On the Run

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

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

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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:

1. I filmed a United States Marine Corp recruiting commercial in 1978 with Francis Cherry, former Governor of Arkansas from 1953 to 1955.
   
2. While in High School, I once drove my 1969 Plymouth GTX at 150 miles an hour.
   
3. Before becoming a Christian in 1989, I loved arguing with Christians about their silly beliefs, and I still do.
   
4. I have never broken 80 in a round of golf, but I still believe, someday I will.
   
5. I have four bothers and four sisters.
   
6. I completed the 1995 LA marathon as my future wife waited for me in some very bad weather.
   
7. I won the Crane Industries Ping Pong championship in 1977.
   
8. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am extremely fond of two out of the three.

Stewardship

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Recent Comments

With the new Blogger, I have started using a Blogger feed for recent comments. However, there is a bug in their feed that prevents it from working correctly. Someone figured out that if we start the feed with the second most recent comment it will show all but the most recent comment. So until it gets fixed, the most recent comment left here will have to wait to appear until someone else comments. Sorry.

Kruse on Science

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.

Experiment Hints Alarmists are Wrong on Climate Change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged.

Selected Excerpts:

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.

Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

“Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.

Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

No Longer Biased

In the Los Angeles area, all of the three major broadcast networks air their national News segment from 6:30 until 7:00 PM nightly. Occasionally, I will watch the national News by toggling between the three networks. For years I have marveled (ahem) at how all three networks seem to tell the same stories in about the same order in about the same way.

For years I have also observed national News broadcasts that don’t fairly represent my point of view. As someone who is right of center, I can’t get too upset about any news organization making a profit by appealing to viewers with different opinions than my own. After all, I believe companies should take care of their customers. People with my point of view probably wouldn’t make up much of a customer base anyway for a network News show.

Lately, however, I’ve noticed a subtle change in how the News is reported by the major Networks. Reporting the news from a left leaning perspective does not seem to me to be the modus operandi anymore. The major Networks seem to have gone from having a bias to actively promoting an anti-war, anti-capitalism point of view. The Networks have actually become propagandists for socialism.

Last night, the story about the gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart did not get reported as a legal decision by a judge, it got reported as a guilty company trying to mitigate the damages caused by the lawsuit. The story about the deaths from friendly fire in Iraq did not get reported as an accident during a time of war, it got reported as two guilty pilots who were lucky enough to not be charged with killing a fellow soldier.

I guess the irresponsible use of freedom is sometimes an offshoot of freedom. Thankfully, there are other, more reasonable, voices besides NBCABCCBS in America.