Arguing with a fencepost

Gut Check

2011-12-15T07:28:00.001-06:00

No one particularly cares about my opinions on the GOP candidates, but the initial impetus for this blog was to 'think out loud' so here's my shot at contributing to the noise. Most of it truly is noise, and most Americans, those who don't read political pundits everyday or carry around a double-bit axe just to have something handy for grinding, are not distracted by the noise. They vote with their gut. Sometimes they use it to vote 'for' someone, but often they use it vote 'against' the other guy.

Obama was elected by blacks and the dependable left. They voted for him, they felt he represented them. Independents and other inch deep types voted against George W. Bush. Some were also voting against John McCain because it was "his turn", as part of the Republican establishment, to run. And some voted for Obama, by not voting. It always works out that way. The Democrats were effective in generating interest in (and covering up problems with) an acceptable candidate and the Republicans, fearfully politically correct, couldn't or wouldn't differentiate themselves, so why not vote for "change"? Simplistic maybe, but it's how it seems to me.

In the 2012 Presidential election there will be a considerable block of people who want to vote against Barack Obama and as long as the Republican candidate can remain "acceptable," which they will have proven they can do by winning the nomination, they should be able to pick up enough 'against' votes to beat Obama. Conservative pundits, establishment types and the mushy middle rely on the Buckley Rule to make their for and against arguments on candidates. Buckley said conservatives should support 'the most conservative candidate who is electable'. The last part is, of course, the tricky bit, especially considering that there is no consensus about which of the two (currently front-running) big government candidates, Romney or Gringrich, is more electable. And I can honestly say, as one of the unwashed masses, that I don't believe anyone can sufficiently define "electability" for the rule to make sense.

In my view, neither of those two is electable. They are both insiders, "his turn" candidates, and no one, especially the 30 million who watch American Idol, will be as excited about voting 'for' Gingrich/Romney as they are voting 'against' Obama. A candidate can say all the right things for months, but really, what's the difference? Big government is big government, an insider is an insider and party aristocracy is party aristocracy. The American public knows lip-synching when they hear it ... why do you think they watch 'Idol' in the first place? They want to see genuine, everyday people like themselves using their God-given talents and succeeding, not the next Disney pop stars singing cover tunes.

Initially, I was on the Herman Cain band wagon. There was no doubt about him being an outsider and his pure American success story would be hard to beat. I wanted to see two black men running for President, especially ones with such contrasting ideologies, to take race out of the equation. It would have leveled the playing field. But he missed the "acceptable" boat with questionable personal issues and a seemingly superficial grasp of issues. I liked that he defaulted to principles when trying to articulate positions he clearly didn't have details on, but he couldn't have won the nomination with that tactic. He was on the stage too long.

Speaking of on the stage too long, I'm really glad Sarah Palin decided not to run. Not because I dislike her. On the contrary, of all the political personalities on the conservative side if I could wave a magic wand and make her President, I would. Not only do I think she would be a great President, it would be delicious watching her detractors squirm while the country excelled. Without a magic wand, getting elected would have been impossible. Debates with Obama would have been entertaining, as would the press and their sabotage efforts, but, in the end she would not have won because she is a woman. It would not be the men who kept her from winning, it would be the women. A President Palin would be threatening to a lot of outspoken, high profile women ... you wouldn't see her being endorsed by NOW or the hosts of The View. Now that I think about it, I suspect there are a lot more male voters in Alaska than female ones, so I'll use that as the evidence for what my gut is telling me. American women could comfortably vote for a woman like Hilary, so obviously second in the relationship with her man, but not Palin. She is not a prop or the heir to a political empire.

Women are also threatened by Michelle Bachmann, though it's not exactly the same. Bachmann comes across as a little too shrill, a little too convinced of her own righteousness, a little less humble. The other difference between these two women is experience and accomplishment. People don't get elected to the Presidency from the House of Representatives because, honestly, what do they really accomplish? They are opinion mongers with a vote, and their bread and butter is topped with slices of pork. They are representatives, not executives. They are one of us, not leaders of us, and that makes whatever political accomplishments they have seem unimpressive ... something any of us could do with the right nudging and contributions from lobbyists and special interests. Is Michelle Bachmann principled? I have no doubt that she is, but I don't see people putting her in an executive position. The thing that turned me off from Bachmann was really minor ... a comment about a disorganized staff, another about changing Chiefs, the shuffle in her campaign leadership ... and I found myself feeling that these similar things said something important about her. When I factored in her personality, the righteousness, my own experiences working for similar personalities, it wasn't difficult to go from "these are plausible incidents" to "she probably can't lead a diverse group." That may be unfair, but it's hard to get past the impression and I don't think I'm alone.

The same sorts of questions come up about Gingrich and his leadership of the U.S. House. I'm sure there are two sides to the story, but for the average American, the name Gingrich is a lot closer to meaning double-talking-political-grinch than it is to principled, effective leader. If they don't know about the ins and outs of his tenure as Speaker of the House, they have at least absorbed that it was contentious. And they likely know something about his personal life. Unfortunately, someone in their third marriage is not unusual in our society, but it's still not considered an enhancement to character. Ask anyone who has been divorced. It's probably on their "life lesson" list, not their "accomplishment" list. Gingrich carries a negative political and personal vibe with him, plus, he's an arrogant, big ego, know-it-all who has a government related answer to everything. His vertical leap is higher than his likeability index. There is little doubt that Gingrich is capable of saying the right things, the things that will differentiate him from Obama, because he is, after all, the "smart" Republican. It's doubtful, however, that the American public will trust him. Oh sure, the policy wonks and political dilettantes will like him, because his intelligence reflects their own, you see, but your average Joe knows that "smart Republican" in the nomination press is simply code for sneaky, greedy and morally bankrupt in the general election press. Newt would eviscerate Obama in a debate, but how would he govern? Just like Obama ... ego first.

Mitt Romney is, even more than Newt, the "next in line" for establishment Republicans. He's likeable. He's an experienced leader. He says the right things. He's polished. He has resources. He is John McCain and Bob Dole. He is Mitch McConnell. He is Kay Bailey Hutchison. He is George H.W. Bush. He is safe. He is boring. He will move this country not one iota in a conservative direction because he truly is a reach-across-the-aisle, compromising, moderate. The Tea Party will be put back in its place, waiting to be called upon again for the next progressive over-reach, even though it will likely be too late. The phrase "anyone but Romney" exists because people know he is the business-as-usual-why-bother-voting candidate. Nominating Mitt Romney is like guaranteeing bad weather on election day; people will stay home. They won't be at the voting booth 'holding their nose', they'll be at the bar drinking shots and punching up songs from Nothin' Matters and What If It Did on the jukebox.

If Mitt is Kay Bailey, Ron Paul is Ross Perot ... different, energetic, bold, consistent and ultimately, divisive. He is an anti-Obama candidate; there would be no mistaking them and no one could say "they are both are the same." You could say that about Paul versus the rest of the Republican field, too. His uniqueness is his biggest selling point. It's also his biggest problem. Last election we voted for change, but we really didn't want that much of it and so there is this backlash. Despite low approval ratings for Congress and a perceptable increase in distrust of the government, no one is ready for a revolution whether it's an "Occupy" one or a libertarian one. I appreciate having Ron Paul in the race as a Republican because he helps move the party in a more libertarian direction, but he would not be able to do that as President. If Ron Paul is elected President in 2012 he would, essentially, be Bizarro Obama. He would have two years with a Republican Congress, but not get much done because his agenda would be too extreme. Then in 2014 the Republicans would be in the same position as the Democrats in 2010, defending a President they didn't really support, and they would lose control of Congress. In a bizarro sort of way voting for Ron Paul, the most anti-Obama candidate, turns out to be sorta like voting for Obama instead of against him. The average voter isn't thinking consciously of this kind of scenario, but at some level they recognize that Paul's ideology is equally extreme as Obama's.

Rick Santorum is an anti-Obama candidate, too. He's well spoken, experienced, informed and principled. If he got the nomination, and the associated funds, he would definitely provide a contrast to Obama. The general public opinion of him probably runs from "who?" to "the anti-gay pro-life guy" and little else. I like Rick Santorum. He could be an effective anti-Obama candidate. He beats the social conservative drum a bit too loudly at times, not that there's anything wrong with that. The majority of Americans are not worried about a newly elected President imposing some Christian version of Sharia Law, but social issues will be used to create an emotional, extremist caricature that Santorum does not have the resources to overcome. I hope he does well in Iowa. He needs a turn at the top to get his non-social message out. He also pushes the party to the right. His biggest asset is that he seems to be the truly principled politician, but, unfortunately, that is probably one reason behind his lack of resources. Is it possible, as a politician, to be too principled and honest? Santorum once said that losing the Senate race in 2006 was not as bad as not standing on principle. I truly respect that, and would hope to live up to that standard, but my cynical self says you'll never beat Obama standing on principles because he plays by different rules. Santorum's principles, regardless of their popularity, make him predictable and an 'unsexy' candidate. Not only that, he's not even interested in pretending to be sexy just for the sake of winning.

John Huntsman, another non-sexy candidate, should be considered reasonable and acceptable. He was a governor with a conservative record. He doesn't have the personal baggage of Newt, but it's a toss up between him and Mitt on who has less charisma. A lack of cash doesn't seem to be a problem for Huntsman and, ironically, for him, it's a turn off because his Daddy is rich. He is John Kerry running on Heinz money. Like Newt, he can say all the right things. He may even be able to point to specific policies and actions as governor to back up the words, but in the end, he worked for Obama. We may all understand that it was political manuevering on Obama's part to get a prominent Republican in his administration, and that for Huntsman it was a good spring board to a national and international stage, but my gut tells me at some level these two men have something in common, at least enough to make the back scratching deal on the ambassador job. What is Huntsman's vibe? It's very similar to Obama's actually ... arrogant, entitled, educated and generally above it all.

Which leaves us with Rick Perry, my Governor. Perry has been a good governor. I'm willing to give him credit for working to create a regulatory and economic environment that is "open for business," but he makes a mistake by touting it. For practical reasons he has to, but in terms of "vibe" and "impression" and "style" he's focusing too much on it and needs to let other people make the point. It is the one area where he begins to sound like Obama ... too much "I." The reason Perry has been a good governor, in my view, is that he has mostly stayed in Austin, out of my sight. His comments about making the federal government inconsequential really resonated with the public partly because it's what they want to hear, and partly because how sincerely he delivered it. Perry stumbles when he tries to play a role outside the scope of his sincerity.

All the candidates can make the case that they are anti-Obama in terms of policy. Perry, however, has the best anti-Obama "presence." He's publicly humble. He is not the next great political orator. (Yes, I know Obama is not really a great orator either, but who am I to disrupt a publicly accepted meme?) And then there's Paint Creek, TX vs. Hawaii and Indonesia, executive experience vs. none, shooting coyotes vs. cruiser bikes and mom jeans and military pilot vs. community organizer. Like Obama, Perry is a career politician, and that bothers me, but give me good ol' boy Texas politics over Chicago machine politics, especially when you factor in that he's not part of the Texas/Bush political aristocracy (ask Kay Bailey how that worked out for her). There is also a whiff of cronyism around Perry (that's better than the stench around Obama), but give me Gardasil over Solyndra and Harold Simmons and Red McCombs over Andrew Stern and John Corzine.

The current GOP front-runners are like all the other entitled nomination candidates they have run at us for years ... Newt is McCain is Mitt is some Bush. Rick Perry? Rick Perry is Bill Clinton - a common man who figured out politics, a legitimate candidate outside the establishment, with good instincts and strong connections - and the huge bonus of not being a Democrat and serial adulterer.

In 2008 Barack Obama was correct. The American people voted for change. They thought they were voting for a change from "the failed policies of the past" and Obama successfully hung that on the Republicans, in some cases deservedly so. Those failed policies were "Republican" for the first two months of 2009, but the public quickly figured out that they are more properly labeled "Big Government" policies. After Obamacare and bailouts and cronyism the public knows what needs to change and they are rightfully skeptical of anyone promising to deliver the kind needed.

You don't stem the tide of government growth by electing one of the anointed because it's how they got anointed. And even if there were some objective test where you could say "this candidate is the most conservative" and by some miracle they were also the most "electable" (whatever that means) it would not matter if they could not practically move the country in a more conservative, libertarian direction for the long term. The progressive agenda, incrementally implemented over the past century, has pushed the country to the current precipice. We can wave the Constitution all we want, but there will be no immediate relief. The way back will be slow going, and in the process of governing each path chosen by our leaders will need to take us away from the precipice ... not balancing along the edge, not jumping off and hoping for the best, not blindly charging back leaving behind things worth keeping ... slow, predictable progress toward proven principles and policies.

Love the halo, O.

Going with my gut, Rick Perry seems to be the one candidate who can do that, not because he has the most detailed policy plans or because his style is motivational or his appeal is universal, but because over 11 years as Governor of Texas he has managed to push and nudge and pry the environment away from the precipice without demanding more of my time and resources and effort, without bankrupting the next generation and without sparking a population boom in a dependent class. I don't want a transcendent President. I want one that is trustworthy, sincere and gets results without whining or making excuses. I want Calvin Coolidge, not Teddy (or Franklin!) Roosevelt. I'm looking for John the Baptist, not Jesus Christ. We recently elected one Messiah and that hasn't turned out so well. Perry has admitted he is not a perfect candidate, an honest and easy admission, but I trust him to point the way and my gut tells me he can win.

Virtue

2011-11-27T13:42:00.000-06:00

Though a big fan of Bill Whittle and his Afterburner series, I do not typically embed videos on this blog. I thought this one, however, was an excellent follow up on my most recent blog post, "Truth Telling."

Truth Telling

2011-11-22T23:53:00.002-06:00

For the third time in the past week I've seen a Bernie Sanders (Senator - Democratic Socialist, VT) quote posted on facebook. It's a sort of catch-all for my liberal friends ... blaming Bush, advocating for more government, an "independent" political voice, class warfare and claiming the moral, compassionate high ground all rolled up into one arrogant, partisan, rabble-rousing, ill-informed, but marketable, quote.

What I know of Senator Sanders is that his vote can be bought, that he stoops to the lowest form of rhetoric in his fundraising efforts, and that his favorite political tactic (and socialism's in general) is to promote class warfare. He also likes to trumpet his "independent" status while caucusing with the Democrats and voting with them 99% of the time. He strikes me as your typical uber-left, know-it-all, elitist who panders to the fringe by being an obnoxious jerk to everyone else. He thinks the know-nothing majority is not smart enough or enlightened enough to embrace his ideas on their merits. He is the worst kind of politician, promoting himself as a middle class hero while his policies and ideology punish them.

If you can't tell, I do not like Bernie Sanders. And I do not like The Christian Left who are using this Sanders quote and others to imply that if you do not support progressive politics, well then, you aren't quite as good a Christian as they are.

We are The Christian Left. We’re all around you. We’re among the people. Take a look. We’re part of the Body of Christ. We’re Christians. We’re Liberal. We make no apologies. In fact Jesus' ways are “Liberal.” That’s why He was killed. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were the conservatives of their time. This is clear.

It's interesting that a group that considers itself egalitarian and doesn't want to be labeled, has no problem segregating "the Christian Right" from the body of Christ and labeling anyone who is not politically "left" as a legalistic literalist opposed to Christ. Also, they make it sound as if they are a voice from the religious margins, an oppressed minority group, but in fact the religious left is the dominate political power in most mainline protestant denominations, which may be an indication of why mainline denominations are failing. They are failing not just in terms of membership, though the decline is dramatic, but also in their mission. Despite the frequent use of scripture on their website, it's pretty obvious that the focus here is more on "Left" than on "Christian" and you don't have to read the original Greek to understand that obvious insincerity in using faith to promote politics is not the Gospel message.

We have here, in one simple, and frankly unattractive, graphic, two myths that need a counter argument. The first is the actual Sanders quote, which by my calculation is about 86% false. The second is that Jesus would unequivocally support progressive political policies.

Bernie says that we have "a serious deficit problem." That is the only completely truthful statement in the quote.The rest are either factually inaccurate or pure political spin. The deficit was not caused by two unpaid for wars. That may not have helped, but they certainly didn't cause it. Neither did huge tax breaks for the wealthy. The truth is that entitlement spending, what Bernie conveniently labels as "the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor" is the primary driver behind the deficit.

The second statement that needs a balancing argument is what is implied by the graphic, and explicitly stated by The Christian Left ... that Jesus' ways are "Liberal." I've written before about Jesus in this blog ... how he should not be labeled as politically liberal, how his message implies personal action and sharing, how I am suspect of political arguments that invoke Jesus and about the fear that prevents spiritual and intellectual discovery. I've tried, in various approaches, despite my membership in an unquestionably "left" PC(USA) church, to think "out loud" through this blog about my faith, my political opinions and how they can be reconciled. Though primarily a personal exercise to develop some consistency between my spiritual and political beliefs, they do demonstrate that conservative political opinions can be consistent with Christian faith, despite what The Christian Left would have you believe.

I've been reading a book, Left, Right & Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics, by Lisa Sharon Harper and D.C. Innes. Unlike The Christian Left, who condemn the political right and lay claim to complete knowledge of Jesus' political philosophy, this book is a theological discussion of political issues from both the Christian evangelical left (Harper) and right (Innes) perspectives. As you can see from the links above to previous blog posts, this is a topic I've thought about a lot. I bought the book to help me understand the politically left position of evangelical Christians and so far it is much more helpful and encouraging than anything from the Bernie Sanders fans. Early in the book, in a discussion about the role of government, Innes writes the following:

If it were government's responsibility, even in part, to do the good deeds of society, people would gradually surrender more and more private responsibility to it. For its part, government would gladly expand to take responsibility for everything it possibly could. ... People would become ever more narrowly selfish and childishly dependent. Advocates of activist government would justify every new good work saying, "The government has to do this because people won't do it on their own." Of course, this is precisely what has been happening over the last hundred years. Where it ends is not the sort of noble liberty that God intends for his image-bearing vice-regents. At best, you get the control of well-meaning masters over grateful slaves, or some kind of happy human zoo [ed: My Brother's Keeper again?]. At worst, and more likely, you get the totalitarian rule of a self-serving administrative class over a docile people who have entirely forgotten how to provide for themselves.

The Christian Left posted Bernie's quote with the comment "Pretty sure we're going to post this every day for awhile. This truth needs to go viral. Please share." I don't believe it is truth, but here is something that is ... if you don't deliver your charity and compassion and care personally, if it doesn't require action and thought and personal committment, if you abdicate that responsibility to your government, your church, rich people or people who you think are gullible enough to do it for you then it is not honestly caring for the sick, the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the stranger, the imprisoned. The truth is that the government is gladly expanding. It is taking over our responsibilities for raising our children, caring for our sick, providing for our elderly and we, predictably, are forgetting how to do it ourselves. Advocating for higher taxes on someone else does not make you a better Christian.

Love and War in Texas

2011-07-20T00:18:00.001-05:00

Love and War in Texas isn't just a good restaurant in Plano or a Rusty Wier song, it's a pretty good description of what's happening around here these days. Everyday people and businesses love Texas and the economic and social environment it provides. The Obama administration, however, has all but declared war. Texas occupies a large part of this blog and my life. It is my home and my heritage and when someone attacks, it pisses me off, just like it would anyone when their home is threatened. Thank God and the U.S. Constitution that there's an election next year.

Twenty-five million people live in Texas and the population is predicted to grow anywhere from 9 to 18 million in the next 20 years, a pretty good indicator that it's a good place to live. The rest of the country is probably sick of hearing about jobs in Texas so quoting the statistics probably isn't helpful. What most people are not aware of is that Texas (the cheap bastards), despite what you've heard, is actually pretty darn good at public education and improving the environment. More interesting than any of this is why.

Yes, Texas has benefitted from increased oil prices, but they don't control the market. And yes, Texas managed the housing bust better than most because of better lending (and regulation) and realistic valuations. It's not just a lucky coincidence, though; the environment needs to be right for good things to happen. Individuals need the freedom to make decisions in their own best interest. That includes families and businesses, too. Texas is far from perfect, but based on how it is surviving economically and future prospects, it must be doing something right. Among the things Texas gets right ...

it's a right-to-Work state with marginal political influence from labor unions
operating costs are low, taxes are reasonable and regulation is relatively fair
there is a generally pro-business attitude
housing and the cost of living are relatively low and fair
the industrial base is diverse
there is a culture of independence, self-sufficiency, competition and personal responsibility

There are quite a few states with these characteristics, and I would be happy to live in any of them, though Texas will always be home. Some states, however, don't look like this and I would not live in them because I like living in America. If I wanted to live in Europe, I'd move to the real place, not some Democrat euro-wannabe fantasy-land facsimile.

This is where the conflict begins. Obama proclaimed he wanted to fundamentally change America, and it appears he is attempting to do it by taking down Texas, a great example of what America can do. The Obama administration has clearly demonstrated what he meant by "fundamental change" and it is actually worse than I feared. If he doesn't believe in Texas, if he somehow thinks Texas is wrong or an outlier or the enemy, then he doesn't believe in America. To borrow a phrase from Mark Levin, "That's right. I said it."

Texans voted against Obama in 2008, as everyone, including Obama, knew they would. No one would have expected, however, that Texas would get targeted for punishment by the new president especially considering that Travis County, home of the liberal bastion Austin, had the second largest amount of contributions by county to the Obama campaign, second only to Cook County, Illinois. Is "targeted" too strong? It certainly doesn't seem too strong from here in sunny North Texas.

Google "obama texas vindictive" and you'll get nearly a million hits so obviously the idea of Texas being a target is not new or original. There are plenty of news items describing how this administration treats Texas. Let me save you some trouble. None of the items describe this treatment as fair or equitable. When you connect the dots all lines point to Obama, his statist ideology and his obvious dislike of my home.

