940s to the 1970s and it was feared that emissions were blocking the suns heating capabilities, thus putting us into an ice age.

James Hansen of NASA indicated in congressional testimony in 1988, that we could expect the temperature to increase nearly 3 degrees C (well over 5 degrees F) in the next fifty years. It was an exaggeration by about a multiple of four. He later justified his extreme scenario because he needed to get the attention of policy-makers who were largely unaware of the “problem” of global warming.

Scientists advance in their fields by publishing in peer reviewed journals. The reviewers are people who have established a track record of publication and are believed to be experts in their fields. They are also people who have been competing for federal funding dollars with everybody else. They review your article that challenges the conventional wisdom about global warming and reject the article as flawed or in some way “unscientific.” The scientific community is a relatively tight knit community and suddenly you find you can’t get any of your research published. No publication eventually means no job; or at least no advancement.

MIT scientist Richard Lindzen wrote:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air.

Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.
….

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers. (Richard Lindzen, “A Climate of Fear,” Wall Street Journal, April, 2006)

In the meantime, politicians benefit by being able to build themselves as protectors of the people against malevolent forces. The sensationalist media benefits financially by being able to feed a steady diet of news stories and “investigative” studies that create anxiety and increase the number of viewers. The UN, the parent institution of the IPCC that periodically publishes the climate science reports, stands to benefit much in terms of prestige and power by becoming a global manager of economies. Some large corporations would benefit from seeing their competitors saddled with heavy regulations.

The bottom line is that the adage of “follow the money” is an important one but it alone can’t answer the question of legitimacy. Science has become such a big industry that almost all research, not just climate change, is funded by someone and these “someones” all have their own interests. In the end, the attempt to discredit opponents by identifying funding sources ends up being a game of mutually assured destruction.