Obama gives a shout-out while the nation mourns ... let's not jump to conclusions though, it's Texas, it's probably some right wing nut job.
Obama ignores Governor Perry's personal letter on immigration issues and has him hand it to Valerie "Slumlord" Jarrett.
New York gets a retired space shuttle, but not Houston, home of the program
Feds withhold Education Money for Texas and when it is finally, rightfully sent Democrats claim that Texas isn't doing that great because it accepts federal aid.
The sagebrush lizard becomes the Texas version of California's delta smelt
Thanks to your intimately close friends at the TSA, the feds threaten to shut down Texas airports
Feds threaten to withold funds if Texas excludes Planned Parenthood from its Women's Health Program
Texas given token financial support for wildfires by federal government
$3 billion contract moved from Texas to Wisconsin
Feds withhold grant money to Texas bus service due to Union dispute
EPA rejects a successful Texas' flexible air quality permitting program
Obama's offshore drilling permit moratorium costs Texas jobs

Some would say these things are simply a return to 'normal' after the (highly debatable and supposed) advantages Texas received under the Bush administration. Others argue that these things are deserved punishment for non-compliance rather than political retribution. Admittedly, Texas has always been a non-compliant kind of place. And some, of course, simply applaud and say "Well played, Obama!" To a Texan these stories are the poke, poke, poke in your chest from a school yard bully. Will the bully cross the line? Will the persecuted finally bow up ?

If the latest poke doesn't do it, it should.

The EPA has decided to include Texas in a new rule regulating sulfur dioxide emissions. Texas will be included despite the fact that the EPA's own studies showed that Texas was not contributing to higher SO2 levels in 'downwind' states. This was an 11th hour change, with no notification, no scientific justification and no opportunity to participate in the legally required public review and comment process. In short, the EPA, which is without question under the immediate and close direction of the Obama Administration, has chosen to arbitrarily enforce a puntive and undeserved regulation on Texas.

You may think, "What's the big deal? It's just another regulation." This one, however, is especially pernicious. It directly affects several key aspects of Texas' economic success. The significant details of its impact are described here and here, but the short version is that this new mandate will ...

increase electricty rates by $1 billion per year
significantly reduce electricity production capacity, hamstringing economic growth
cost 14,000 jobs in coal and related industries inside Texas
reduce state revenue
increase the cost of living
further destroy the line between state authority and federal demands

Call me part of the vast right wing conspiracy, but here's how I read it. Texas has demonstrated economic success with policies that are the anti-thesis of the Obama administration's. Obama does not tolerate alternative ideas or having his policies and ideology questioned. He is not going to win Texas regardless of what he does between now and the general election. The only way he can reduce the impact that 'The Texas Way' narrative will have in the 2012 campaign, which could be crucial in swing states and with independent (mainstream media, unthinking) voters, is to take the legs out from under the Texas economy, force it to stumble in time for the election. This under cutting can't be too obvious, there's no sense in creating a public dust-up on something major that might grab headlines, so why not use the minions at the EPA to provide distance and cover? It can be implemented quickly (an 11th hour change), without discussion or coverage (no public review and comment) and few outside of Texas will be aware of it (the technical and scientific issues are too daunting for the typical 30 second story on the CBS Evening News ... as if).

Is my reading far-fetched? Perhaps, but here's another nugget of information regarding this supposedly objective EPA decision. Just as Texas was added to the mandate at the last minute several other states were dropped, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, despite all of them being part of the initial reports and plans and despite them collectively contributing much more to the problem. Four blue and two swing. Imagine that. An unexpected turn of events, don't you think?

Am I too cynical, too paranoid? Maybe. Are there any blue states that have received treatment similar to Texas under this administration? If so, that still doesn't justify Obama's treatment of Texas, and it would only prove that Texas has not been singled out, that there is more than one target in his undeclared war. These incidents, and my interpretation of them, prove nothing except for the fact that Texas has and will suffer under this administration. Given this fact, I can see only a few possible explanations for Obama's actions.

The suffering is entirely unintentional, an unforeseen consequence of policies that were truly intended to be a benefit. If that is the case, Obama is incompetent.
The suffering is entirely intentional and the punishment is deserved. If that is the case, Obama is a ruler, not a leader of free people, enforcing his will through bureaucracy and executive order, ignoring the people, eroding the republic and denying our God-given rights.
Some of the punishment is intentional, some is incidental. If that is the case, Obama is simply arrogant and petty. Arrogant because he is unconcerned about the incidental suffering, and petty because he, like every bully, builds himself up by keeping someone else down.

My Texas sensitivities obviously affect my perspective. Putting those aside it's easy to see that Texas is not the only target. Israel, Rush Limbaugh, small business owners, non-union workers, women, the unborn, the insurance industry, doctors, Fox News, Great Britain, the Cambridge police, Republicans, corpsmen, Sarah Palin, clingers, minority students in DC, citizens living on the border, double income families, those who like their health insurance, those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, tax payers, Supreme Court Justices, Las Vegas, white voters in Philadelphia, market proven energy companies, those affected by the individual mandate, medicare and medicaid recipients, those counting on Social Security, children and grand-children ... all of these and more have been in Obama's cross-hairs The question is, do they know it and are they willing to win this war by voting him out of office.

A Larger Piece

2011-07-11T00:30:00.002-05:00

A week ago I attempted to distill my thoughts on Ann Coulter's new book Demonic. I thought it would be easy, I mean, who doesn't love a good smack down of the opposition, especially when the writing is engaging, the thesis presents 'the enemy' in a unique perspective and the arguments are made with such passion and snark? But there is a part of me that shies away from confrontation, that makes me look at it from the opposition's view and think, "Now THAT, is over the top." It was difficult because as much as I enjoyed it, I couldn't recommend it to people who might be trying to undertand conservatism. I felt that most people, the center-right that don't admit to their conservative bent, would not be able to get past the broad generalization of the liberal 'mob' while moderates and liberals would just dismiss it as a bitchy Coulter rant.

That same evening some liberal acquaintances felt that a piece on the huffingandpuffington post was so definitively insightful that they had to share it. It was titled The Republican Spectrum of Ignorance. It was, of course, a poorly written and barely intelligible lefty diatribe on the stupidity of Republicans. I can say 'of course' based on the source alone. There was no allowance for any even potentially 'smart' Repbulicans; all conservatives, according to this author, are stupid. Reading it made me want to shout, "Amen, Sister Ann!" and just like that Demonic seemed more about truth than confrontation.

I never posted what I wrote about Demonic ... it never came together. This evening, however, a headline on Hot Air caught my eye. It said "Video: Oddly enough, David Brooks not a fan of Ann Coulter." It worked. I just had to watch. It was linked to a Daily Caller article. Here's what David had to say about Ann [caution: personally created transcript - expect some typing lapses/shortcuts].

I'm not a huge fan of Ann Coulter. You can be more conservative than me and be perfectly respectable like Ron Paul and Marco Rubio, but Coulter, she's just a showperson. And I knew her back when she was a very 20-something recent graduate of Cornell, and I will say this for her, she's not faking it, that's who she really is, she was like that when she was twenty-four. But you know, one of the things you have to believe in politics is that people that disagree with you are at least as good as you are, they have at least, maybe not as large a piece of the truth as you do, but they have a large piece of the truth. The world is complicated. Yeah, I mean, the idea is if you're writing books with names like Traitor, whatever they are, and Libel, whatever they are called, you're basically assumming that people who disagree with you are morally inferior, illegitimate, and, you know, I face enough of that from the left. We live in a polarized world and the things that Ann Coulter does has a pernicious effect on that.

Here's my paraphrase ...

I don't like Ann. She's more conservative than me, but I can't respect her. I will demean her by calling it all a show, but then temper that by saying she's sincere. But I don't want to be too complimentary so let me point out that it's an immature sincerity and she needs to grow up. If you don't believe like me, if , for instance, you don't believe that there is foundational truth in the liberal agenda, then you are too simple to understand the complexity of this world. There is no right and wrong, it's all relative, we can all be right on the same issue to some degree. If you point out where people are wrong, you're being too judgemental. Ann creates a lot of nasty disagreeableness and why can't we all just get along? Love means never having to say you're sorry.

... or some such sappy sentiment.

In the same interview he proclaims he has a soft spot for 'working class' ~~plagarist~~ Vice-President Joe Biden. The soft spot, apparently, resides in his pre-frontal lobe so I should probably cut him some slack. The point he makes about who owns the "larger piece" of truth is quite telling, and it helped me to resolve my difficulties with Coulter's book.

Enlightened, moderate, independent people no doubt embrace Brooks' view. They believe that the other side is "as good" and is operating from some morally defensible 'large piece' of truth. The idea that everyone's viewpoint is valid means that you really never have to take a stand, you really never have to have the grown-up discussion about right and wrong. There is comfort in wishy-washy committment. You are not accountable for an opinion, you avoid confrontation and no matter how things turn out you have the flexibility to 'go with the flow' and avoid all sorts of unpleasantness. The beauty of being a moderate is you can, in essence, always be right because you can support anything and are against everything.

And then there is the quintessential give up of 'it's complicated.' This is used to describe everything from facebook relationships to abortion. We all know it's an excuse. Human interaction, right and wrong, what works and what doesn't ... none of that is complicated except by our own inability to recognize and admit the facts. You want to have a relationship with someone, but you don't want to commit to them. It's not 'complicated', it's selfish. For abortion, do you or do you not want to terminate a life? Your reasons for saying yes may be unusual or unexplainable or unbearable, but it's not complicated. You do not say yes or no to that type of question without knowing, in your heart, what is right and what is wrong about the answer you give.

Brooks also mentions 'the left' and how they consider him morally inferior and illegitmate. My question is then why would he consider them to own 'a large piece' of the truth? Does he not have any confidence in his position? I have never, in any discussion with a liberal/progressive/statist/Democrat, heard the left acknowledge that I own ANY piece of the truth. I'm always the rube, the uninformed, the closed-minded, the heartless, the gullible, the easily-led, the unthinking, the stupid. They consistently treat me like this and yet, for some reason, Brooks thinks I must concede 'a large piece' of truth to them. Why? If the concession is only one way (when do liberals concede to conservative policy?) aren't we, as conservatives, admitting we are wrong? Do we or do we not believe in our stated principles?

A week ago I struggled with what to make of Coulter's book. I felt it would alienate moderates and antagonize liberals. Today, after being called stupid by 'friends', after realizing the inherent relativity of moderate independence and after recognizing that the opposition concedes no part of truth I can unequivocally say, Ann Coulter is doing the right thing. She concedes no piece of the truth to the opposition. She confidently declares there is a right and a wrong without excusing her positions by saying 'it's complicated.' She stakes out a strong position and challenges the mob not with superficial name-calling but with specific and direct attacks against their philosophical and intelluctual heritage. David Brooks believes he is morally superior to Ann Coulter and that is why he does not grant her any piece of the truth. What Brooks does not acknowledge is that truth, by definition, is binary. Statements, positions and actions, as related to principles, are either true or false and therefore reside at the extremes, not in the relative mushy moderate middle.

chock-a-block

2011-05-17T00:31:00.000-05:00

chock-a-block: crammed so tightly together as to prevent movement

We are chock-a-block with ...

czars
cars in ditches & slurpees being sipped
study commissions
laser like focus
debt
deficits
wars
spending
demagoguery
teleprompters
vacations
arrogance & snippiness
complete disconnect from everyday people
celebrity schmoozing
television appearances
sharp political elbows
business as usual
broken promises
public sector unions
opacity
regulations
bloated legislation
activist judges
political fund raisers

We are NOT chock-a-block with leadership.

Smart Alecks

2011-01-24T00:31:00.004-06:00

Smart alecks are unjustifiably self-assertive and impudent with little regard for propriety or the experience and wisdom of others. They thrive on the attention that their insubordination generates, and rarely strive to be seen as logical or reasonable or thoughtful. They are unruly, immature, ego driven brats. We have all acted the part.

Americans Against the Tea Party has a facebook page and a cursory review of the comments and postings on their page reveals that there is no shortage of smart alecks in the group. Here's a photo that caught my attention.

The photo received nearly a hundred comments and over 500 'likes.' The vast majority of the comments were about how clever the sign was, like it was the ultimate in witty political commentary, but it seems that their appreciation was not really well thought out - they just liked that it took a shot at people who don't like Obama and Christians. It's the same old "Ha Ha Ha - they're so stupid! We're so smart!" sort of commentary.

A quick comment survey uncovers ...

the predictable 'Jesus didn't have birth certificate' joke
the crude 'teabagger' name calling
the unthinking 'even though I'm an uber-intelligent atheist, I like using Jesus to condemn others' argument
the lecturing 'Conservative Christians don't really understand Jesus' theme

Do the IQ and spelling comments even need to be mentioned? So utterly predictable. So superficial. So uninformed and bigoted and closed minded. Like always.

Let's deconstruct this sign:

"Obama is not"
This is quite interesting because it requires the reader to assume that the writer knows what Obama is. That is a bold claim. Obama is a Christian, that doesn't attend church. He is an editor, that doesn't write. He is an orator, that depends on a teleprompter. He is an academic, with no grades. He is a politician that spoke out against war, and a commander that escalates it. Given this inconsistency, it is impossible to say what Obama "is" - he apparently can be anything.

"a brown skinned"
Tea Party people don't care about Obama's skin color and this is just a feeble attempt to make race the issue. Nobody really buys this anymore ... 1968 called and they want their protest sign back.

"anti-war"
He was anti-war when it was politically expedient, but things are different now. He's not anti-war. He's not really even anti-killing, though doing it by predator drone is much less messy, politically at least.

"socialist"
A strong, well-researched case can be made that Obama is, in fact, a socialist. What's most telling about this phrase is that Obama supporters openly claim to be progressive and liberal, but don't want the socialist tag applied to him. Why are they so afraid of the label? Because they know it is failed ideology that cannot stand up to the reason they claim to so admire.

"who gives away"
Did I miss the press release where Obama gave something? Last I heard he was vacationing in Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii, playing golf as often as possible and complaining about the difficulties of being President. He seems much more like a 'taker' than a 'giver,' though I could see where he would be on board with a welfare program like California's. Obama cannot give anything to us that he has not already taken from us. He has nothing to give.

"free healthcare"
There is no free healthcare. None. It does not exist, and it certainly can't be given away. There is always a cost and describing it as 'free' only serves to demonstrate the writer's distance from reality.

"You're thinking of Jesus."
If only more people would.
Jesus was Jewish. Does that qualify as brown-skinned these days? If so, someone let the Israeli's know ... they could use some affirmative action-like treatment in the press.
Was Jesus anti-war or pro-peace?
Is willingly sharing your personal excess the same as state mandated socialism?
Finally, Jesus paid a pretty high price for the free healthcare he gave away.

Reciprocating

2010-12-21T20:37:00.003-06:00

Men, enamored by the well made, the neatly formed, the nicely designed, are often seduced by those qualities. The new kitchen table seduced me. When the sales lady at Weir's demonstrated how easy it was to remove and replace the leaf, I was sold. As soon as the table was pulled apart and the leaf mechanism was exposed the table was awarded my "it'll do" blessing. Simple. Solid. Purposeful. The table is now happily installed in our kitchen.

Prior to the new one our kitchen table was a hard rock maple dinette set, built sometime in the 1950's, and handed down to us from my wife's parents nearly 28 years ago. They bought it new. We had the chairs refinished eight years ago and then, later, re-glued and tightened. The table served us well and it now resides at my brother-in-law's house, still serving well. We also have another table, recently acquired, that is a hand-me-down from my wife's grand parents. It also was probably built in the 50's, but instead of maple, this one is steel and vinyl and formica. It's Pearly's table. The maple one was Frances' table.

Polishing up Pearly's table the thought occurred to me that we should figure out a way to use it in the upcoming Christmas Eve dinner (as in breakfast, dinner, supper) that we are having at our house. Several people attending will have eaten countless meals at that table and everyone knows what Pearly meant to our family. I always associate Pearly with Christmas, probably because that's when I spent the most time with her. It will be nice to have a remembrance of her as we share our Christmas dinner this year.

One non-Christmas memory is "camping"* at Lake O' The Pines. I have often commented on the fact that the Calhouns (my in-laws) organized their vacations around meals and our "camping" was no exception. No sooner would the breakfast dishes be done than dinner (lunch) would begin to be planned. There was little fuss about the quality or type of food, many meals were ham sandwiches on white bread and fresh sliced tomatoes with salt and pepper, it was more about who was going to be there and when. Getting together was the important part.

All our great celebrations and get togethers involve the sharing of food or meals. Wedding cake. Food for the family after funerals. Birthday cake. Thanksgiving turkey. Black-eyed peas on New Years Day. Fourth of July, Memorial and Labor Day cookouts. Communion.

Speaking of communion, Jesus ate a lot. From the wedding at Cana to the Last Supper, food was an integral part of his ministry. Was that because food is simply an important and frequent part of our common lives, or was it because the nourishment and sacrifice and service to others involved in preparing and sharing a meal is such a fundamental concept in being Christian? Could it be that the 'food theme,' ranging from eating with sinners to feeding the multitude, is meant to help us connect with God? The meaning and use of food in explaining the Christian life is part of a complete, finely crafted mechanism that so attracts me.

In any case, we will be serving beef for Christmas (Eve) dinner (lunch), tenderloin and ribeye, but there is no doubt that the sharing will be more important than the food. Did you know that in Hebrew the word table means 'sending?' We bring people to our table and send them back out, not just with full stomachs, but with a full heart and a desire to do the same for others. The constant, consistent action of sharing and sending, and sharing and sending, adding a leaf to the table when needed to make room for extra family and new friends, acts like a natural force wearing away the hard parts of our selfishness.

We will be using all of our tables ... Pearly's and Frances' and Cindy's ... even if the actual furniture is not here because mothers teach daughters. The tradition and significance of the table and sending continues. Whether you acknowledge it or not, the preparing and sharing and sending back out into the world is a reciprocal, self perpetuating and holy activity. We share because we can. Others share because we do. The blessing gets passed on and we all become more holy in the process.

For all you guys out there who got suckered into reading this post simply because of the title, thinking it would be about a Sawzall, my apologies for the religious sidetrack. However, if you'll take this opportunity to tell your wife how "well made" she is, and tell your Mom or Mother-in-Law how much you appreciate their cooking, reading this may still serve a purpose!

* camping is in quotes because sleeping on a mattress in an air conditioned room at a lodge isn't really my idea of camping, even if we did cook outdoors.

1901

2010-12-02T22:57:00.002-06:00

Have you seen the commercial for the 2010 Cadillac SRX ... "the Cadillac of Crossovers?" It features a song by a band named Phoenix. The song title is 1901 .. nineteen zero one. The front man for the band, Thomas Mars, explains the meaning of the song as, "It’s a song about Paris. Paris in 1901 was better than what it is now. It’s still nice, but 1901 was better. This is a fantasy about Paris." Phoenix is not from Arizona, or even East Texas. They are French.

I actually like the song. It's catchy, though the chorus sounds like "fallin'" instead of "folded" and lyrically its confusing as hell. They're French, I'm from Texas, misunderstandings are to be expected, but it's a nice, simple, catchy pop song and who knows, it may actually help sell Cadillacs. It struck me as something bigger than a good song for car commercial, not because it has any particular artistic significance, but because of what it indicates to me in a marketing sense.

Several years ago, when Elvis and Johnny Cash and The Rolling Stones and The Beatles songs first started appearing in jingles old hippies everywhere must have been cringing with disgust at the crass commercialism of it all. Even anti-establishment icons like Neil Young, Joan Baez and Bob Dylan have gotten airplay in advertising. Elton John, Lionel Ritchie, Sting, U2 and KISS were obvious choices as pop artists for advertising; they always seemed as much interested in commerce as art. Today, a relatively unknown band (Phoenix has never had a Top 40 hit) is actually selling music based on being in a Cadillac commercial. Surely this says something about the intersection of art and advertising and culture, but damned if I know what that might be.

I can tell you what it means to me. It means that tail end baby boomers like me are nearing the end of their demographic power. It wasn't that long ago that every commercial resonated with me, and though I would deny it if asked, Mick Jagger wailing about "can't get no satisfaction" at the very least caught my attention and at the very most made me think the product being advertised was gloriously cool. And more importantly, they were pitching to me and my peers. Now? ... not so much.

Having been at the center of the advertising demographic target for the past 20 some-odd years, and recognizing the end of my run as a prime target, I can speak with some authority about how being catered to skews your perspective. It's all a bit shocking when the "new thing" makes no sense and you realize that the advertiser isn't talking to you anymore. It seems that when generations slip from the center they start grabbing for the foundations of their life, and principles become more important than fashion.

My time as the center of attention seems wasted; I should have gotten more out of it. That is probably how most people and most generations feel about it, because things seem to have changed without reason. One day your lusting after an Oldsmobile 454 then boom, you're shopping for cars and comparing the miles per gallon. It's sobering to think that your individual purchasing decisions have influenced, however minutely, the direction of something as vast as the automobile market. It's hard to connect the dots from muscle car to turbo diesel, but they are there.

Having a perspective from outside the target zone, after so long in the crosshairs, is somewhat refreshing. Drifting from the center of attention makes it easier to recognize the loss of power and be more objective about things. Decisions in retrospect are much easier to categorize as rational or emotional, practical or extravagant, honest or expedient. Looking back also leads to "old timer's syndrome," when memories of the past make the present seem shoddy ... like Paris today compared to 1901.

Many people associate "old timer's syndrome" with conservativism, that unless we return to 1955 we are doomed, but that's just a word game that liberals play ... liberals are progressive and therefore conservatives must be regressive. Conservatism is about keeping what works, discarding what doesn't and being open to new things that do not destroy what is already proven. I wonder if the young Frenchmen in Phoenix realize that a band from Texas called The Light Crust Doughboys paved the way for them?

Pump Jacks and Windmills

2010-12-02T22:57:00.001-06:00

I actually wrote this last year on December 4, 2009. When I got back from my Thanksgiving trip to Pampa this year, I sat down to write something about it and realized I never published this one. It's somewhat of a cop-out, but I didn't publish this originally because it was so depressing. It made me want to stop writing, and I pretty much did. I've decided to publish it, for catharsis (thanks, Mr. Nooncaster) if nothing else.

The south end of Christy St. dead ends into a pump jack. Looking west, across the street, through the gap provided by the Crawford's empty lot and the vacant lot on Farley St. that we called 'Sandra's Lot' (because it was next to Sandra Green's house) and the horse corral across from Sandra's, there were more pump jacks and tank batteries and pipelines. You could also see Celanese and the carbon black plant. There were no trees or hills blocking the view.

Farley and Christy were the last two streets in our town. I don't recall ever seeing the Christy St. pump jack actually running, but I do remember seeing plumes from the stacks at those plants and the smell from Celanese making me nauseous on hot summer days. I marvel at the things I learned in those few blocks in the southwest corner of Pampa, Texas. And I wonder if I've done the right thing in abandoning my small town for the big city suburbs.

I drove through the old neighborhood the other day. Things have certainly changed. It is an epidemic of bare dirt front yards, chained up dogs and rickety fences around tired houses. One house, on Faulkner St., across from Hobart St. Baptist Church, was mercifully being repaired. On the back of that house a sheet of plywood was nailed over the spot where the sliding glass door would be and on that plywood was a sign spray painted with foot high red letters that said:

"Stay Out Or Die Drug Attics"

Since I moved away, whenever I go back to visit, regardless of the circumstances, a profound melancholy always sets in. It's worse when I drive. The landscape pulls me inward. It forces me to reflect and remember the countless trips I've made over that same road for funerals and weddings, for celebrations and interventions, for running to and escaping from. Over the years each trip has gotten harder and the sadness lasts longer. The questions never change and I have yet to find an answer. I don't go up there very often anymore, and I when I do, I usually fly.

Pampa, and my connection to it, has always amazed my wife. I have lifelong friends from Pampa because simply being from there is enough to build a bond upon. For the past 25 years we have steadily run into people with connections to Pampa ... 'my Grandmother lived on Somerville and we used to climb the trees in the median' ... 'my Aunt taught school at Horace Mann' ... 'my college roommate was from Pampa' ... 'I used to date a girl from Pampa' There is, of course, a simple explanation for this phenomenon. Everybody leaves.

Well, not everyone, but many if not most. Of course, it's not just Pampa, it's every small town, particularly the ones that are isolated or that have a limited economic base. Celanese has shut down and you can feel the impact that loss has had on the community. With limited opportunity many young people choose to leave. When I was younger I never understood why anyone would stay. At about 13 years old a big part of my future plans revolved around getting out of Pampa. Well, at least I accomplished that much.

Now, at fifty years old, I understand why some people would want to stay, and in some ways, I wish I would have. On the long drive home I usually wonder what would need to happen to make Pampa vibrant, or at least as healthy as I remember from my high school days. What would ease the economic burden, or improve their schools or revitalize their churches? And then I remember that I left, it's not my home anymore and there is really nothing I can do. I suffer from the curse of always wanting to fix things, to make them better, and the depression that comes from knowing that on the really important things, I can't.

Going home should, I suppose, trigger powerful feelings. They are not totally unpleasant and the resulting introspection can make you feel like you almost get it, like you are quite close to an answer, perhaps even the answer, but so far I have not put my finger on it and I am left with the melancholy of not quite knowing. Me and Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. His were hulking giants to be slayed and plundered. Mine are just Aermotors.

A Review from the Pew

2010-03-22T23:58:00.001-05:00

My previous post complained about the report from the PC(USA) Middle East Study Committee. I attempted to read the report with an open mind *, but ultimately it was too frustrating. Reading certain phrases or arguments would cause me to pause and ask myself ...

... What do they mean by that?
... Is this true?
... What is the agenda here?
... Is the alternative view missing?

I tried to record these pauses, but there were so many it became unmanageable. The things I did note are below. I make no claims of Middle East expertism; this is just my personal review as a layman who sits in the pew (nearly) every Sunday and who has a passing acquaintance with the issues.

The committee writes:

... we have striven to bring a balance between the pastoral, priestly, and prophetic roles of our church’s calling

Is there a similar stance on balancing the perspectives in the report. I assume since one person on the committee refused to sign it, that his or her views were not represented. Is there a minority report?

Increasingly, we find that we are living in a world with numerous
walls and barriers.

Which barriers should we focus on, the ones erected by others, or the ones we erect within our own congregations? Is this report not "fencing off" Middle East problems, drawing a line in the sand?

we strive in this report to tell the truth as we see it and understand it.

Why the qualifier on truth? Is this justification for the perspectives that are left out?

The time for action from all parties is now.

I'm leery of any and all calls to "action now!" This is a problem centuries in the making and yet this committee suddenly has the perfect insight and wisdom to solve the problem?

Above all, we want you to share our alarm at the continuing decline of the Christian community in the region.

Concern about the decline of the Christian community in the middle east is important, but what about our region? What about persecuted Christians in other parts of the world?

(and the use of the word “divestment”)

Why should this be parenthetical? It's not the practice of divestment that bothers you so much, but the terminology?

We support Israel’s existence as granted by the U.N. General Assembly.

Accepting anything granted by the United Nations is rarely a good idea. Wasn't the original partitioning of the land general thought to be a really bad and unworkable idea that was long on compromise but short on practicality?

Israel is the most powerful party to the conflict.

Are they? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Russia are collectively more powerful than Israel. And even if we limit the debate on this point to just Israel and "the occupied territories," does being powerful automatically make them evil? Does being the underdog make the Palestinians more moral?

We are aware that American Muslims have come under more scrutiny, pressure, and, indeed, racism since the tragedies of September 11th.

That seems to be more of a popular perception than a proven reality. I would argue that the majority of Americans strive to not offend Muslims.

we are deeply aware of our own complicity

Positioning "our" actions as complicity implies that there was some sort of knowledge or plan to do evil. I do not believe that. We may have acted unwisely, to help an ally, or we may have acted rashly due to bad information or dangerous circumstances, but I do not believe that our actions have ever been intentionally evil. And if they are, then who are we to criticize Israel? Should we not fix our own issues first?

We cannot fully identify with the struggles of being a minority religious community.

Christianity is on the decline in the United States, and the percentage of people who identify themselves as having "no religion" has doubled in the past 20 years from 8% to 16%. We may not identify with other people's faith struggles, but perhaps it would be wise to focus on our own struggles first. How arrogant are we to advise others on being in the minority, when we cannot hold on to a majority.

We often fall into the temptation to be more in line with culture.

I find this very ironic. The PC(USA) has wrestled with the question of ordaining homosexuals and the definition of marriage for many years, and the impetus for this conflict has been completely driven by popular culture. The idea that we 'went to war for oil' or that we 'don't like Palestinians because they are brown people' has no basis in reality; they are marketed arguments to justify a political position and when you use them it shows an inclination to bow to culture and accept popular ideological arguments as truth.

We still see the occupation as the major obstacle to regional stability

The occupation is one issue; one that the Palestinians have used quite successfully in acquiring billions of dollars of international support, which somehow doesn't provide any humanitarian relief. The major obstacle to regional stability is that most of the countries in the region would like to see one of the countries destroyed. The major obstacle is ideological, not political.

We have had experiences and know of Palestinian Christians and Muslims living side-by-side in peaceful coexistence. Yet we are also alarmed by the increase of targeted violence against Palestinian Christian institutions,

Which group is targeting Christians with violence? Is it peaceful co-existence, or is it intimidation, rigged elections and the deliberate diluting of the Christian presence in Palestinian areas to keep them under control? For an alternative view, try this article or simply google 'violence against christians palestine.' It is also helpful to note that the only country in which the Christian population has grown in the middle east in the last half century is Israel. Why do you suppose that is?

just as we have spoken and acted against our own society’s vision of itself as a nation when it behaved as though it were “above the law,”

The United States is not perfect, but it is not evil. How would you have a nation act? Who judges nations? Nations always act based upon a shared vision and the U.S. vision is probably one of the more honest and morally correct ones in history, thanks in large part, I believe, to its Christian heritage.

The Quran envisions a society based on the unity and equality of believers

Yes! They envision a society of unified and equal (unless you are female) believers. What does that mean for the non-believers? It means you cannot belong and you are not equal. It is ideology, not policy, that is the major obstacle in the region.

The Newer Testament

Although I understand the intent, this troubles me. First, it seems to be bowing to the culture of political correctness and striving to not offend anyone of another faith. Second, using the word "newer" implies that there is room for a "newest." Is that the Quran? Is that the Book of Mormon? This just seems weak.

has resulted in a state of psycho-trauma ... their perceived vulnerability is heightened

Perceived vulnerability? Psycho-trauma? This is gobbledy-gook and psycho-babble. The bombs and missiles and bullets are real. They are vulnerable.

a plastic surgeon, reshaping faces and bodies deformed by the bombs and pollution of the war.

The bombs and pollution of war? How about the human evil?

why were the Palestinians deemed to be an expendable people for the purpose of assuaging the guilt of Western Christianity?

Again, this seems more like a practical, political matter than a psychological one. Who says we are acting out of guilt? And what, specifically, is Western Christianity feeling guilty about? Christianity is responsible for all of this?

Christians in Jordan and Syria appear to experience the least difficulties in the Middle East ...

This is just wrong. Christians in Israel experience the least difficulty.

That news [Iranian nukes] sent waves of fear through Israelis and fueled their sense of vulnerability and insecurity.

Again, this is not a "sense" of vulnerability ... it is an actual, tangible and highly likely to be exploited vulnerability. The paper empathizes with the Palestinians for being in a religious minority, but cannot empathize with Israel for being continuously persecuted?

a nuclear-free Middle East in both Iran and Israel.

This is a fantasy. The world will never be "nuclear-free" until an adequate defensive weapon or a superior offensive weapon is developed.

Inexcusable acts of violence have been committed by both the powerful occupying forces of the Israeli military and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, as well as, the Palestinians, of whom a relatively small minority has resorted to violence as a means of resisting the occupation.

And what of the violence that is not part of resistance, but is instead used as a threat against their own people, or as a lever to keep the population under control, or as the means to gain political power? Palestinian violence seems to be easily excused. What is the excuse for this? A relatively small minority produces children's programming?

thus along the 1967 borders

What is magical about the 1967 borders?

If there were no occupation, there would be no Palestinian resistance.

This is simply not true. The Palestinian resistance would continue to be fueled and financed externally. You could do a complete reversal and confine all the Jews to Gaza and give the rest of the territory to the Palestinians and they would try to eliminate the Zionists in Gaza.

the occupation-related absence of economic opportunity

Hamas and Fatah are corrupt. The Palestinian leadership creates as much or more economic hardship as the occupation with forced strikes, protection rackets and control of international aid resources.

misguided actions by our government

A specific list of these actions would be helpful, but again, the implication is that these misguided actions were intentionally evil. If so, the report should name names.

The moral goal for nations to create a nuclear-free world

Again, this is fantasy not a moral goal.

withholding of U.S. government aid to the state of Israel

And the purpose of this would be? To make Israel completely vulnerable? To assure their destruction?

a shared status for Jerusalem

This, too, is unworkable and unrealistic. Was Berlin better divided? The report claims to want to 'break down walls' and yet, it is perfectly comfortable with setting up and arbitrary and likely continuously disputed division of Jerusalem?

... including: travel opportunities ... that will consist of the members of this study committee

This smacks of unnecessary junkets and philosophical inbreeding. Why not send a group with an alternative view? Does this committee have a vested interest in controlling the one-way dialogue they've set up for themselves?

Strongly denounces Caterpillar’s continued profit-making

Caterpillar, as a corporate entity only exists to make a profit. Why condemn them? At least they are producing something tangible and worthwhile. Do we hold auto makers responsible when people commit vehicular homicide? This is a ridiculous premise ... profit and tools, like bulldozers, are not inherently evil.

Endorses the Kairos Palestine document

This document declares that the occupation is a sin against God and humanity. God believes this land "belongs" to the Palestinians? The report later says that 'religious states' are antiquated, yet here it is endorsing God as landlord and the Palestinians as tenants. If their claim is through God, how is that not religious?

Calls for Bethlehem to be a free and open city accessible to all people

And yet, Jerusalem need not be. Where is the consistency?

Calls on the U.S. government to repent of its sinful behavior vis-a-vis the Middle East, including its ongoing war in Iraq, its selectively undermining or supporting the democratic process in such places as Iran and the Palestinian National Authority, its continuing support of non-democratic regimes for the sake of oil or leverage over oil, or its involvement with security services and contractors who engage in torture, surveillance, and other human rights violations.

Poppycock. Despite how the political left in the United States wants to frame the question, there is no proof and more importantly there is no logical basis for attributing the war in Iraq with American greed for oil resources. If the committee wants repentance for torture, surveillance and human rights violations perhaps they should look a little more closely at the Palestinian leadership, the mullahs in Iran, the corrupt governments of Syria and Jordan and the Islamic faith as practiced in Saudi Arabia.

In June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

This is the introductory sentence in the discussion of the 1967 Six Day War. No mention of the run up to war where Muslim nations were promising to push Israel into the sea. No mention of the tanks and planes, provided by Russia, being staged in the Sinai. No mention that if Israel had waited, had opted for diplomacy, they would have lost the military advantage and would have likely been decimated. This single sentence discredits the entire history presented in the 'historical overview' section and perhaps the premise of the entire document. This was the pivotal event in the entire occupation narrative, and it is dismissed, prejudicially, by claiming "Israel attacked." Shameful.

Presbyterians with different theological orientations and those linked with different political parties have very different opinions about permanent Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

Were these different opinions considered?

Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all its citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority.

The entire point of Israel is to be a Jewish State. Will Saudi Arabia and Iran become secular governments? No, they will not. I will not presume to demand other cultures conform to Western ideals of democracy and pluralism, but I can tell you this. If I was forced to choose a Middle East country to live in, it would be Israel because I could be Christian there, instead of an infidel.

* an interesting take on the popular 'COEXIST' bumper stickers, which, I assume, are meant to display how open-minded and accepting you are.

decently and in order

2010-03-21T21:28:00.002-05:00

In 2000 my family and I joined a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation. The long path to that point was quite convoluted, mostly uphill and would likely require either psychoanalysis or an incredibly self-indulgent dissertation to explain. This church, unlike my childhood church, preached a message centered on God's grace in a way that seemed practical, reasonable and accessible. Hearing it helped me clear the final hurdle to be able to commit to a faith, a belief in something bigger than myself, that had been missing. The committment was not given out of guilt or fear and it did not require me to suspend hard won ideas about spirituality, deny the truth that can be found in science or forfeit belief in human autonomy. This community of faith was, in a small, unpretentious way, making the world a better place and I treasure being a part of it.

My membership in PC(USA) is almost exactly 10 years old now. Over that time my involvement in church has grown from attending to participating, from learning to teaching, and from following to leading. Recently I was elected to a Pastor Nominating Committee, charged to find a new pastor for our congregation. It was hard work, but it was a spiritually rewarding experience. If you have ever felt called to a task, have ever glimpsed God at work in your life or finished an assignment knowing that the lessons learned were greater than the conclusions delivered, then you understand my concept of spiritual reward. It was an exhilirating experience, especially when we found our new pastor, someone we knew God was calling to serve our congregation.

The exhiliration, however, has passed for now. Events outside our congregation, unfortunately, have generated serious questions for me. The answer to these questions may affect my continued membership and participation, specifically in the PC(USA) but perhaps even generally, as a member of any church. My church, or more exactly the denominational leadership of PC(USA), seems to be substituting the colloquial, institutional wisdom of local congregations with the opinions from 'high priests' with a political agenda. My daily struggle is reconciling my heart, which says 'Stay, make it better', with my head which says 'to what purpose?' I do not know how this will be resolved.

My differences with PC(USA) are mostly political, though occasionally about doctrine. The issue of ordaining homosexuals has not been definitively resolved within the PC(USA). The general wishy-washiness of their stance is troubling, but the idea that the final decision rests with the local congregation and its immediate Presbytery leadership is part of being Presbyterian. I can forgive their gullibility on much hyped (and frighteningly religious) environmentalism because I believe that we are stewards of the earth. Though some of the whole "going green" enthusiasm often strays into believing that humans are gods in control of the earth, if the end goal is a cleaner world or respect for (not obedience to) nature, I can manage my own perceptions and endure "we are saving the earth" hyperbole. And discussions about 'social justice' are only troublesome to me when people conflate opportunity and mandate ... equal opportunity is not equal outcome.

The PC(USA) Middle East Study Committee's report, however, undermines my ability as an individual member to reconcile the public position of PC(USA) with my private political beliefs. This 172 page report gives the distinct impression that if you are not anti-Israel, then you are not a right-thinking Presbyterian. Somewhere along the way, apparently, my faith has misinformed my politics, or vice-versa. Either way, the implied question is 'are you sure you are in the right place?'

The MESC, in this report, has taken it upon themselves to write letters to constituencies outside of our denomination. They have stepped beyond the role of speaking "to" the membership of PC(USA), and are now speaking "for" the PC(USA) to outside groups. They are encouraging individual members to spread their message, and promote their opinions, as we, denominationally, undertake further study. Like it or not, whether this report is officially accepted by the General Assembly this year or not, the MESC has pre-emptively spoken for me, as a member of PC(USA), about the issues in the Middle East. If an individual member disagrees, what is their recourse? Will they be heard? Ironically, the report is titled "Breaking Down the Walls" while they are consciously building one inside the denomination.

Yes, I know the report categorically states that PC(USA) supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation. In the conclusion, however, they write:

theocratic states in the Middle East that are “Islamic” or “Jewish” should be considered as anachronisms in the twenty-first century. Such states cannot exist without practicing discrimination against citizens who are of the other faiths than those of the state.

Doesn't that contradict the statement about the right for the Jewish state of Israel to exist? Does that single statement provide enough balance to the obvious Palestinian bias in the rest of the document? Where is the condemnation of the Islamic states in the region? Does only Israel need to deny their faith? Where is the charge that Egypt is 'inhuman' for not supporting Gaza through its non-blockaded southern border? Palestinian violence is presented as understandable, but Israel's self-defense is presented as abuse of power.*

Over a year ago I wrote about the hand wringing over "disproportionate responses" regarding Israel's actions against mortar attacks from Gaza. In that post I wrote "somebody has to kick somebody else's ass to settle this thing." I still stand by that assessment. The state of Israel has been "in negotiation" for borders, for water, for peace since it's inception. It has also been under attack for that same period. Saying that you support a two state solution and that Israel has a right to exist will not end the conflict, and laying the bulk of the blame at one party's feet, in large part because the committee believes they are the 'powerful' party, isn't speaking with truth for justice. It is the language of a prosecuting attorney, not an impartial judge.

The committee writes:

It is also our prayer that the whole church will then engage in a thoughtful and prayerful study of this report with a view to taking significant actions toward fulfilling God’s vision of peace for all peoples.

Immediately above this plea for "thoughtful and prayerful study" they position themselves as the priests, prophets and pastors for our denomination. This is no different than the stance the clergy took before the Reformation, only this time, instead of controlling the interpretation of scripture, they want to control secular political opinion. My faith informs my politics. By condemning my politics, they are condemning my faith, the one that has grown, and yes 're-formed', within this denomination. Must I conform to their politics to be part of their denomination? That seems to be the impression the PC(USA) priests and prophets want to make.

Yes, I pray for peace in the middle east, but no, I don't believe it can be obtained if Israel 'turns the other cheek' in submission to terrorists, or in shame from external 'tsk-tsking.' Israel has turned the other cheek, many, many times expecting to be treated as equals but instead are hectored from all sides. Neither side is guilt free, but I believe that peace will only be obtained in the middle east when one side imposes their will on the other. The question then is, which side will be the most just in their victory?

The impression from the PC(USA) is that these kind of practical, political beliefs make me both a bad Christian and a bad Presbyterian. If practical experience and thoughtful reflection on political situations cannot be reconciled with pronouncements from on high, do I stay and be presumed in agreement with those pronouncements, or do I leave and find a more personally truthful path?

Is it any wonder that PC(USA) is losing members at an alarming rate?

* the caption/explanation for the cartoon above
“Israel is attempting to achieve balance of power with the Arabs. The Arab reply: This will be the only balance.” Egyptian review, Roz-el-Yussef, February 14, 1966.

I bet Bush knows the difference between liability and collision auto insurance

2010-02-26T08:16:00.000-06:00

Bore Patch: Battlefield Preparation and Ft. Hood

2009-11-13T09:02:00.001-06:00

Bore Patch: Battlefield Preparation and Ft. Hood

Please click the link above and consider the truth and practical implications of this assessment of the battle at Ft. Hood.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

All You Need to Know About Pelosi's Health Care Bill

2009-10-29T10:50:00.001-05:00

I'm working on being more succinct. I wish Congress would.

So, Con-men, ruin us

2009-10-14T00:02:00.000-05:00

To Mr. Jim Guest, CEO, Consumers Union:

Last week I cancelled my subscription to Consumer Reports.

It wasn't because I sprained my eye muscles from rolling them every time I had to wade through the underlying global-warming-eco-religion whackism in every stinking product review. It wasn't because you have abandoned any pretense of objectivity and became a government snitch for the EPA. It wasn't even the condescending email I received from P. Rick Burns, Customer Relations Representative #1326379, which effectively said that my opinions were not sufficiently enlightened enough to appreciate how hard CU has "fought" for me, the lowly, weak and uneducated consumer.

No, what ripped it was your obviously partisan urging to support the Democrat health care plan(s). "Doing nothing about health care is not a solution" and "policymakers need to find a solution this year" ... did you hire James Carville to write this for you? "We don't endorse candidates" my ass.

So I cancelled my subscription. Why would I want to continue to support your statist agenda? Especially since I'll never be able to trust your auto reviews now that your minders and union brethren own the American auto companies!

Interestingly, within 72 hours of cancellation, the volume of spam to my email account quadrupled. I suggest you amend the section of your privacy policy which reads:

If you have an online subscription to one of our sites, purchase and download any of our online reports and services, or enter an online contest or sweepstakes, Consumer Reports will not exchange or rent for promotional purposes any information that specifically identifies you.

In the interest of full disclosure you should probably add in:

But if you cancel your subscription, all bets are off ... we're selling your email address to every spammer we know.

One of the spammers, of course, is Consumers Union itself, and today I received an email from you, Mr. Jim Guest, CEO, asking me to "demand action" on health care reform. Typically fascist of you. Are you so intent on action, action, ACTION that you don't care about why subscribers cancel and you don't think we can take the time to make the right kind of reforms?

Here's a step-by-step response to your insipid email.

Have you dreamed of becoming your own boss, going back to school, moving to a new place, having another child—but then thought, 'what about my health coverage?'

No. But if I did my thought would be, why has the government created such a freaking monstrous regulatory and litigation filled environment which makes my health coverage so expensive?

Most of us worry about paying for health care, even if we have good insurance, and we give up a lot of our dreams for a little health security. We give up dreams of retirement, a different career or better education. Millions who have poor coverage or no insurance at all give up needed check-ups, preventive care and medication.

We don't worry about paying for health care ... we worry about paying for insurance! Riddle me this, Mr. Obama regurgitator ... why do we need insurance coverage for preventative care and check-ups anyway? Do you buy insurance to replace tires or get your oil changed? And if anyone is giving up their "dream" for the sake of "health security" it either isn't a very big dream, or they are such wussies they probably wouldn't succeed anyway.

It's time to give all Americans freedom from the health insurance trap. In the health care reform we envision, you can keep good insurance coverage if you've got it, or choose reliable alternatives that cover what you need at affordable rates. No one is denied for pre-existing conditions; no one goes bankrupt because of illness. With that kind of freedom, you don't have to put aside your dreams.

Freedom from the health insurance trap? Don't you realize that the government CREATED that trap by incentivizing employers to provide insurance and separating the consumer from the purchasing decision? And there you go again repeating Obama's lie that you can keep your insurance (that's right, I said it - he lied!). What makes you think insurance companies will even want to compete in this market? What makes you think employers will not just pay a fine and leave employees swinging, grasping for a 'public option'? And the pre-existing conditions ... do you not understand the concept of risk? How do you expect insurance companies to stay in business if they cannot use their actuaries to design products? And that whole business of no one going bankrupt due to illness ... well, that's about as a likely as a world free of nuclear weapons. How naive. And how you can equate these current congressional health care plans to freedom is beyond me. What about the freedom to opt out? Oh, you can't allow that because some people might not be responsible enough to take care of themselves and then we all have to shoulder the burden, right? Wrong. They roll the dice, they take their chances and besides I don't see dead people stacking up in the streets because they are being denied care, do you?

To get the kind of health security we need, insurance companies should be required to take all applicants, employers should be required to cover their employees or pay into the system, and we need to allow people to buy into something like Medicare.

Do insurance companies get to set the price for "all applicants" or will it be mandated to make it "affordable?" Can you say, 'buh-BYE insurance companies'? Do you not understand that the high cost of employment is already a terrible burden on our economy, especially for small and mid-sized businesses? Yeah, let's make the employers pay ... what do they do for us except provide wages to everyone. Besides, they're all rich, right? And why would you want "something like Medicare." Are you insane? MEDICARE IS BANKRUPT! You worry about individuals going bankrupt, but don't care about the entire freaking country? Simply amazing.

If we are going to each shoulder financial responsibility for health care—individuals and employers alike—then the coverage must be affordable. But we also must be smarter about how we spend our health care money. We now spend too much for too little. We don't need to pay for hospital-acquired infections or substandard care. We do need to pay for prevention and the effective management of chronic disease. When we catch illness early, we enjoy a better outcome at a lower cost.

Why is it that when liberals speak of 'shouldering financial responsibility' they forget to mention that this burden is already way out of whack, with 25% of the population paying 85% of the taxes. If you continue to punish the successful at some point, they quit ... and then who totes the note? And why do we spend too much today? Well there is waste, fraud, malpractice insurance, research and development, excessive regulation, over testing, coverage mandates and of course that nasty 3% profit ... a whole host of reasons, but fundamentally it's because the consumer is insulated from the real costs and the actual transaction for goods and services. If there was market pressure, instead of Medicaid payment schedules and government mandates, efficiencies would improve, bad providers would be driven out and prices would go down. And that whole "preventative care reduces costs" *HS drives me crazy. More screening, more visits, more tests will drive costs up and if you don't believe me, how about the New England Journal of Medicine ? If you want to see lower costs, make people write a check for the cost of services ... they'll be wheeling and dealing like Charlie Rangel at an IRS audit and who knows, maybe they won't buy that carton of cigarettes so they can pay for the chest x-rays ... give the consumer some freedom to decide. Sound familiar?

Without reform, what dreams will our children have to give up? Our children will enjoy even less health care security than we have today, and pay more to care for us. We have an opportunity right now to finally overcome the obstacles that have defeated reform for decades, but we all need to work together to make it happen. Do you know anyone else who might join you in action? Forward this e-mail to them so they can send their own message.

OMG. I cannot believe you brought the kids into this. I'll tell you the dream they have to give up ... the dream of ever getting out of DEBT you ignorant TWIT! And health care security? Seriously, is anyone secure in regard to their health care? Ok, maybe PRISONERS! I'll tell you what we have an opportunity to do ... we have an opportunity to avoid yet another government intrusion into our lives, the greatest and likely final one. In the next 40 years, spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will double. DOUBLE. And we can't afford it now, genius. How are you going to pay for this? And don't give me that 'budget neutral' crap. If it's budget neutral, why do I have to start paying for it now, but it won't kick in for three more years? It's 'budget neutral' in exactly the same way that Social Security is self funded. What a maroon you are. And what exactly is it that you want to make happen? The destruction of our economy and our country?

Oh, and I'm forwarding this email alright ... I hope you'll be hearing from them.

Sorry I can't give you a 'Best Buy' rating ... although you scored "Excellent" in the sanctimony, arrogance and fascist categories they are not the features in which most consumers are interested.

Consumers Union ... an anagram of So, Con-men, Ruin Us. I should have known better than to subscribe in the first place.

Sincerely,

A former subscriber

* Horse

My Brother's Keeper

2009-10-11T14:34:00.016-05:00

... for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.

Someone tossed out this New Testament scripture (Matthew 25:35-36) in a discussion about health care reform. They added their own addendum, 'I needed healthcare and you gave me affordable insurance' expecting, of course, for everyone to come to the conclusion that Jesus supports Obama.

In July religious leaders from "a wide spectrum of faith traditions" issued a statement of support for health care reform, proclaiming it an urgent need. In August, President Obama participated in a national call-in and audio webcast to rally support from the religious community for his (or someone's) plan. He took that opportunity to declare providing health care for all an ethical and moral obligation, and even threw in a few King James Version phrases, "bearing false witness" and "brother's keeper". Which do you think is more authentic, Obama quoting scripture, or Karl Rove rapping?

Our pastor wrote in this month's newsletter that "Jesus was a liberal." In this week's Sunday School lesson the author writes "Giving priority to the welfare of persons over profits rouses fear and resentment in many hearts" and makes the argument that many are fearful of Christianity because it is a threat to our Western culture and, presumably, capitalism.

I am wary, and weary, of people who use religion as a weapon in social policy and political debates.

Dad didn't go to church. Somewhere around 1970 an elder from the church Mom took us to told me that I needed to 'work on' getting my father to church, but I wasn't about to talk church with Dad. He once told me that as a kid he was baptized every time a Baptist or Methodist tent preacher came to town, which was at least twice a year, and he was pretty sure he was covered. Anyway, this elder informed me that if Dad didn't come to church, he'd end up in hell. I never mentioned the conversation to Dad; his reply wouldn't be hard to imagine. I've never fully trusted "organized religion" since.

This story is just a little background to illustrate my life-long distaste and distrust of anyone who uses 'faith' or 'religion' or 'GEE-zuss' to justify their actions or promote their agenda. If the elder was truly interested in my father's soul, he should have been talking directly to him, not through a child. Simplifications like 'Jesus was a liberal' and 'capitalism is evil' tell us much more about the author's political opinions than they do about Christ. And does any rational human being, religious or not, believe that bombers, whether the suicide or abortion clinic type, are doing God's work? If God does not work at the political extremes, why would He work in the middle? In my opinion, God is not a politician, and the Bible is not a position paper (or a science book).

Now Cain talked with Abel his brother and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

This Old Testament scripture (Genesis 4:8-9) is the original source of "my brother's keeper." Cain is essentially asking God, sarcastically, if he is 'responsible' for his brother. Most people assume that God's answer is "Yes, of course you are!" Of course you should help your brother ... it's the moral and ethical thing to do, it's what Jesus would do, it's what compassionate Christians should do ... you should always take care of your brothers and sisters.

You can, however, interpret this story in other ways. Animals in zoos have keepers, not the people made in God's image. Would Abel want to be 'kept' by his brother Cain? These are grown men with careers; Abel was described as a 'keeper of sheep.' If Cain had said, 'My brother is not a sheep and I am not his keeper', which seems a fair rephrasing, would President Obama be using this scripture as the moral foundation for his (or someone's) health care plan?

In this Biblical story God did not answer "Yes, you are your brother's keeper." Instead, the first thing God says is, "What have you done?" This is not a lesson about failure and omission, of simply forgetting to 'keep' your brother. This is a lesson about being responsible for your actions. Cain killed his brother. He took his life. Cain didn't forget to be compassionate toward his brother, he used his strength against his brother in a fit of anger and jealousy. The question from this scripture that should be used in the health care debate is not "Am I my brother's keeper?" but rather "What have you done?"

Assume for a moment that the current iteration of Obama's (or someone's) plan passes. How would we answer 'What have you done?' Have we provided affordable health care for all? No, we have not - not practically and not personally. Have we become our brother's keeper? No, we have not. We have instead handed our brother over to be kept, by the government. We have imprisoned him. Have we become more moral and ethical? No, we have not. We will have abdicated those obligations to the government, and to the "rich" and unrepresented future generations, who must pay for it.

I am not my brother's keeper, nor do I want to be. I also don't wish to be 'kept.' I have no need of Presidents defining morality, or of 'religionists' controlling public policy. It is not moral or ethical to give up personal responsibility or to empower bureaucratic keepers. The Democrats like to frame this debate in terms of "doing something" versus "doing nothing," yet it is the Democrat plan (or someone's) that requires us to do nothing. Health care becomes a government problem. Paying for it becomes someone else's debt, and we won't even have to take care of our brother, someone else will be keeping him.

Valid Questions

2009-10-07T08:24:00.003-05:00

BackyardConservative: Bill Ayers No Dream

When Barack Obama first made a splash I had not one, not two but three friends give me a copy of "Dreams of My Father". They were all quite goo-goo over him based on his books. I thought they (both books) were pretty much just sentimentalism and self-promotion - something you could watch on Oprah in a 10 minute interview.

When the 'Ayers wrote Dreams' conspiracy(?) theory popped up it seemed plausible to me. It's not like there wasn't a precedent. I'm sure Ayers was yanking this blogger's chain here ( or telling the truth with deniability still intact ), but the question it raises is valid ...

IF it had been proven during the campaign that Obama had a ghostwriter for his autobiography, any ghostwriter, not just Ayers, would he have won the nomination or the election? And IF it's true, would it change your opinion of him now?

Fun(d) Raising

2009-09-23T20:28:00.005-05:00

A friend of mine told me about getting a call from some GOP fundraiser. His response was that he would be contributing to individual candidates that reflect his conservative values. That makes sense to me, though supporting a few select conservative candidates (and subscribing to National Review) seems to have put my name on the 'sucker' list for Republicans of all stripes. My mailbox (both types) are overflowing with requests.

Here's the concerning bit. In all likelihood the Republicans are misreading the Obama backlash as a 'pro-Republican' wave. It's not. It is an anti-business-as-usual wave. The people aren't fed up with Democrats so much as they are of incumbents. The foolish Dems thought they were getting "new politics" and a whole host of folks who would normally vote Republican voted for Obama because they fell for the "change" mantra. They really just got more of the "failed policies of the past" ... Woodrow Wilson's policies. I guess everything old is new again.

Anyway, I've decided to have some fun with my solicitors. Every piece of crap mail I get at my house is being returned with some honest, grassroots, conservative feedback.

I got the above from my friends at the NRSC. I'm mailing it back to them as marked.

Peas in a Pod

2009-08-27T23:42:00.012-05:00

Someone has to say it, Chris Matthews was right. In speaking about Teddy Kennedy, Matthew's said:

He wanted to be his brother's brother, and then he turned that torch over last year to Barack Obama. And the great thing about the Kennedy's is they always grew as a family. They tended to get better as they got older. This family got better. The Kennedy commitment to civil rights was almost accidental. It began because of history, '63 and Martin Luther King's march. By Bobby it became passion, by Teddy it became real, and then Teddy turns it over to the first African American and says, 'You got the ball.' Amazing history, Barack is now the last brother.

It's easy to see how Barack is now the last brother, though Matthews got it right for the wrong reasons.

Joseph Kennedy, the Kennedy patriarch, was involved in numerous and highly public extramarital affairs. Barack Obama, Sr. was a bigamist. Joe Kennedy was the exclusive importer of Gordon's Gin and Dewar's Scotch, and he was rumored to have made his fortune illegally distributing alcohol during Prohibition. Barack Sr. was an alcoholic.

John F. Kennedy's book 'Profiles In Courage' won a Pulitzer Prize in biography. From the moment it was published there were rumors it was ghostwritten, which were proven to be true in 2008. Rumors of authenticity also surround Barack Obama, Jr.'s book 'Dreams from My Father.' Both candidates used this literary 'street cred' to bolster their academic bonafides, and the books were crucial elements in their rise to celebrity.

Robert Kennedy had intricate knowledge of the Teamsters and organized labor activities. Barack Obama, Jr. is also intimately familiar with labor unions. One would be characterized as having an outside perspective, while the other would be more of an insider. Also like Robert, Barack was educated in a variety of settings, including schools in other countries. Neither had much stability in their childhood family life.

Like Edward 'Teddy' Kennedy, Barack Obama, Jr. has demonstrated a belief, and need, for a multi-tiered justice system, where elites get away with crimes that get common folks convicted whether it's tax evasion, voter intimidation or manslaughter. They, apparently, have similar beliefs in the purity and altruism of the welfare state, most likely because they see themselves as above it, rather than in it. Barack and Teddy also have either mediocre or non-existent academic records and an ability to find undeserved success. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, and, curiously, did not publish anything in the review, though he still got a book contract based on that position. Teddy was busted for cheating at Havard and never paid a political price for it.

Religion fills an interesting role for both Kennedy's and Obama's. Barack Sr. was a Catholic converted to Islam who became an atheist. The Kennedy's, so closely associated with the Roman Catholic Church, were often at odds with their faith especially on issues such as adultery and abortion. JFK's Catholicism and potential obligations to the Pope were an issue in the 1960 campaign, as was Barack Jr.'s membership at Trinity and his devotion to Reverend Wright. Faith for either family seems to have been a tool of political expediency and not a belief system.

In political ideology, if it hadn't already been used, Barack could have easily delivered ...

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

... because that is what he believes, that the state takes precedence over the individual.

Teddy may have passed the torch, but he seems to have done it in much the same way that he championed civil rights, like it was a gift ... something only he had the right to bestow, something granted to lessers from their betters and never with the intention of providing truly equal opportunity. After all, there can truly only be one royal family at a time.

* H/T to Kris at shoutfirst for the idea on the photo images
Which one doesn't have a halo?

A Cowboy Poet

2009-08-05T22:41:00.012-05:00

My Uncle Ed passed away on July 12, 2009. I'm stealing these photos and comments from a couple of my sisters. I just wanted to share them, especially with my Panhandle friends.

According to Christina, this is Uncle Ed on his horse 'Red'. Seems like the Turner boys always had short, simple names for their horses ... Doc and Frank and Hollywood and Blondie (a palomino, of course). Uncle Ed said Red would jump in the back of a pickup bed while he was riding him. I don't doubt it.

More from Christina:

Mom went to the service today in Alanreed. Ed had told someone he didn't understand all the hype about cowboy poets, and he could write a cowboy poem too. So he scratched this one out on the back of an envelope...

I would like to tell a story before I leave this world.
It's not about Texas; it's not about a girl.
It's not about the places I've been or what I've seen.
It's something about cowboys, and what cowboys dream.
They like to dream about a pony that someday they're gonna own.
He might be a bay, or a little bald-faced roan.
You can bet he'll be a dandy and he'll be a handy too.
The kind the ladies love- The punchers will like him true.
He'll be an easy keeper and safe to be around.
Rounding up a pasture or rodeo-ing in town.
He'll never cause you trouble
He'll just bring you bliss.
Come to think about it folks
I've owned two or three like this.

And I'm still dreaming.

"Little" Ed Turner

Amos Ed Turner, Jr.

Listen to the Music

2009-07-29T23:40:00.007-05:00

Here's a snippet from an email sent out by the Republican Party of Texas this evening:

Texas is home to three of these so-called Blue Dog Democrats who are caving to the radical leftwing Democrats. They are Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco), Rep. Gene Green (D-Houston) and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-San Antonio). These Blue Dogs should not be Pelosi's lap dogs. They need to hear from Texans that enough is enough, and a vote for the Democrats’ government-run health care system will be the end of their political careers. Please follow the links and call them, now.

Here's a snippet from an email that Barack sent out about 1PM today:

It’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security. That means guaranteeing your health care security and stability with eight basic consumer protections:

* No discrimination for pre-existing conditions
* No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays
* No cost-sharing for preventive care
* No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill
* No gender discrimination
* No annual or lifetime caps on coverage
* Extended coverage for young adults
* Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid

Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local governments will go bankrupt.

No doubt some smart person on some well respected blog could dissect either email, pinpoint the lies and fabrications and deliver some unassailable commentary about the respective truthfulness of these missives. This is not that blog. This is just arguing with a fencepost, and this is what the fencepost hears from me.

On the one hand you have an aggressive, purely political call to action that names names and details consequences. The Republican Party of Texas makes no bones about it. They write the labels in bold letters ... "leftwing radicals", "lap dogs", "government-run healthcare" ... and the call to action is quite clear.

On the other you have the broad 'we're gonna fix it' brush covering over every nagging healthcare problem, with "new foundations" and "guarantees." Instead of naming names, it insinuates that any information that doesn't support 'doing something' is just "misinformation and scare tactics" and then it immediately tries to scare the crap out of you with "costs will double" and "uninsured" and "bankrupt."

No reading between the lines or parsing the phrasing is really necessary, is it? Just read it and get a feel for it ... the tone ... the manipulation* ... the agenda. The conclusion I came to was this:

If bullshit was music, Barack would be a brass band.**

* it reminds me of Mr. Mainway's attempt to market the Bag O' Glass

** based on a Paddy Crosbie quote

Bad Parents

2009-07-24T00:36:00.010-05:00

The meeting started a few minutes late. We were hoping one or two more members would show up because of the whole 'decently and in order' thing. Two additional members arrived about five minutes late so we had our quorum. If they had not shown up we would have canceled the meeting. Rules can be pesky like that.

Just as the previous meeting minutes were approved there was a knock at the outside door and immediately a curious "Hello?" coming from the hallway outside the office. Apparently the outside door was unlocked. Never one to miss an opportunity to sneak out of a meeting, I volunteered to investigate.

In the hallway was a stubby, forty-ish woman, somewhat disheveled, sweaty but not stinky, who, upon seeing me, immediately launched a breathless story about running out of gas and eviction notices and feeding kids and the bad economy. She waved her hands broadly, her head bobbing up and down and side to side, attempting to pin my eyes with hers, just outside the closed office door.

The hallway connects the office with Sunday school classrooms, the nursery and the fellowship hall. It's empty, except for me and this woman. The meeting was after hours. The scene triggered a memory of a young man about 6 years old standing in the same hallway and gesturing in the same way as the unexpected visitor. He was attempting to explain to me why it had been necessary for him to get a bucket of ice cubes from the kitchen, carry it to the top of the spiral slide on the playground and dump it down the slide while a group of little girls was attempting to climb up the slide. Upon removal from the playground by the nearest enforcer (aka "parent"), which happened to be me, he was pleading his case in hopes of preventing being ratted out to his parents.

The temptation to fire up the public safety and courtesy lecture was strong. Somehow, I resisted. I simply told him, "I will be speaking to your Dad about this", and I did. Later the boy remarked to my son, "You sure have a mean Dad" which is, of course, one of the great aspirations of my life ... to be "the mean Dad."

The delivery of the woman's "out of gas" story was flawless, and obviously well rehearsed. She attempted to herd me into a corner by circling around and standing uncomfortably close. I stood my ground and, having made the mental connection to the guilty six year old, easily adopted the role of parental observer. Her tone changed from subtly demanding to practiced pleading.

She dug in her purse saying, "I can show you the gas gauge on the car it's right out here in the parking lot and I've got the eviction notice right here. I need to get to daycare to get my kids soon or they'll charge me extra for being late. I've been looking for work all day and lost track of time. I only need twenty ... or ten or whatever you or your friends can spare." The last was said just quickly enough so it was clear the retail price was twenty dollars. I didn't say anything and instead just walked to the outside door and opened it. She stayed inside. I reached for my wallet. She stepped outside. I handed her ten dollars and said, "Don't come back." She left, without saying thanks of course, feeling, no doubt, that she had won.

She drove out of the parking lot in her older, but clean, Lexus sedan. The back plate was in a green and white 'DriveTime' license plate holder. There was a man in the passenger seat. I didn't care where they were going.

Once, a few years ago, our friend's fourth grade daughter opined, "Even third graders have cell phones now, Dad!" to which her father replied, "They must have bad parents." She didn't get the cell phone, and probably felt she had lost the argument without realizing the lesson. She probably will, someday.

After the meeting someone asked "Who was that at the door?" I told the story, briefly, and someone commented, "That was very Christian of you." I knew what they meant. And I knew they were wrong. Being a good Christian does not usually involve handing out money in inconsequential denominations. It was just bad parenting.

The money was a pay off, pure and simple. It wasn't given with a charitable heart and it really meant nothing to either of us. She gained ten dollars, hush money. Ten bucks for 5 minutes work. Maybe she earned it, the way that whiny kids throwing a tantrum earn the candy or toy that keeps them quiet. When you see that little drama between a parent and child play out in a store somewhere, do you ask yourself, "Who's the parent?" If the child gets the toy, you immediately know, at least at that particular moment in time. Is it fair to the child to put them in charge? What do they learn, the powerful strategy of whining?

Good parents say no ... a lot. They know if they don't the kids won't be able to handle failure and they will spend all their time pouting and moaning and crying and saying "But that's not FAIR!"

Which we all know comes once a year, usually in October.

Allergies

2009-07-06T00:15:00.006-05:00

It happened once on September 26, 1996, the night the Texas Rangers clinched the American League West for the first time ever. I was driving home on Central Expressway. Then there was the time at the Trail Dust Steakhouse in Denton, on March 4, 2001, after the house band played the first few bars of 'San Antonio Rose.' Another time I was sitting on the rickety front porch of a mobile home in Lake Dallas, drinking beer from a cooler on a hot muggy evening, while waiting for the spray to dissipate from a bug bomb inside our trailer. The stereo inside was cranked up so we could hear it with the windows and doors closed, but we had neglected to leave a light on and it was dark outside. And it also happened, unexpectedly, on Easter, in 2008, after a relatively routine visit to the hospital.

I'm sure it happens more than I care to admit or remember. Perhaps because it's not something I would typically record for posterity. Today, however, was truly surprising. I thought I should make a note.

In 1996 I was driving home alone from the hospital the day my son was born. The Trail Dust in 2001 was just dinner out with a bunch of friends from church, though it was the day after Dad's funeral. Lake Dallas was college days, and like so many of them, I was drinking beer, probably Coors, with Ed. We were no doubt solving the mysteries of life with our educated and worldly wise perspective. Easter 2008 was when my niece Colby was born. And today, well, was just another Sunday, which makes it all the more puzzling.

Today our church had planned a July 4th celebration. After services we served hot dogs, apple pie and ice cream in the fellowship hall. We had a short choir program of patriotic songs planned, and our service veterans brought memorabilia and medals and photos and uniforms to display. My wife is chair of the Congregational Life committee so for the last several years I have approached each of these events with more of a sense of obligation than anticipation. As I was grilling hot dogs I even lamented to one of my friends that it would be awful nice to simply roll out of bed on Sunday morning, come to worship and then go home, but it always seems like there is something 'extra' to do ... the curse of having a limited volunteer pool.

Our church is not big, we have about 250 members, and with the holiday weekend chances were the crowd wouldn't be huge, and it wasn't. We served about 100 people. It was a typical fellowship event. We ate before the preacher had a chance to say the blessing. Several people went straight to the dessert table, bypassing the longer line for hot dogs. Kids put too much on their plate, and everyone praised the food, more for its spirit than its quality, I'm sure.

The memorabilia table was quite impressive. Who knew we had so many distinguished service people in our congregation? I was truly humbled.

The choir sang a medley of service anthems ... there were caissons and anchors, wild blue yonders and the shores of Tripoli. The audience sang along. As the different anthems were sung people would stand in support of the branch in which they had served. I was at the back of the room, watching men and women stand with pride, and I was humbled again. I grew up and started my adult life in the time between Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and I know I have benefited from the sacrifice and service of these men and women. I have always appreciated those who served, because I do not know if I could have, but often wonder if it's dutiful obligation or sincere appreciation that I'm feeling. Today, at church, with those members I've come to respect and admire standing and singing, I realized that their service was not out of obligation, but out of love, and that no other reason would suffice for the risk and committment required of them. They must have gladly served. And I'm sincerely glad they did.

It actually happened when the choir sang a few verses from 'O Beautiful' and finished up with 'God Bless America' ... something about God or blessings or being purposefully moral ... I'm not sure exactly what caused it.

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self
their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

... and then ...

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

I'm leaning against the back wall watching old, sometimes frail, men scattered throughout the room, singing with pride. I see a young man in his current uniform, with his daughter and his parents, and I recognize the pride I have for him. I see boys in scout uniforms respecting their country and their elders, preparing to be men some day. I see mothers whose sons serve, and wives who supported their husband's service. And I see that it is love, not pride or greed or arrogance or the pursuit of power, that enables these people, these every day people, these Americans, to achieve 'more than self.' And I cried.

Okay, technically, I didn't cry. I just sort of misted up. And now that I think about it, it could probably be attributed to the smoke from grilling hot dogs.

That night driving home on my son's birthday? I did have the windows open. It was probably air pollution, and not the awe of new born life mixed with the fear of parenting, that made me rub my eyes.

And it's much more plausible that the stuffed jalapenos at the Trail Dust watered my eyes, not those corny Bob Wills lyrics that Dad used to sing when we rattled around the Texas panhandle in any number of old trucks.

That night at the trailer? Well, yes, we did talk a little about his brother Buddy's funeral, and how seeing his family suffer from a distance impacted me, but those bug bombs were pretty strong and I'm sure we caught a whiff or two because the air was so heavy and still.

Colby's birthday? Well, of course I was happy that this precious little girl was born to such wonderful parents, that always makes you feel good because good parents are hard to find! But it was probably more a function of driving back from San Antonio that day ... you know, the weather and pollen count can change a lot in a couple of hours of driving in Texas.

Yeah. That's it. It was probably just the old allergies acting up.

The Greatest of These

2009-06-03T00:46:00.009-05:00

In the gospel according to Obama, three things remain forever ... celebrity, apology and sacrifice. It's a toss up as to which of these he thinks is the greatest.

Celebrity is certainly important to him. The fawning press always adds a bit of unthinking adulation to an evening out, which eliminates the need for pharmaceutical assistance on Presidential date nights. And it is celebrity which allows him, like a superstar athlete or the current box office phenom, to embrace that sense of entitlement, the infallibility of purpose and the disdain for the laws of the common people.

Apology is also an essential part of Obama. Internationally, he apologizes on our behalf, though he is, of course, blameless. Domestically it's a little trickier because he must demand apologies from some groups and completely ignore the need for confession in others. I've made a handy list, in case you are keeping score:

Apology required:
===========
private bond holders

executives with compensation contracts

the poor bastard who took the fall for the Air Force One & Statue of Liberty photo shoot

Pro-life groups & Bill O'Reilly for the murder of Dr. Tiller

Americans who drive SUVs and use incandescent bulbs or plastic grocery bags

Apology ignored:
===========
labor unions

politicians corrupted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who instigated the housing crisis

Mr. & Mrs. Obama for their extravagant date night and frequent international faux pas

Muslim extremists, Microsofts 'Rendition' game for XBox, Keith Olbermann and Code Pink for the murder of Pvt. William Long

Environmentalists who have crippled our infrastructure and undermined our national security

Recently, however, sacrifice seems to be taking the lead, at least in terms of frequency. We are hearing it more often than 'self reflection' (which is the precursor to apology) and 'the rule of law' (which, for celebrities, should actually be read as 'the rule of MY law'). Every college graduate in the country is now expected to sacrifice their personal success, and the investment in their education, for the good of the community. And those dang rich people just have not given enough; they need to bleed. And American citizens in general will just have to suck it up and suffer more taxes, greater debt, fewer choices and the undermining of our entire social fabric because, well, that's the sacrifice we will have to make to implement Obama's vision which, as an added benefit, will secure the political power base for the socialist cause for decades.

As much as I hate to drag out the cliched 'according to Webster', it's instructive here. The dictionary has three primary definitions for 'sacrifice.'

1. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.

2. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

3. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.

In this case, all definitions apply.

Obama perceives himself as a deity, or at least considers his vision of re-made America as an ideological (holy?) mission, to which we owe homage. A wide variety of things are being slaughtered ... capitalism, individualism, personal responsibility, liberty, ambition. If you're the deity, sacrifice is a beautiful thing.* Things are going bad? Obviously, the worshippers have not sacrificed enough! Things are going great? Obviously, the worshippers need to sacrifice more in thanks for their blessings! It's not so much 'win-win' as 'those in charge can't lose.'

Obama told the Notre Dame grads that they will be expected to "struggle together, and sacrifice together." To what end? Why, to serve "the community" of course! Those things you highly value, your labor, your education, your liberty, your individualism, well, they are now less important than the community, the government, the state. When I review my 20th century history, several national leaders promoted the old 'duty to the state' idea ... Wilson, FDR, Kennedy ... Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot. If Obama had any intelligence, he would realize that his famous "failed policies of the past" comment is actually referring to these guys, not Bush!

Obama also devalues what he's asking us to give up; what we have, individually, is not nearly as important as what the government needs. He thinks money is not valuable to 'the rich', which completely ignores the human effort required to obtain it. Higher taxes for the rich is just a marginal sacrifice in his world. He's right in one sense, money, in itself, is not that important. But when you declare that a college education is a right, and everyone is entitled to it, not only do you water down the experience and put it on the path to mediocrity, you also eliminate the effort and the striving for success that makes it valuable in the first place. When you declare that housing must be affordable to all, you can't elevate the poor without bringing down the rich, which eliminates the incentive to acheive. When Obama insists that our safety and security were acheived through illegal and unprincipled means, he is removing the honor and pride that must be assigned to the task, if you expect good men and women to volunteer and perhaps make the ultimate sacrifice.

True leaders strive for respect, not celebrity. They trade in principles, not apology. They make sacrifices; they don't demand them.

I have sacrificed quite a bit recently. Income. My retirement investments. Time to spend on things like this blog. Peace of mind about my families future. My faith in the American political process. My sense of humor.

I am, however, willing to give up a bit more if necessary ... for the good of the country, of course.

Things I am willing to sacrifice:
=================================
The Department of Education
My compact fluorescent light bulbs
An extra clip of ammo so that someone else can be armed
The Department of Agriculture
50% of my Social Security contributions to date in exchange for the rest in cash, right now
Any and all Obama press coverage except one annual State of the Union address or, even better, testimony at the impeachment

* I have to thank Rob Bell and his "The Gods Aren't Angry" tour for this particular insight.

The only thing we have to fear ...

2009-05-20T13:45:00.027-05:00

I've neglected the blog, but that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about things. Here's a half dozen or so ideas for blog posts that I've crammed into one.

With the announcement of the 'missing link' fossil you couldn't help but hear the drumbeats pronouncing "science is king!" Even Google got in the act by using a fossil graphic on its home page. Personally, evolution makes sense to me, but you can almost hear its most vocal proponents going "nyah! nyah! nyah! ... your Bible is wrong! Here's proof that religious people are ignorant!" I don't think the Bible is a science text book. For their sake, I hope they don't turn to science for spiritual answers.

Liberals like to invoke evolution as an example that, like life, morals and society and laws must change; the constitution is a "living" document. If they truly embraced evolution and natural selection, then why do they endorse corporate bailouts, welfare, social security and universal healthcare? Doesn't that undermine the natural selection process and create a less productive, less efficient species? Can any of these types of government sponsored programs be rationally supported?

It seems like the whole point of declaring "science is king" is so that the corollary, "And I, as human, am King of Science!" can be invoked. God is a threat to these rational types, not because he's going to physically strike them down, but because at some point, God forces you to humility. Royals can't have that, can they?

As long as we are talking about the Bible ... a scripture reading at church planted the seed of an idea for a blog post. The scripture is John 15:15 and it says:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Typically, I try to avoid using scripture in blog posts ... primarily because some people will immediately put you in the 'ignorant' category (see above) ... but this one struck me. I've often commented on Obama's arrogance and the general arrogance of leaders who think they know better than me when it comes to my running my own life. People like that think of others as servants, someone from which they can demand a sacrifice (heard any commencement speeches lately?). I think they have the relationship backwards.

As long as I'm quoting scripture, why not go whole hog. When is the appropriate time to invoke morality? Is it when you are choosing abortion, or before you had the sex which created the baby? Why are we indignantly moral concerning the so-called torture of enemies, but morals become irrelevant (or simply relative) in the abortion debate?

Why is it that "sex is natural and you can't prevent teenagers from having sex so you must give them condoms ... sexual behavior can't be legislated", but its okay to have a myriad of eating laws including taxes on fat and sugar "for our own good." Is eating not natural, too? What about our appetite to succeed? You can't ask teenagers to keep their pants on, but you can dumb down their education and instill a sense of entitlement in them?

Speaking of entitlement, how in the hell did Joe Biden EVER get this far in life? He must have been the star pupil in his 'Independent Living' class. All that time he bragged about commuting on the train no one ever mentioned that it was the 'short' train. What a maroon. Seriously. The people of Delaware should be ashamed. I defy anyone to find where he has ever made a completely intelligible speech. I pray for Barack Obama's health and safety every day because his backups, Biden and Pelosi ... well, I can't even bear to think about it.

From the privileged Joe Biden, good ol' workin' man Joe, we move on to the famous and extravagantly wealthy ... Gates, Winfrey, Buffett, Soros, my uncle Ted ... who recently met in New York to discuss charity and the impact that the 'economic crisis' is having. God bless 'em, they give a LOT to charity, but seriously, do you think they have any concept of 'real life'? If you told any of them they would have to live on a million a year, could they do it? What percentage of the million would they donate? I'm happy for them, I'm glad they are successful and I wouldn't begrudge them a penny of the money they've earned, but don't you think this could have been handled with a conference call or an emailed Powerpoint presentation? Executives get belittled for flying corporate jets, but no one thinks twice about the wastefulness of our celebrity class.

Speaking of billionaires, I hear that some of them are leaving NY and CA because of the tax burden. I think Texas should make a commercial and run it in Los Angeles and New York City and invite them all to move on down here. We love billionaires. I also think getting George W. Bush to star in the commercial is an excellent idea ...

Y'all come on down. There ain't no state income tax, we got killer Tex-Mex and you don't have to pretend to be all liberal and enlightened. It'll be fun. You'll see.

Wouldn't that be delicious? Does anyone have W's email address? Maybe I'll just run this over to his house later on.

And finally, there's this. There are a whole host of folks still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. It could be typical American apathy. It could be they think they are being kind and generous and patient. It could be that they are trying to compensate for all those right wing extremists. Maybe it's a white guilt. It could be any of those things, but I'm sensing that underneath it all, people are afraid. They're afraid he's going to succeed, or (for the weak minded) that he won't. He used 'Hope' to get elected, and now that he has the power he's got a new theme. Fear.

A Reader

2009-04-27T22:58:00.018-05:00

Last year, before the election, a friend convinced me to start a blog. It's been fun. I think that part of me was hoping for the "starlet discovered at the soda fountain" story ... someone would read what I wrote and proclaim "GENIUS!"

I am perhaps, and however, primarily a reader and I suspect my writing, while occasionally clever, will never be profitable or acclaimed. In the meantime, I'll continue to read, and occasionally, steal ideas from the good writers I find.

I read Mark Levin's book, "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" and was expecting the typical conservative talk show host rant/memoir. Instead I got a cogent, concise, concrete (Mr. Nooncaster would be proud) and well reasoned dissertation on the conservative perspective. Critics might say that his picture of "the statist" is overstated, but then, they'd be wrong. Read this book, and you will understand that conservativism is not a club of knuckle-dragging old white guys. Conservatism has intellectual, and logical, heft and that the left is not nearly as smart as they present themselves to be. They are on the wrong side of most arguments if you consider experience, history and logic trustworthy guides.

Anyway. Read the book.

I liked the book so much, I bought 5 extra copies from Amazon and sent them to friends. I get that Chris Matthews 'tingle-up-my-leg' just thinking about a book espousing conservative principles being at the top of the best seller list for weeks. I'd like to see it up there for the rest of the year.

I sent one to my friend Tom, with the following gift note:

To: Buddy Tom
From: Texas Redneck
because you'll never buy this yourself & because it sums up conservativism nicely & I hope you pass it on to your kids

Of course, some of the people I sent a copy to are not as interested in knowledge as Tom, so as a personal touch to get their attention, I customized the gift note ...

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

To: Speaker Pelosi
From: Charlie Tuna, American Samoa

Levin's book on your shelf ... is it more like a caterpillar? or Celine Dion?

Enjoy!

Representative Barney Frank
2252 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515

To: Representative Frank
From: Moses Gobie

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis"

Thanks a bunch, Barney!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

To: Senator Harry Reid
From: J. Brown-Whittemore

will fares on your train from L.A. to L.V. be subsidized so we can gamble our tax cuts?

You love Levin? Enjoy!

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
202-456-1414

To: President Obama
From: Tony Ayers

I hear you are a reader. Hope you enjoy the nice gesture.
Levin's a big fan ... of that Constitution you swore to protect.

It cost me $17.74 to buy each book and have it shipped from Amazon. I figure these people will never read my blog ... and even if they did, they probably wouldn't understand it. They do, however, understand and acknowledge gifts. And Levin says what they need to hear much more better than I do. Ideologues aren't much for reasoned discussion, but perhaps a bright shiny object will get their attention.

I hope every conservative who can afford it sends a few extra copies to their DC favorites. They ignore the elected Republicans. They ignore and deny TEA parties. They insult us at every opportunity by denigrating our ideas and describing us a "bitter clingers" and "right wing extremists". Perhaps instead of throwing shoes, we need to throw the book at them.

Liberal Disconnect

2009-04-20T01:08:00.009-05:00

Recently my sister wrote, "I'm a conservative and I believe in capitalism. I can figure most things out, but I don't understand liberals." I sympathize. The disconnect between liberal words and liberal actions is maddening.*

A list on Facebook said "Five People I Would Like to Punch in the Face." They were:

1. George Bush
2. Karl Rove
3. Rush Limbaugh
4. Sean Hannity
5. Dick Cheney

President Obama's policies are naive, self serving and dangerous. As a person he seems shallow and deceitful. Rahm Emmanuel is every bit as partisan, and probably more mean spirited, than Karl Rove. There are no liberal equivalents to Limbaugh and Hannity, unless you want to count Olbermann, Letterman, Stewart or almost any network news anchor ... but individually they are inconsequential; none of them have ever been verbally attacked by a President or a presidential candidate. And Joe Biden couldn't hold Dick Cheney's jock strap. But I've never wanted to punch any of them. It is, however, an instructive list for anyone wanting to understand how liberals think.

A list like this is made because it's divisive. It's a hate list. If you don't hate George Bush, you're stupid or uninformed or unenlightened. The list maker doesn't need to be informed or enlightened because popular culture and the main stream media have already validated their opinion. "The science", or in this case "the opinion", is already in. It's been defined for you and if you fail to subscribe to what your betters are telling you, then you are "the other." Liberals have no tolerance for dissent.

A list like this comes from arrogance, the hallmark of the liberal. It's obvious in every liberal policy and position. Taxes? They want control of your money because they can manage it better than you. Foreign policy? Entire cultures, built around hating America and its principles, will change their ways simply because the liberal elites are now in charge. Second amendment? If you're not liberal, you obviously don't understand how dangerous it is to have the ignorant masses armed. Health care? Liberals really can't trust people to manage their own health care ... or retirement ... or car purchases ... or education ... or environment ... or charitable contributions ...

Apologizing for America is not a demonstration of humility, it is the ultimate arrogance, assuming the role of spokesman for generations of Americans and validating the undeserved contempt of an unappreciative world.

You make a list like this because you really can't trust anyone. Self interest, in the liberal mind, has a negative connotation. Self interested to them means greedy, not ambitious, and even ambition is suspect. Liberals don't believe that "others" will follow rules, and so more rules are always preferred. Note, however, that if you are a liberal, if you count yourself among this enlightened elite, then the rules do not apply. Rules are for "others."

You make a list like this because you have no core beliefs. Liberal political opinions are more informed by what "sounds good" than what "is good." Distinguishing between sounding good and being good requires a definition for "good" which cannot be defined without a moral foundation. Inalienable rights? A liberal might say:

We are so much more sophisticated than those provincial white males that founded the country ... surely you don't believe that those antiquated ideas can apply to our 'post-modern' society? How quaint!

Without a core belief system, the general public opinion is easily shaped and the public itself is easily divided, grouped and controlled. Without a belief in true equality, a belief in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, there is no mutual trust. Liberals can't trust the states, much less individual citizens, to take care of themselves. They want the power concentrated at the federal level, preferably with their elite group in charge because they know best how to protect us from ourselves.

This year's Tax Day Tea Parties were not about just about taxes. It's hard to believe that anyone, liberals included, believes that the government is a good steward of our money. It's an issue we can confidently agree upon. The people who attended the Tea Parties were 'just folks' ... not elites, not "right wing radicals", not power brokers and deal makers. The anti-Tea Party media tied themselves in knots by alternating between reporting and ridiculing the protestors. How dare the public disagree with what they've been told to believe. The Tea Parties were about fundamental beliefs, not the crisis of the week. It appears that the American public is just about fed up with having their beliefs undermined.

The Tea Parties did not create division, nor were they based on arrogance. They affirmed that there are things we can all agree on and that those things are grounded in our basic beliefs. Liberals intentionally divide along the lines of race, sex, faith, education and class. Conservatives believe in uniting behind common beliefs, one of which is individual freedom, not group differences. Liberals struggle with the problems of "other people". Conservatives struggle with self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and duty. Liberals must constantly adjust their position, referencing popular opinion and the latest trend. Conservatives must constantly evaluate the changing world to determine the best way to apply their core beliefs to new issues.

There is a disconnect between what liberals say and what they do. Liberals say "equality", but create laws to keep minorities subordinate. They say "prosperity", but want to control and limit it. They say "peace", but promote surrender. They say "justice", but celebrate cop killers and terrorists.

A list like this perfectly describes how modern liberals think. Create division. Assign yourself the "correct" position. Marginalize and ridicule dissenters. Repeat when necessary to maintain the position of power. If you think saying you would like to punch George Bush in the face says something about you, that it identifies you as one of enlightened, you're right. It does.

* Just when I thought I had this out of my system, on the way to work I hear that President Obama is holding his first full cabinet meeting today, and on the agenda are ideas from every department head on how they can trim $100 million dollars from their budgets. That's million, with an 'M'. Liberals say "we're cutting the budget!" on one hand, while appropriating billions ( with a 'B') and trillions ( with a 'T') of your money with the other. I particularly enjoyed these lines from our President ...

In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective. In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same.

That is why I have assembled a team of management, technology and budget experts to guide us in this work, leaders who will help us revamp government operations from top to bottom and ensure that the federal government is truly working for the American people.

Let me translate. What he's really saying is ...

I plan on empowering a select group of my friends and supporters to determine which programs we will continue to fund, to further ensure your dependency on the federal government and to continue our attack on your outdated beliefs.

Liberal

2009-03-14T18:26:00.006-05:00

It was very cold outside; a thick layer of ice grew on the inside of the single paned and poorly glazed window. It was only inches from my face as I slept in the bedroom next to the kitchen. The bed covers consisted of flannel sheets and two heavy quilts that Grandma Turner had made ... the 'prettier' one was on top. I knew Dad was up, even though it was dark outside, because I woke up in a sweat. When Dad got up and came into the kitchen he always closed the bedroom door, trying to minimize the noise. He didn't realize that the space heater in the bedroom quickly turned the top bunk into a roasting oven.

For some reason, this time, I got up, instead of shedding covers and feigning sleep. I opened the door asking if breakfast was pancakes or waffles, there was a pause, a plan was forming, and I heard, "Get dressed. We're going out for breakfast. You're going to work with me today." I made a mental note for the next time similar circumstances occurred.

It was early, too early for the cafe downtown to be open, but I didn't ask questions. I got dressed, with minimal whining, and Dad filled up the silver and the green thermos with coffee. He put sugar in the green one. He sent me out to start the pickup to get it, and the defroster, warm. A shivering return, without jacket or hat or gloves, prompted his barely perceptible head shake, my corresponding weak nod and a trip to the closet.

Soon we were at the warehouse (WAHR-house), fueling up the bobtail and filling its tanks with alcohol (al-KEE-haul). The alcohol was for the natural gas pipelines up north, to keep them from freezing. Exhaust from the diesel engine ran through a large cylindrical pipe, that served as the front bumper, and exited underneath the right front, a good place to warm your feet. Liberal, Kansas was our destination and I was already wishing I had grabbed a few other clothing items from the closet.

The first leg of the trip was to Perryton, 70 miles north. Sugared coffee, a symphony of drafty whistling from the bobtail's poorly fit cab and the occasional security light at a ranch house were the only things worthy of attention in the dark of the early morning drive. We stopped at the Dutch Inn for breakfast and since the company was picking up the check I got the chicken fried steak and eggs with biscuits, cream gravy and a short stack of pancakes. I had milk to drink since my stomach was already suffering from a coffee induced acid wash. Dad had toast and sausage and orange juice. I asked why he didn't get the steak and eggs and he replied that he had had enough of that stuff growing up which confused me, since I knew he grew up dirt poor.

He grew up on a homestead farm and ranch in Gray County, near Alanreed. They fed themselves with what they raised or bartered for and occasionally bought. They had steak and eggs every morning, unless the hens didn't lay, and then they just had steak, or some form of beef. They slaughtered their own steers for meat, but they had no refrigeration. They were also feeding 10 or 12 people at every meal so it didn't make sense to salt or smoke the whole thing when they would probably be eating it soon. The solution was to haul the carcass up to the top of the windmill with a block and tackle, "where the flys couldn't blow it." Every morning one of the boys would lower it down, Grandma Turner would cut off what she needed for the day, and then they'd hoist it back up. Gather some eggs from the laying hens and there you have your steak and eggs.

What they didn't have was toasted fresh bread. Toasted usually meant the bread was stale or moldy; fresh bread was eaten with churned butter. Nor did they have sausage, unless they made it themselves, and then it was usually smoked, not fresh breakfast links or patties. And orange juice was a true luxury. He said that oranges and pecans and socks were usually what he got in his Christmas stocking, in the good years. I could usually tell when Dad was stretching the truth, making an insignificant story into an epic, but this wasn't one of those times. My fine breakfast was difficult to finish, but I did, in appreciation of my new interpretation of 'feast' and in the hope of avoiding the "you're a dang sight better off than I was" speech.

We stopped at various booster stations on the way to Liberal near Booker, Darrouzett, Follett and Beaver, OK. The booster stations were impressive. The huge natural gas fired engines, with over-sized radiators, had a pop-pop-pop-pop exhaust you could hear from miles away in the flat, rural landscape. They shook the ground around them. At each booster station was an overhead tank, with plumbing that connected to the natural gas pipeline. Our job was to fill up those tanks with methanol, to be pumped into the pipeline, to prevent any water vapor that happened to be there from freezing. It had been below freezing for days. At noon on this Saturday, it was still in the single digits.

At each station there were always several various sized rubber balls scattered around. After a few stops I was curious enough to pick one up and Dad explained that they were used to clean the line. Somewhere farther north the balls were put into the pipeline and the pressure of the gas moved them down the line. They were different sizes because of wear and almost all of them, at least the ones on the ground, were cracked and brittle.

We stopped at the cafe in Elmwood, OK for lunch, though us working men called it dinner. The waitress knew Dad; it was a regular route and he stopped there often. I had a cheeseburger and Dad had the chicken fry. It was still freezing, but we drank iced tea. We each had a small bowl of cobbler ... cherry for me and peach for Dad ... and then it was on to Liberal.

Even then I viewed vehicles as having personalities ... the trusty steed, the tireless worker, the gracefully aging. The bobtail was the ornery bastard. The clutch was going and I just knew it would leave us stranded at some remote location. The exhaust, despite being a good foot warmer, sent too many fumes back into the cab. The cab had more than drafty rattles, it had un-closable floorboard vents, which might have been great in the summer. The seats had no head rest or arm rests or seat belts so there was no napping, only perching and sliding on the vinyl. The more methanol we unloaded, the bouncier the ride got. And, of course, there was no radio. Dad sang.

We made it to Liberal, which must be the nexus for all natural gas pipelines because we made several stops with none of them very far apart. The work was done and we started the 3 hour drive back home. Along the way Dad sang Bob Wills, talked about "batchin' it" in a line shack on some old ranch and told stories about one-eyed mares, pickin' cotton, how to set a corner fence post and various other handy tidbits. I still don't believe he roped that white tail deer.

We had made a big circle through the small towns in the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma, with a quick, short dip into Kansas, and now we were makin' a bee-line back home, to Pampa, due south on US Highway 83 in a bobtail truck that I'd just as soon cuss at as ride in. The sun set somewhere along the way home; it was a glorious high plains one. I watched its glory fade from overwhelming to what happened, bouncing along, snatching snippets of panhandle from Dad's running monologue, soaking in the high lonesome and wondering how in the hell I wound up in a near broke truck, anonymously delivering alcohol, and freezing my ass off. At least we were heading home.

When we got home there were two plates of left overs, covered with other plates, in the oven. It was Saturday night, Mom was at work. We ate quickly and as I scraped the plates Dad made dessert ... peanut butter and syrup, with torn up pieces of white bread stirred in. After that, the dishes were rinsed and stacked and I went straight to my unmade bed, being sure to ask Dad to leave the door open.

It was cold here the other morning, though not below freezing. It was hot upstairs when I went to wake up the boy. He'd kicked the covers off and though his eyes were closed, I'm sure he heard me and the dog coming up the stairs. He forgot to take a jacket to school that day. His mother was not pleased, but I sort of understood.

Heat rises. You are what you eat. Like father, like son. Heading home is a good feeling. Some things don't change ... and shouldn't.

Bad Guys

2009-03-09T00:36:00.017-05:00

Getting old(er) is so cool sometimes, especially looking back and finding an appreciation for how you got from there to here. Being on the road, moving forward to a destination, it's usually the immediate scenery and situation that is your primary concern. Reviewing the journey, looking back, can lead to powerful insights. You can see the evolution of your choices, and begin to understand how wisdom is only possible through experience.

I was reading the synopsis and reviews for 'Watchmen' ... "Set in an alternate universe circa 1985, the film's world is a highly unstable one where a nuclear war is imminent between America and Russia." I thought, America vs. Russia, I've seen this movie before ... but it wasn't an alternate universe, it was this one. At the time Olympic boycotts, naval incidents, KAL flight 007 and SDI were just headlines to me. Being on the road, it was hard to imagine that the destination those events would lead up to would be the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In 2009, twenty years after the demise of communism in Central Europe, we have a top box-office movie with a sub plot of the United States struggles against the Communists, who represented the antithesis of the American ideal. Communists were a popular choice for fictional bad guys, from Boris Badenov to 'Red Dawn'. Prior to that, the Nazis were the bad guys in everything from 'The Great Escape' to 'Rat Patrol'. Now, of course, we have Islamofascists and terrorism ... Hollywood even updated 'Casino Royale' so that James Bond is battling a terrorist banker, instead of a Soviet labor union treasurer like in the original Ian Fleming novel.

With all this experience behind me, and available for my analysis, you would think I could easily figure out who the bad guys are. The bad guys have historically been people like the fascists, the communists and radical Islam ... you know, the people who want to promote "the needs of the group" to a higher priority than "the rights of the individual." If the interpretation of my experience is correct, the bad guys are indeed easy to spot.

We've got ...

... environmentalists, who want to dictate the type of light bulbs I use and eventually, no doubt, my posture when urinating ... all for the benefit of "the planet."

... multiculturalists, who want me to be open and accepting of all other cultures, while criticizing and demonizing my own all in the name of "diversity" ... which seems a bit incongruent with "unity", though, of course, I'm not oppressed enough to have a valid opinion.

... hollywood, who wants me to accede the moral high ground in the name of "political correctness."

... the main stream media, who want me to accept their bias as fact because they represent "objective journalism" and they know what's best for me.

... Obama and the Democrat Congress, who want to take away my earnings, individual freedoms and American principles to 'pitch in', 'solve this crisis' and 'give back' the "disproportionate share" I took from the economy.

It seems so obvious to me who the bad guys are, but apparently I am wrong.

Another way to identify the bad guys is to see who is being punished, who is being portrayed as evil or who is being pushed to the margins of acceptable society. When I look at it from that perspective, it's clear that the bad guy is me. I'm being punished with taxes, and if I raise my son to be productive, he too will be punished. If I disagree with Obama's policies I am, apparently, un-American and "wishing and hoping for economic failure." And people who disagree with the Democrat power grab, like the House Republicans, are quickly marginalized.

It looks like I'll need a few more years to figure out how I managed to go from productive, law-abiding, tax-paying American citizen to greedy, puritanical, tax-avoiding bad guy. I'm hoping it will all make sense to me again in 2012.

Two Cents

2009-03-06T06:23:00.005-06:00

The ideas and observations continue, but the time to write them down has significantly declined. Hopefully, regular posting will resume shortly.

In the mean time, and speaking of significant declines, Obama sucks.

From my friend Roger ...

An elderly man suffered a massive heart attack. The family drove wildly to get him to the emergency room.

After what seemed like a very long wait, the ER Doctor appeared, wearing his scrubs and a long face. Sadly, he said, "I'm afraid he is brain-dead, but his heart is still beating."

"Oh, Dear God," cried his wife, her hands clasped against her cheeks with shock!
"We've never had a Democrat in the family before!"

Resistance

2009-02-22T13:56:00.012-06:00

Hospitals are icky places because that's where people take their infections and diseases to dispose of them. Every nook in a hospital has hand sanitizer or anti-bacterial soap, just in case you weren't aware there were germs all over the place. A friend told me the other day that using anti-bacterial soaps leads to the development of 'super germs.' I got a mental picture of my hands serving as a petri dish* for bacterial evolution. ewwwww.

And then, as often happens, the words and thoughts began to tumble.

anti-bacterial ... anti-biotic ... anti-life? ... petri dish ... evolution ... revolution? ... disease ... sickness ... resistance?

"The economy is very sick," Obama told reporters.

Do you get the feeling that President Obama is throwing the bones to determine the proper course of action for curing the economy? In his February 9th campaign stop ... err, press conference, he said:

It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.

Did you notice him playing both sides? It "must be" the role of the private sector, but "only government" can solve the problem. That's an old witch doctor/fortune teller trick ... play both sides so you can't be wrong. He also conveniently fails to mention that the "resources" that the government will use originally belonged to individuals. That's a witch doctor trick, too. The only power he really has is what has been given to him by his victim, er, patient.

Oh no. Wait. I apologize. Please forgive me. I've just realized what a racist thing I've done ... comparing the President to a witch doctor. Let me try another analogy.

For nearly 2,000 years blood-letting was the preferred treatment for all sorts of fevers, infections and diseases. The theory was that you needed to get rid of the 'bad blood'. Sometimes they even transfused blood from a healthy sheep. George Washington was bled of an amazing five pints of blood during his final illness.

So perhaps Obama is an 18th century physician, instead of a witch doctor, convinced that blood-letting is the proper course of treatment. He's getting rid of the bad, evil, dirty money that people earned on their own, and is replacing it with nice, pure, clean money freshly laundered through the tax process. If centuries of examples about the non-efficacy of blood-letting didn't deter doctors from continuing to use it, a hundred years demonstrating the failure of socialism isn't that hard to rationalize or ignore.

It's unlikely, however, that Obama would subscribe to any of the beliefs or principles of our founding fathers. He once said:

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past.

I have it now. Obama is practicing alternative medicine on our economy. It's a 'natural' medicine, more about philosophy and feelings than science. The root cause of economic woes are, perhaps, a blocked qi ( c'hi ? ) caused by greed, so all possibility of financial success must be removed to put us in balance. Maybe the infrastructure projects, since the details are still being worked out, will have pyramids and crystal arches to help direct a positive energy flow across the landscape. Maybe the new schools will have yoga classes so kids can learn chakra balancing instead of engineering.

No, that analogy is still not quite right. I realize the New Age folks are probably in Obama's demographic, I'm just thinking he's got a little too much Chicago politics in him to be truly invested in that touchy-feely stuff.

Okay. This time, I'm sure I have it.

Everyday Americans can see that the economy is sick, but they also intuitively know that organic systems have amazing healing and recuperative powers. A little sunshine (instead of doom and gloom) ... some rest (instead of constant intervention) ... add some healthy fluids (cut the corporate, capital gains and income tax rates to improve liquidity) ... plus a little physical activity (lose the labor union weight and the stress of regulation) ... and the economy would be back on it's feet in no time.

Instead, Dr. Obama has admitted us to the ICU, in the permanently germy federal government hospital. He's pumping us full of anti-biotics, determined to rid us of a nasty infection of capitalism and individual freedom that we've had since we were born. He doesn't realize it's not an infection; they are the germs we depend on to live. Fortunately, it's a resistant strain. While we still have some strength, we need to make our desire for a second opinion known.

* Dutch researchers are trying to grow pork in petri dishes and give new meaning to the phrase Mystery Meat. "We're trying to make meat without having to kill animals," Bernard Roelen, a veterinary science professor at Utrecht University, said in an interview.

Just Say It

2009-02-16T20:51:00.003-06:00

One of my many nieces updated her facebook status with:

... is excited about watching The Bachelor tonight...yeah I said it...:)

And I heard Mark Levin call Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd 'socialists and criminals that should be prosecuted', or words to that effect. He followed it up with:

That's right! I said it!

And I've recently discovered a smartass southern author, Celia Rivenbark. "That's right, I said it" is implied in the title of most of her books:

"We're Just Like You, Only Prettier"
"Stop Dressing Your Six Year Old Like a Skank"
and soon to be released ...
"You Can't Drink All Day If You Don't Start in the Morning"

I like that attitude. It's refreshing. It's brash and confident and courageous. It's John Wayne saying, when told everything isn't black and white, "Why the hell not?" It's an American kind of attitude ... straightforward, sincere, unapologetic ... and we need more of it. It's in that spirit that I offer the following:

The so-called "stimulus" package is more about political payback and entrenching the Democrat party than it is about doing the right thing for the country.

If it takes a TV commercial to convince you to "ask your doctor" about a prescription drug, you probably aren't sick.

If you are poor, unemployed or economically disadvantaged and you vote for Democrats, you should add stupid to your list of problems because big government is not your friend.

The only things that work well in public education are the athletic programs because coaches are paid well, they actually get to coach and if they can't coach they are fired. Teachers should be treated the same way.

Everyone should own a gun and know how to use it.

U2. Not that great.

That's right. I said it.

One of the Millions

2009-02-12T22:19:00.008-06:00

iowahawk: with apologies to margaret bourke-white

Recently President Obama said:

... if there's anyone out there who still doesn't believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside-down ...

Being recently laid off, or "resource actioned" in the parlance of my employer, I am qualified to be counted as one of the millions and, unfortunately, Obama's right. I believe this is a "full blown crisis" ... I just don't believe it's an economic one. That probably makes me somewhat unique among the millions ... or billions if we're using Pelosi-nomics.

Potential employers say "we are postponing any hiring decisions" and I whisper to myself, "gee. thanks obama." Without his fear mongering and catastrophic predictions perhaps employers would be looking to expand instead of retrench. Instead of energizing the economic engine, Obama is purposefully yanking the brake and over-hyping the crisis to improve his political position. He's not being honest; he's being manipulative.

The headlines read 'Wall Street Anticipates Stimulus Passage' or 'Markets Slide on Lack of Treasury Plan Details', attempting to explain the ups and downs of the Dow-Jones, but to me it's just another chance to say "gee. thanks obama." Volatility in the market is almost always caused by uncertainty. Is he a centrist? Will there be enough pork to go around? How far is the step between capping executive pay and controlling profits? Will they nationalize the banks? Will 'green' initiatives retard the necessary infrastructure growth? Can corporations afford an American, unionized work force? What, exactly, is "the plan?" Companies don't layoff workers based on last year's results; they layoff based on the upcoming forecast. When you have a leader with no clear plan, no track record and no discernible principles it's impossible to forecast positive results. No wonder the layoffs are mounting.

And then we have this gem. Obama said, "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle" of lost jobs, less spending and more layoffs. The message is subtle, but it's in there. On the surface he's making the case for huge government intervention in the economy. The underlying message, however, is "be passive. we'll take care of you. we'll protect you from the evil capitalists. step into my parlor." Dress it up however you like ... compassion, patriotism, progress, "change" ... it's still ends up as central planning and a loss of individual freedoms. Is that what Americans want, or what Obama wants?

At least the message within the message is generally consistent when he promotes the 'government is your friend' idea. What's more irritating are the blatant inconsistencies between words and actions. I'm not seeing a lot of transparency in the 'stimulus' legislation process and Tom Daschle alone was enough to torpedo two of Obama's campaign mantras ... the "highest ethical standards ever" and "no lobbyists" regarding administration appointments. My personal favorite is contrasting his famous

America is not and never has been just a collection of red states and blue states, but rather the UNITED STATES

with his recent catty comments along the lines of 'We won. The American people have spoken. The opposition needs to get over it. I have a mandate.' And of course executives with corporate jets are bad and wasteful, but congressional junkets and campaigning for legislation using Air Force One is 'doing the people's business.' So much for 'we are all in this together'. So much for inclusiveness. We're not red and blue anymore, just 'the ruling elite' and 'the woeful masses.'

This is a full-blown crisis alright, but it's leadership, not economics, that is at issue.

Why On Earth

2009-02-05T21:14:00.009-06:00

My friend Kristina, lamenting about turning into a political scientist, asks one of her hallmark tough questions in her blog. She writes:

I was sitting there, Ian's dad was driving and Ian was in the front seat, and they were listening to Rush Limbaugh (or someone equally as awful) talking about the bailout. And Rush, Ian, and Ian's dad were all commenting on how bad an idea it is, and how if the big companies are getting bailed out then why can't we all get a check, and how the free market is really the best way to handle everything. I always stay quiet during these sorts of commentaries, because it just really never turns out well, but all of a sudden, I bust out with . . .

"The thing is, Rush Limbaugh isn't asking the right question."

They both give me blank stares.

"The real question isn't whether we should bailout the companies or not. The real question is, if we assume that you are correct and that laissez-faire free market policy is really the most efficient way to fix the problem, then why on earth would anyone propose a bailout plan in the first place?"

In context, Kristina was really just using this to make the point that studying political science has altered her ability to discuss 'real world' questions. Her question, however, of 'why on earth' is very interesting. Why would someone propose a plan that won't work, or at least won't work well?

First, I'm more than willing to assume that a free market policy is the most efficient way to fix economic problems, primarily because that's how I see it. If someone can show me where socialist polices actually work to "fix" any economy I'll reconsider my position, but for now we'll just go with the fact that free markets work.

Now, let's turn to the big question ... why propose a bailout, or to make it more current, a 'stimulus spending' program?

It could be that those proposing a spending solution are simply ignorant. To completely rule out ignorance you must also assume that they are actually trying to solve the problem, an admittedly big assumption, but perhaps they are just unaware that free market policies work. One would think that with unlimited access to intelligent resources and the well documented histories of economic catastrophes of all sorts that the decision makers would clearly see the correct solution. And even if they didn't, surely the opposition would desperately try to educate them. They shouldn't be able to claim ignorance, but that doesn't mean they aren't being intentionally obtuse.

So, if they aren't stupid, are they being malicious? I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but I don't see any reason to suspect that all of our leaders are The Manchurian Candidate. Individually a politician could act maliciously to subvert a rival or inhibit debate but it's hard to imagine a set of conditions where an entire course of action is taken simply to deal harm to another. Then again, just because it's difficult to conceive doesn't mean it can't happen.

So they might be ignorant, and they might be malicious. They might also simply be greedy bastards ... there might be something in it for them. That certainly fits with normal human behavior; we tend to be self-interested. It also fits with political behavior ... who cares about principles, constituencies must be happy to get re-elected! Self interest, just being greedy, sounds logical. Why propose an illogical or inefficient solution? Because it assures me of some power or status or security, which makes sense in almost everyone's world.

The greed isn't necessarily personal. Perhaps they are advocates, true believers, of an alternative, though inefficient, solution and feel that humanity will be best served in the long term by moving to this other, non-efficent method. The selfless warrior, fighting for the morally correct but logically flawed solution ... I've seen people operating in that mode. They might say, "I'm not doing this for me. I'm doing this for future generations!" and see themselves as advancing the cause with pure motives, not those base motives of selfish profit and power.

If the question is 'why on earth would anyone propose a plan that won't work?' these are some credible explanations. They might be stupid or malicious though they are more likely to be greedy, either for themselves personally, or for some ideological cause. But a another question remains. People don't normally choose to be seen as stupid or mean or greedy. Why would they act in a manner that highlights these unattractive characteristics? The answer to that is simple ... they are arrogant.

Their arrogance prevents them from acknowledging alternative solutions to the problem; their ignorance is by choice. The maliciousness is disciplinary, not mean-spirited; they are the tough, but benevolent, parent. If it's personal greed, they deserve to be rewarded. If it's for "the cause" then they are making the sacrifice of service. It's inconceivable that they might be wrong which is the curse of being part of the academic, intellectual and moral elite. They are the girl you knew in junior high who was hot, and knew it. It is, no doubt, an incredible burden ... and one mere mortals can not possibly understand.

I'm not a political scientist (they intimidate me); I'm just an observer, and this is what I've seen. Liberals who propose socialist solutions rail against the stupidity of conservatives, the mean-spirited and cold-hearted individualists who oppose welfare and handouts and the greed driven profit motive of capitalist right-wingers and "Wall Street", whoever they are. I think they protest too much. I've noticed that what we complain about in others is often what we dislike about ourselves and I think their complaints are telling. I suppose I'll be forced to admit my own arrogance here, since that seems to be the thing that truly irritates me about the liberal elites, but like my sister used to tell me (when she was in junior high), "It's not that I'm conceited, it's just that I'm convinced."

Moving to Lipscomb, TX

2009-02-05T09:37:00.003-06:00

President Obama is encouraging folks to get together and discuss the Economic Recovery ... he'd like to see "Economic Recovery House Meetings"

They even have a handy search tool, so you can find one in your neighborhood!

How thoughtful.

I'm moving to Lipscomb.

Country Boy

2009-01-30T16:48:00.006-06:00

"Mama was a waitress and Daddy was a truck driver; I grew up in a country song." That's a line I've used a lot when trying to summarize my life growing up. We didn't live in the country, but I didn't consider myself a city kid. I tease my son about being a 'city kid' mainly because I know he'll probably never pluck a chicken, build a barbed wire (bob-wahr) fence or fall asleep at the dinner table after a day of hauling hay. When Barbara Mandrell sang

I was country when country wasn't cool

I felt like I could honestly say "Sing it, sister!", though my father would have disagreed. He was a real cowboy; I just played at it on weekends and summers on Grandma Turner's farm. I wore my boots and pearl snap shirt to the Top O' Texas rodeo every August. I got Molly Bee's autograph there one year. Dad sang Bob Wills songs when there was no working radio in the truck, which was almost always, and completely wore out the one Lynn Anderson tape he had when he put an 8-track tape player in the Chevy. Ernest Tubb and Porter Waggoner were the height of entertainment on Sunday evening TV. I kinda did grow up in a country song.

In my teens I distanced myself from these roots. But the Eagles and Charlie Daniels and Marshall Tucker and Lynrd Skynrd had a real country vibe to them, and they were cool. By college Willie and Waylon and the boys were outlaw country, and they were cool, too. I think we, meaning all the folks who grew up like me in between rock and roll and country, disavowed our country roots after John Travolta did "Urban Cowboy," but we'd still perk up at a Buck Owens or Jerry Jeff Walker song. And being able to two step and dance to the Cotton-eyed Joe (cot-nod joe) came in handy many times. Country music is chicken fried steak with mashed potatoes and cream gravy* for me; not something I'd eat every day but incredibly comforting and sometimes it's the only thing that will fill up the empty spot.

About a week ago I got an email from Eddie Brown ... some people call him Edward. Anyway, Ed (that's what I call him) invited me to lunch though he lives like 5 hours from here (and yes, for my yankee friends ... it's still in Texas). Anyway, it seems that a bunch of old friends were going to be in Boerne (that's where Ed and Millie ... some people call her Mildred ... live). It had been a while since I'd seen some of these folks and I needed a fresh memory of them so I got up early and hit the road. I made it to the Dodging Duck before Ed did.

Simply put, a good time was had by all. Linda, Tonya, Frankie and Millie, my high school dream girls, were there along with Millie's husband Bill, her brother Matt and his wife Lori (or is it Laurie?), Dub Taylor, Doug Burns and Ed with his wife and daughter, Carolyn and Meredith. Quite a crew. Stories were swapped, catching up was done and we all reminisced about the evils of peer pressure. Apparently some of us were more easily influenced than others, but let's not go there. The food was good, the beer was better and it just felt like a special day. Yeah, it was kind of crazy to drive 5 hours for lunch, but I really felt like I needed to. I must have hugged them all about a half a dozen times, and I'm not known to be a hugger, before I finally said a firm good-bye. Well, I take that back ... I didn't hug the guys. Ed and Doug were sure hugging a lot, but that's another story.

I had the Bison Burger for lunch that day and as I hit the road for the drive back I regretted not having the chicken fry. I switched on a country station, thinking it had been a while since my last country music fix. I didn't know a lot of the songs, but that didn't really matter because you can understand the lyrics. By the time you get to the second chorus you're singing along like it's an old favorite because it just feels familiar.

I listened to Jack Ingram sing "That's a Man" and I thought, "I just had lunch with the kind of men he's singing about."

When the Eli Young Band sang "Always the Love Songs" I remembered sitting on a dock at a lake, either late at night or early in the morning, the night that Tonya got married, and having a long (probably drunken) conversation about life with Linda.

And George Strait, what can I say? I heard "River of Love" for the first time and I realized that some people get it, some people don't. I figured that all the folks at lunch had been out on that river ... most more than once. They probably get it.

On the way home I stopped in Austin to visit a friend who's going to school at UT ... t.u. to some of my friends and family. She's a beautiful young woman and I felt like the creepy old guy sitting in the restaurant with her, but it was a good visit. My friends were a bit shocked when I told them my plan to stop in Austin and see a former Sunday School student ... not because I was stopping, but because I had taught Sunday School. Anyway, we had a great talk. I told her about my friends, and she told me about what's going on in her life. I was impressed by her maturity and sincerity and the love she has for her friends and family.

She took off with friends to go to the basketball game and I got back on the road, heading home. I had heard about a lot of good kids at lunch that day and had just visited with another one. Driving out of Austin I was amazed at the number of Obama stickers and signs and I thought to myself that I get a lot more hope from "good kids" than I do from politicians.

When I heard Josh Turner (no relation) sing "Everything is Fine" I believed him.

As I was nearing Temple I heard Taylor Swift's song "White Horse" and I thought about another young woman I know who could benefit from the sentiment.

When I first glimpsed Reunion Tower in the Dallas skyline Rodney Atkins' song "It's America" was playing. Is it just corny patriotic sentiment, or is it how some people really feel about our country? I think I know which way country boys would jump on that question.

I was taking my exit in Plano. It had been a long day. The song on the radio was the Zac Brown Bands' "Chicken Fried" and I knew my trip was done.

And right now, I can't get John Denver out of my head.

* if you get the chance ... Mary's Cafe in Strawn, TX.

Just Because

2009-01-25T22:43:00.009-06:00

On January 20th, around lunch time, I was stopped at a traffic light with my window down. A Toyota Prius, one of those non-descript gray/green/taupe ones, pulled up beside me. The lady in the passenger seat rolled down her window and we had the following conversation:

lady: "Are you listening to the inauguration?"
me: "Yes."
lady: "Can you tell me what radio station you're listening to?"
me: "I'm listening on WBAP 820 AM."
lady: "Ugh. Isn't that Limbaugh!"
me: "Yes it is. Doesn't NPR come pre-programmed on the Prius?"

She rolled her window up and they hummed away in a huff.

Just because I drive a compact car doesn't mean I voted for Obama.

One day I was at the dog park letting the poodle run and had the following conversation with a lady who was wearing Birkenstocks. She had three rescue dogs named Eco, Gaia and Che.

lady: "I've never seen a black and white poodle. Is he a mix?"
me: "No, he's a pure-bred ... registered standard poodle."
lady: "Oh. So he's not a rescue or from a shelter? He's registered?"
me: "Yes. I got him from a breeder in Oklahoma."
lady: "Well, at least you didn't get him from a pet store."
me: "Pet store puppies need love, too."
lady: "Well, we don't need to encourage the puppy mills. Using animals for profit just seems wrong, don't you think?"
me: "Without profit there would be no veterinary science industry or 'holistic' dog food or animal shelters."
lady: "Animal shelters are NOT for PROFIT!"
me: "Without profit somewhere, where would the money come from to support 'non-profit' animal shelters?"
lady: "They are run on donations with volunteer efforts."
me: "Somewhere along the line, someone had to make enough profit to afford a donation."
lady: "You know, typically shelter dogs are more balanced than ones that come from breeders. Pure bred dogs have a lot of behavior and health issues."
me: "You think so? Did you notice that Che has chewed all the hair off his ass and that Gaia [Ed. note: a female beagle looking mix] is trying to hump that basset hound?"

Just because I paid a breeder for my dog doesn't make me a bad person.

On another dog park excursion the poodle started playing with an
overweight Bichon Frise. The owner of the Bichon, a thin man, 40ish, in a shiny yellow soccer warmup, asked me about the poodle.

man: "I've never seen a black and white standard before. Is she purebred?"
me: "He's a boy, and yes, he's a full blood standard. They call them 'parti-colored'."
man: "Oh. I didn't look at his 'business', I just saw the purple collar and assumed it was girl. Sorry about that."
me: "No problem. My wife picked out the collar because it matches the car."
man: "Your wife?"

Just because I have a standard poodle doesn't mean I'm gay.

One Friday afternoon, at the office, a couple of co-workers and I had
the following conversation.

co-worker1: "So, big plans for the weekend?"
me: "Not really. We've got a couple of church things going on ... nothing too exciting."
co-worker2: "Church? What church do you go to?"
me: "A Presbyterian church in North Dallas. Bentwood Trail."
co-worker1: "Heh heh heh. Yeah. I'm going to worship, too. We're having spaghetti tonight."
co-worker2: "Heh heh heh. Yeah. Me too. Spaghetti. Meatballs. We're gonna be touched by his noodly appendage."
me: "That's nice. Hey, you guys should be Pastafarian missionaries. Take the message to the Muslims in Saudi Arabia or something. Christians are too easy, everybody ridicules them, you should be bold and take a stand for your beliefs ... teach the Muslims the error of their ways."
co-worker1: "No way, dude. Christians have preachers that get caught with their pants down, Muslims have suicide bombers."
me: "Good point. You better stick with ridiculing the tolerant."

Just because I'm a Christian, doesn't mean I support creation science.

The conversation continued.

co-worker1: "No. Really. Seriously. Is your car going to be 'unmanned' when 'The Rapture' comes."
me: "No. I'm not too concerned about eschatology."
co-worker2: "Eska-what?"
me: "End times theology/philosophy. The end of the world."
co-worker1: "The end of the world? The bible talks about global warming?"
co-worker2: "Sure! You never heard of hellfire and brimstone?"
co-worker1: "What about gay people?"
me: "What?"
co-worker1: "Gay people. Do they go to hell?"
co-worker2: "I bet gay people aren't Christian."
me: "I bet they aren't Muslim."
co-worker1: "Do they? Go to hell?"
me: "I don't think so, no."
co-worker1: "Don't all Christians think all homosexuals go to hell?"
me: "Do all homosexuals think all Christians are homophobes?"
co-worker2: "Yeah, I think they do."

Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I believe in 'The Rapture', snake handling, bombing abortion clinics or persecuting homosexuals.

A friend of mine was having a problem with his PC.

friend: "Hey, you do computer stuff all day, can you help with me a problem."
me: "No."
friend: "I'm trying to get my Sony camera to work with my Dell PC."
me: [ silence, with a practiced look of extreme disinterest ]
friend: "I think the driver won't load because it's not a Sony computer."
me: "I doubt that's the problem."
friend: "Do you want to come over and look at it?"
me: "No."
friend: "Oh, okay, well, I can send you an email with the error message."
me: "No. Don't."
friend: "Oh, you know what the problem is?"
me: "No, I don't. I don't do Windows."
friend: "Well, you do computer stuff all day. This would be easy for you."
me: "I don't do Windows. I don't fix problems with Windows. That's not what I do."
friend: "Why not?"
me: "Because it sucks and every time I have to use it, it steals a little peace from my soul."
friend: "Oh ... I don't know what to do if you can't help."
me: "Maybe you can find a Dell camera on eBay."
friend: "Good idea!"

Just because I 'work on computers' doesn't mean I work on Windows.

Just because I'm a conservative, middle-aged, Christian white guy don't assume I fit your stereotype. On second thought, go ahead and stereotype me ... I'm not too concerned about your opinion or being politically correct ... I'm going to do what I think is right regardless.

The Quicksand of Reason

2009-01-09T01:01:00.008-06:00

George Carlin once did a bit called "The Planet is Fine" in which he argued that all the talk of saving the planet was wasted effort because, eventually, it will be the people that die, while the planet keeps spinning. He said, "And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat?", meaning how arrogant of us to think we have powers of planetary scope.

While it may be true (and a tad depressing to think about) that we will someday pollute ourselves to death, it wasn't that specific idea that caught my attention. The interesting part, for me, was how our conceit influences every discussion we have. It was a genius observation. We are arrogant.

... the image of the Lord had been replaced by a mirror.
Jorge Luis Borges

There's talk of introducing a genetically modified mosquito that isn't capable of spreading malaria. Wouldn't that be marvelous and save a lot of lives? The people proposing this would do well to remember the lessons of introducing non-native species like cane toads, Africanized bees, and grass carp ... much less a genetically engineered species. Sometimes we outsmart ourselves, don't we?

We look back and laugh at doctors who bled patients to cure them of fevers, but how well do you think chemotherapy and breast enlargements will handle the test of time? All you have to do is listen to the wide range of possible side affects in any prescription drug advertisement to realize that they are in the business of selling drugs, not in improving health. Instead of Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound for Female Problems we now have an alphabet soup of prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction. Aren't we the sophisticated ones.

At the root of this, like Carlin said, is conceit. And our ego isn't satisfied with simply claiming complete knowledge, we have to take it one step further and claim that each and every problem is so complex that common sense just won't suffice. This type of pride, this excessive love of self, is thought of as the original, most serious and ultimate source of all sin, but we proudly put it on display every day.

Israel and Gaza are at war and much has been said about causes, disproportionate responses and moral correctness. How many times have we heard that there is no resolution to the enmity ... and we've heard that for what, 5,000 years? I'm sure that Middle East experts would say I'm over simplifying, but it seems to me that if there is no chance of a negotiated settlement (and given that the primary tenet of Hamas is the destruction of Israel I'd say that's a fair assumption) then somebody has to kick somebody else's ass to settle this thing ... there needs to be a clear winner.

But no, we have to analyze the property rights for the past millennium and balance injustice against privilege and rationalize the morality of using innocents as shields and public relations pawns. And don't forget to take time to express some outrage at the brutality of war (if you listen closely you can hear the "tsk, tsk" of the pontificating celebrities) ... because we are the thoughtful, civilized and progressive people of the world.

Advocates of diplomacy, forbearance and restraint try to stake out the moral high ground by saying "we must negotiate as equals" and "we should not impose our western ideals on these oppressed people." How condescending. If we were truly negotiating as equals we would say "these are our ideals, if you agree with them, welcome to our world, brother." Instead we make excuses and say "their oppression has kept them from developing to our higher, civilized standards" or "our commoners aren't sophisticated enough to embrace the diversity of our separate cultures so please, do what you wish to undermine/enlighten us."

Our arrogance, apparently, gives us super powers. Just ask the scientist who can explain the whole universe with his own reasoning, the fundamentalist Christian who is more perfect than you and the politician that lists saving the planet as a 'to do' in his day planner - they all have the answers. I fear, however, that they may have simply lulled themselves into a false sense of competence.

George Sand, pictured here, once wrote, "Vanity is the quicksand of reason."

Teachers

2009-01-02T21:54:00.004-06:00

In several entries here I've mentioned teachers. Today I came across three small books that I've apparently had for some time. They are books of poetry written by a couple of my high school teachers. One book, Selected Poems 1959-1988, was written by my senior year English teacher, Mr. A.R. Nooncaster. The other two, Candles at Noon and Triumphant Moment, were written by Elaine Ledbetter, my Chemistry teacher.

The photos I've included here were taken from a website created by R. Malcolm Brown, Jr. about the 40th reunion of the Pampa High School class of 1957. No, I wasn't in school then, but I found it incredibly interesting that these photos, from 1957, were of teachers that were still teaching at PHS in 1977. In the picture above, Mr. Graham, on the left, was my junior year history teacher. Mrs. Torvie, next to him, was still teaching English in 1975.

I don't think they make teachers like they used to, or maybe I'm just suffering from Good Ol' Days Syndrome.

Mr. Nooncaster is on the far right. They probably
had to seat him, otherwise, at 6' 5", his head would
be out of frame.

POST-MORTEM
by A.R. Nooncaster

When I am dead, my foes will say,
Without a qualm, without delay,
That I was moody and aloof,
Too sensitive to bear reproof,
Demanding much and quick to flame
At others with a lesser aim,
Impatient, hard, and sometimes rude
To those I should have wisely wooed,
Volatile and vehement,
Explosive in an argument,
Too blunt in speech, too prone to see
The failings of humanity,
And in other ways perverse,
My friends, I fear, will say much worse.

Mrs. Ledbetter, with the camera.
Mrs. Morgan, Miss Dozier and Mr. Bowman.
Miss Dozier was my sophomore English teacher.
Mr. Bowman was one of my Driver's Ed instructors.

My Gifts
by Elaine Ledbetter

Each time I pause
To think upon the vast array
Of gifts bestowed
Unearned, unsought upon my way,
I bow in deep humility.

The more I have
The more I owe. How great my debt!
God, prick my heart
With pointed pain should I forget
My trust and use them selfishly.

Mr. Rice, far left, was my sophomore year Algebra
II teacher.

Conflict Management

2008-12-31T13:09:00.016-06:00

I just got back from a long weekend in New York City. It was a great trip, and we saw lots of wonderful things. I am amazed every time I go there, not only with the size and scope and scale of it all, but also with the history, the complexity and the romance. It is a wonderment.

It was sixty something degrees on Sunday afternoon, and we were riding the Miss Ellis Island ferry back from the Liberty and Ellis Island tours. The sun was going down and the skyline was glowing. I was so proud to be a part of the land of the free, the land of opportunity. And I felt so fortunate and grateful for having the chance to share the experience with my family and friends. The trip to New York was our family Christmas gift.

You know that feeling you get on Christmas night or the last day of vacation when you ask yourself if the occasion lived up to the hype? You get that let-down, guilty feeling because you know you've been blessed but you wish there was something more? Here I was, riding on the top deck of a ferry in perfect December weather, surrounded by friends and family, admiring the glow from Lady Liberty's torch and how it seemed to be reflected in the entire, magnificent skyline of Manhattan, yet I could not shake an angry, anxious feeling. I should have been feeling peace or pride or thankfulness, but instead, I was perturbed.

I think the root of my anxiety was that I could not resolve the conflicting messages I had received throughout the whole weekend.

The city was incredibly crowded. At times it was impossible to move on the sidewalk, and stores like Macy's and M&M World in Times Square must have been over the fire marshal's limit. And yet every news cast and every headline crawl on the overhead signs was predicting economic ruin and even blaming America for the global downturn.

"Save the planet" marketing was evident everywhere. The hotel urged re-using towels to conserve water, and signs in every subway car asked passengers to dispose of trash properly. The horses pulling the carriages in Central Park wore diapers, and Ricoh proudly displayed Times Square's only wind and solar powered billboard. But the streets and subways were covered with litter. The majority of taxis were poorly maintained gas guzzling sedans. Our ferry had to negotiate around an enormous trash barge on the way to Liberty Island. This media mecca has apparently adopted the 'do as I say, not as I do' plan for environmental sensitivity.

The cultural diversity, as always, was amazing. The languages, the street vendor food and the wide variety of religions represented let you know that this was truly a global city. Unfortunately, diversity does not always come with respect. The narthex in St. Patrick's cathedral was littered with Starbuck's cups and food wrappers, and inside the cathedral I saw Hindu visitors using the kneeling pads as foot rests while loudly making dinner plans and some Middle Eastern gentlemen(?) pointing and laughing at the Nativity Scene, why I don't know. On the ferry I heard a French(?) couple patiently explaining to a couple from Indiana why Bush was a war criminal and why Europe was excited that we had finally elected a president more palatable to them. Our Texas accents were remarked upon as well. I suppose, as long as you are not a midwestern Christian American, the cultural diversity is quite comforting.

The local news was typical. There were stories about innocent people being shot, about the perils of being homeless in the winter and about the economic challenges of earning a living in NYC. The shooting stories were often followed by police or politicians preaching gun control, as though that keeps criminals from getting guns. Tied to the homeless story was another one about a proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee affordable housing to every U.S. citizen, promoted by Charles Rangel (D), NY. There was, however, no effort to tie the economic difficulties of living in NYC with the tax rate, corruption or expansive government programs.

The most subtle conflict was more of an impression than a direct observation. Here was marvelous Manhattan, with its incomprehensible density and wealth and infrastructure, and yet even if you didn't know about September 11th, you would probably be able to feel the hole in the skyline. At our hotel, they were opening the trunks of every vehicle and checking under them with mirrors. There were two security screenings before being allowed into the Statue of Liberty, and even with that you could only tour the base. One bicyclist, trying to maneuver through the crowds, yelled at the top of his lungs, "Down! Down! Down! Everybody Down!" and though I didn't see anyone hit the deck, everyone who heard him froze in their tracks.

What perturbs me most, what makes me anxious, is not the pollution or the politics or even the hints of insecurity. It is, instead, the startling, though mostly unmentioned, conflict between who we say we are and what we do. We say liberty, but ridicule the religious and censor alternative opinions. We say opportunity but regulate the playing field and remove the penalties for failure. I wonder, as with Christmases and vacations, if I'm simply expecting too much.

I could lower my expectations, but I don't want to limit Christmas to parties, feasts and gifts, and I don't want to confine my country by removing the struggle necessary for achievement. A 'Merry Christmas', with all its required spirituality, is much more satisfying than a generic 'Happy Holidays', just as liberty and opportunity are much more exhilarating than comfort.

Intellectual Cowardice

2008-12-23T18:57:00.008-06:00

A friend of mine tells me he is agnostic, though I'm fairly certain that with his 'hip' friends he claims atheism. He suspects I would forcibly take him to church for the sake of his eternal soul, but he would be wrong. I'm Presbyterian. He doesn't discriminate between denominations; he thinks we are all trying to abscond with his soul and/or his money.

He never passionately argues his beliefs, but he does like to trot out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Church of Google and Westboro Baptist Church. And in justifying his non-belief he, of course, leans heavily on the Earth being more than 6,000 years old, that the story of the Flood was stolen from the Sumerians and that what Jesus wouldn't do is invade Iraq. But there is no passion in his arguments because it's not personal; a personal argument would require a thorough self inspection, which is difficult to do.

I've often thought that people who subscribe to this sort of "easy answer intellectualism" were just being lazy. They get news and opinion, in a highly digestible format, from Jon Stewart and David Letterman, and stimulating policy discussion from Bill Maher and Oprah Winfrey. Environmentalists get all the science they'll ever need from Ed Begley, Jr. and Al Gore. Religion? The obvious experts would be Madonna or Tom Cruise, but for the more discriminating there is always Bill Moyers . If Jason Bourne can summarize Sarah Palin's entire faith into a question about dinosaurs, I mean, come on, how much analysis do you really need to do?

The laziness excuse, however, seems a bit simplistic. I see people investing enormous amounts of energy every day into evaluating MP3 players or researching the nutritional content of dry dog food. The mental gymnastics required to economically justify the purchase of a hybrid car, or to convince yourself that George W. Bush is a war criminal, may be based on figments, but they are probably not from mental fatigue. Apathetic people don't put forth the intellectual effort to delude themselves, like we saw in the hopey-change of this year's election, but frightened people do.

Frightened people, like my agnostic/atheist friend, don't do a lot of in-depth self analysis. They are looking for someone to save them, like the scientist or the government, because saving yourself is hard and you might have to make choices you don't like. Hopefully their savior has reasonable answers that won't require too much individual effort. In fact, it's best if the answers only require effort from others, like taxing those bad rich people, or legislatively hamstringing those evil, polluting corporations. Advocates of change are almost always wanting someone else to change, because they, obviously, are already enlightened.

My argument here is that easy solutions are cowardly, because they do not require introspection or sacrifice. You can argue against the existence of the soul with rational tools like the scientific method, but are you willing to make those same arguments when you or a loved one is dying? You can argue that mortgaging the economic future is acceptable because the economy is in crisis now, but how shallow will those arguments sound when your children cannot reach their potential?

If you believe in God, don't take some pastor's word for it, own your faith. If you believe in America, don't adopt some celebrity concept of political correctness, be committed to what is fundamental and important to being an American*. If it's not personal, in either faith or politics, it's not true. The hard part is finding the truth within. Don't be an intellectual coward. Don't be frightened, be desperate. Figure it out for yourself.

* Adlai Stevenson said to the American Legion in 1952 ... "Men who have offered their lives for their country know that patriotism is not fear of something; it is the love of something."

Loving Candy

2008-12-23T14:53:00.005-06:00

Yes, that's me on iowahawk's blog.

In my defense, it was 1979 (as evidenced by the Playboy cover) and the legal drinking age was 18. I debated about posting a link to it, but then I said, "I can't dance and it's too wet to plow."*

Of course, the fact that my mother doesn't own a computer factored into my decision, too.

* 1979 Texas panhandle lingo that roughly translates to today's "WTF"

Old Men

2008-12-19T18:31:00.007-06:00

One of my nephews has always had an outgoing, easy-to-talk-to way about him. When he was six or so he chased down the garbage truck and said something to the effect of "Hey fellas! I was supposed to take out the trash this morning but I forgot. You've already gone past our house but I was wondering if you couldn't run back by and pick it up before my Mom finds out I forgot." And danged if they didn't do it for him.

My brother-in-law and I were discussing this nephew's gift the other day after nephew had called and told us that a friend of a friend of his knew of a rifle for sale that we might be interested in. He was out in East Texas, deer and hog hunting. He was planning to stop in and visit with an older couple that lived out near Mineola. He knew them because they were friends with my in-laws, his grandparents. How many twenty-three year old men do that? Just stop in and visit or call up an elderly couple to check on them?

I think he's on to something. As I think back there have been an awful lot of old men that have made an impression on me and provided great examples on how to act like an upright, honest man. Not that all the lessons took, but I do remember them. I know I've written a lot about my Dad here, we all learn a lot from our fathers, but I'm talking about just regular old men, guys my nephew might pick up the phone to check on.

When I was in high school I worked at Pampa Hardware Company on Cuyler Street in downtown Pampa. The Lively family owned it. Travis Lively Sr. had started the business with a man named Thompson a long time ago, like maybe the 1920's, and when I worked there, in the late 1970's, his son, Travis Jr., was running it. Travis Sr. was pretty old by then, and pretty scary ... he looked like the classic mean old man who lived down the street ... until you got to know him.

Travis Sr. taught me a lot of things, like the importance of saving something out of every paycheck. Pampa Hardware was my first "real" job with a paycheck. I was also impressed at how dedicated he was to his church, the First Methodist Church in Pampa. He brought his Bible to work and studied it regularly. He was always extremely considerate of his wife and all the other ladies around the store. His attention to detail was pretty amazing, as well as his consistently high standards. He would pause before answering a question, as if to let you know that he put some effort into it. He was an old man, and didn't move very quickly but he always carried himself like a gentlemen.

Of course there are plenty of old men in the family that were great examples. Shorty Barnett, my wife's grandfather, was an old guy with lots of life and a hard working, simple ethic about him that I always admired. My father-in-law, Darvis, has always been a dependable and happy and caring man. My uncle Ivan, who was always kind-hearted to a bunch of heathen kids and loved to joke and horse around with us, showed me it was okay to act like a kid even when you're old. I remember Mom referring to Dad as "the Old Man" a lot, but I never took it to be derogatory.

When I stop to think about it, I could probably fill up this blog with the bits and pieces I've learned from men who some would consider past their prime. There was Fryson, one of our neighbors growing up, who we could always count on for a piece of 2 x 4 for a project or a 25 cent chore if we wanted to get a soda. There was Othel, who was my supervisor when I worked in the oil patch during college summers, who demonstrated that slow and steady can actually win a race. There was the man who was at the nursing home, visiting his wife, every time I was there to visit my Dad. He was there every time because he was there every day. There was Mr. Howard, who worked in a fast food kitchen with me many Friday and Saturday nights during my college years. He was hard-headed and gruff and energetic and dependable and consistent. There was the farmer who pulled my truck out of a ditch with his tractor while patiently explaining the dangers of soft shoulders, both kinds. There was the old cowboy who told me I shouldn't complain about the smell of manure because "for some of us, it smells like grocery money."

Anyway, I think the nephew is on to something. I think we could all get some benefit from visiting with an old man from time to time. I hope, if you're a young man you've got plenty of old men around to learn from. I hope, if you're a middle aged man that you've got a solid grasp of the legacy you need to build and the standards you need to set. And I hope, if you're an old man, that you know we appreciate you.

Hey, wait a minute! Nephew called me for no good reason, just to check up. Surely he doesn't think I'm an old man already!

God and Democrats

2008-12-16T06:19:00.023-06:00

I'm currently reading two books. I do that sometimes. And sometimes I'm amazed at how a sentence or paragraph in one book will complement or clarify a point in the other one, especially if they are two distinctly different topics. I'm currently reading The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes and The Language of God by Francis Collins. Shlaes is writing about the history of the Great Depression, and Collins is a world renown scientist explaining his belief in God. God and Democrats ... I think it's fair to describe those topics as distinctly different.

Sometimes when I'm reading, I'll pause and re-read a sentence or a paragraph either because I'm distracted or because I didn't understand it or because its just clunky. But sometimes I read it again because I need extra time to fully appreciate it and I try to connect the dots between what the author is saying and what experience has taught me. Here's a couple of snippets from each of the books mentioned above that I read more than once for that reason.

Collins, in discussing why God allows suffering in the world, writes:

For many thoughtful seekers, these rational explanations fall short of providing a justification for the pain of human existence. Why is our life more a vale of tears than a garden of delight? Much has been written about this apparent paradox, and the conclusion is not an easy one: if God is loving and wishes the best for us, then perhaps His plan is not the same as our plan. This is a hard concept, especially if we have been too regularly spoon-fed a version of God's benevolence that implies nothing more on His part than a desire for us to be perpetually happy.

I don't think there is anything especially unique there, it's a pretty standard response to the question. But when I read the following from Shlaes' book it tickled my "go back and re-read" response which helped me make a connection between the two.

Shlaes, in discussing a Roosevelt strategy session from November of 1937, writes:

At the end of November, Jackson accompanied the president on a fishing trip. Hopkins and Ickes - who at times feuded bitterly - were also aboard the Potomac, sharing a cabin. The four prepared political strategy: specifically, an assault on the wealthy. Roosevelt caught a large mackerel early on, but it was Jackson who had the biggest catch of the trip, a barracuda of more than twenty-five pounds. If any of them considered the incongruity of planning a class war on a yacht, they did not mention it.

Initially I think I connected the two passages because of the 'vale of tears' vs. 'garden of delight' phrase. The other book is about the Great Depression, which certainly qualifies as a tearful time, though FDR and friends were out enjoying the delightful garden that God provides. The details of who caught what provided by Shlaes is a nice touch since it shows they weren't all business, they had a varied agenda.

I can imagine the yacht scene with leisurely fishing and serious discussions over cocktails while safely distanced from and undistracted by the realities of the economy. This image is where I made another connection. These elite citizens, carefully planning strategy to reach their own lofty goals, and "His plan is not the same as our plan" have the similar root of arrogance.

In reading about the planned assault on the wealthy, I was trying to understand why they would consider that as a strategy, especially since FDR was in that class. I couldn't understand if it was guilt, political expediency or socialist ideology that made 'attack the rich' seem appropriate. Tearing down the wealthy to raise up the poor seemed like it evolved from the concept of 'a spoon-fed benevolent God' and I wondered, was FDR playing God? Was he trying to replace the commonly promoted benevolent God with government programs?

Then there is the suffering. In God's plan, everyone can expect adversity. In FDR's plan one group, the wealthy, will receive intentionally inflicted hardships. At first glance, FDR's plan seems more thoughtful or sensitive or morally correct ... make a few, who have plenty already, suffer for the benefit of the whole. But the idea of a targeted punishment doesn't fit with creating a world of 'perpetual happiness' and it takes us right back to the question of why God, or in this case the government, would actively promote the oppression of any group.

I don't believe that God uses suffering as punishment. I see it as a by-product of experience and self improvement; it's simply the price you pay for the benefits of living in this world. I'm not sure we can ever know FDR's true intentions for targeting the rich. You could make the case that his reasons were emotional, political, ideological or perhaps ( in some universe other than mine ) rational and practical, but I don't think you can make the case that his reasons were moral.

Some may argue that the reasons were moral, because taking from the rich was not a punishment, but necessary to improve society. Maybe Roosevelt believed that the love of money was the root of all evil and therefore the right thing to do would be to take the money away and inhibit the ability to create more. Maybe that would, eventually, change our social ideas about wealth and its accumulation.

The problem is that morals have no point unless people are free to act. If you are coerced into doing the right thing, power, not morality, is the influencing factor. It follows that if you want to enforce ( or is it inflict? ) your morality on others then you must be powerful. You need to create it, pursue it and collect it. I don't think FDR was trying to improve us by removing the temptations of wealth. I think he was simply in love with power because he needed it to remake the country to his personal specifications.

Perhaps I should summarize the connection I see for clarity's sake.

God allows free will. Democrats don't. They should quit playing God.

Conservative Bargains

2008-12-10T21:17:00.007-06:00

I was listening to the radio last week, specifically Mark Davis on WBAP in Ft. Worth, and he had a short rant about Walmart. Basically his contention was that if you were a Walmart hater ... because they put Mom & Pop's out of business or because they are adamantly anti-union or because they are cheapo employers or because they are highly successful capitalists ... then you have to ask yourself if you are really a conservative. Being a long time Walmart hater I thought I should at least review my position and reasoning on how I got there.

There is no doubt that Walmart is a success. They run a tight ship, they know their market, they know the rules and they are focused. In any competitive arena those traits are admired and contribute to an organization's success. I am sure that K-Mart continually compares themselves to Walmart, trying to emulate or undermine them. Whether it's Walmart, the Yankees, the United States or the most popular kid in class, everyone loves a winner ... but might enjoy seeing them brought down a notch or two as well.

I'm not a Walmart hater because they are successful. It's not their success I dislike, it's they way they achieve it. Simply put, I don't like the way they do business. If they were playing by the rules and simply out performing the competition that would be one thing, but that's not how I see it. I think they are unethical bullies and cheats that hide behind the markets desire for "low prices" to justify their behavior.

There are many, many examples of Walmart's less than ethical behavior with vendors and employees ... just google "Walmart" and "time theft", "vlasic", "huffy" or "tax breaks" ... but my dislike of Walmart began, like for many others, when Walmart effectively killed the downtown, family businesses in Pampa. The market determined that Walmart and "low prices" were apparently more important than whatever service or other intangibles the family owned businesses offered. I didn't like it, but apparently the consumers did so who was I to judge?

I assumed that Walmart negotiated for tax breaks, drove hard bargains with vendors and worked to keep employment costs low so that they could deliver on their "low prices" promise and I was okay with that. And then I spent some time at Walmart headquarters in Bentonville, AR and what I saw let me know that it was more than just good, clean competition that created their success, it was a culture of intimidation.

Security procedures for entering the building were very strict and included metal detectors, software scans of personal computers, confiscation of cell phones with cameras, copying of government issued ID and signing a code of conduct and release of liability. Once in the building visitors must have an employee escort them everywhere, including the restroom. Visitors are not allowed to power on any equipment or use any computer connected to their network. There was a mandatory meeting in an auditorium, basically a pep rally led by management, and if employees could not attend in person they were required to watch the video replay during their lunch break. Employees could not accept anything from a vendor, including a 25 cent Sam's Cola purchased from the break room. If an employee went to eat with a vendor they had to turn in a receipt proving they paid for their own lunch.

All of this could be seen as simply tight controls, necessary to keep costs down, and they probably work. But the interaction with employees let you know they felt intimidated, that they knew they were being watched and that zero tolerance was always in place. You might argue that if employees felt intimidated they could always go elsewhere. Really? In Bentonville, AR?

All of this probably makes little difference to Walmart except that it keeps me from shopping there in all but the most dire circumstances. And though my friends and family know my dislike of the company, I'm not sure it's really worthy of a blog entry, except for one thing ... I think it is possible to dislike Walmart and still be a conservative.

My Dad told me once that the things you dislike in others are a good indication of what you don't like about yourself. I'm thinking that's why Walmart and the labor unions are constantly at each other's throats ... they are both supremely self interested and intimidating bullies.

Congruent

2008-12-04T14:17:00.011-06:00

In high school geometry class Mrs. Casey ( who hated me* ) demanded that we pronounce the word "congruent" as KON-grent instead of kon-GROO-ent. She was adamant about it, to the point where she immediately and loudly corrected anyone who used the GROO ...

Gentlemen, the word is KON-grent, there is no GROO in it. You must pronounce the word correctly to learn it and apply it. How can you master the concept if you can't master the pronunciation!

I suppose it was just a chain yanker for her, or perhaps she thought it actually made a difference in the geometry world. Who knows? But it was her class, that's the way she wanted it and that's the way it was. We all said KON-grent.

I thought about Mrs. Casey and congruency as I was pondering the whole auto industry bailout thing. Oh, excuse me, I meant "bridge loan."

The government and the auto execs cannot solve this problem because it's not a money problem, it's a congruency problem. The auto makers exist in a market, but somehow they think the solution to their problems exists outside of the world in which they live. Why would the government, a monopoly that prints money, literally, and whose "customers" are more like "subjects", know anything about markets? It's crazy, that's like going to the post office for medical treatment ... oh, wait, they want us to do that too, don't they?

In a market there is no such thing as "too big to fail."

It's incongruent and inconsistent. That's the problem with many things that are driving me crazy lately. Terrorists and lunatics use violence, but we must use diplomacy? Some say that science negates the need for religion, yet some of the same people use science to justify worshipping Gaia and they shout down scientists who disagree with them! The private sector people investing in and trading bad mortgages must be prosecuted, but Dodd and Frank and all the other creators of the problem should not be? In two weeks we hear more than we want to know about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, but we elect a president who is still a mystery?

I don't understand why our actions are not consistent with American principles. Did someone change them and not tell me? Perhaps we need Mrs. Casey to explain 'America' ...

Gentlemen, this is America, not Europe, not Asia or any other place where 'government' is synonymous with 'nanny.' You should learn what being an American means and be congruent with THAT in all your actions.

Great presidents, and great leaders in general, know who they are, what they stand for and can communicate those principles. And countries aren't great because they have an auto industry, they are great because of their principles. Too many people think this is a money problem, and they are either for or against the bailout, er, bridge loan, based upon economics. It's NOT the economy and it never should have been. It's about principles, or is that the change you wanted?

* Mrs. Casey really did hate me, and I blame Curtis Haynes. It was the first day of class and Mrs. Casey said "I don't assign homework" and Curtis said, "Good, because I don't do homework." ... at which point Mrs. Casey spun around and looked directly at me. She thought I said it. With her red, jowly face shaking she said, "And I don't tolerate smart asses." She tried to get me kicked out of National Honor Society. She accused me of cheating and sent me to the principal because I had the same answer as someone else on a test. My defense was, "It's GEOMETRY. We're SUPPOSED to have the same answer!" On the last day of school I tried to make nice and told her I was sorry we did not get along but that I learned a lot. Her last words to me were "You little bastard. Do not darken my door again." I now say kon-GROO-ent.

Happy Days ARE Here Again

2008-12-01T17:23:00.003-06:00

I'm way behind the curve on this. In fact, TIME was apparently way behind, too ... since they stole the image idea from a blogger. But anyway, what's gotten me up to speed on this is Amity Shlaes' book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.

I started reading it during the election and had to put it down. It was way too creepy. A master politician with great charisma runs for president and wins, not because he is qualified but because he is different, charismatic and skilled at creating class envy. You get one guess on who the press was in the tank for in 1932.

After Obama won I thought it would be safe to pick it back up. I was wrong. Now it's even creepier.

Once elected FDR surrounded himself with name brand politicians, but put folks with "new" ideas in key advisory roles and he used his position to tinker with the economy, trying to shape it along more collectivist lines. Communism was the way of the future! Of course, at the time, it had not been proven to be a complete failure yet and so this time around we get benevolent socialism as the model. Scary stuff.

But it gets even worse. Under the National Recovery Administration (NRA) pricing and wages were codified. And they prosecuted small businesses, the case Shlaes' detail is Schecter vs. United States, for violating the codes ... not only did they prosecute them, they specifically targeted the Schechter brothers to make an example of them! Very nasty stuff ... and not unimaginable in today's world, either.

So let's be honest here, which is scarier, the big, mean capitalists on Wall St. or government prosecution?

As I read farther it's apparent that FDR didn't really have a plan, other than to get re-elected. He was willing to change positions at any time for political purposes. He wrote the book on creating social divisions and then pandering to the separate groups who could get him elected. He had no qualms about hanging supporters and mentors out to dry. He was attempting a new, bold experiment to make us "better" ... to reform us from evil capitalism.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Happy days ARE here again, unless of course you're the subject of the experiment.

Double Duty

2008-11-25T16:31:00.012-06:00

Dad was in the market for a one ton dooley truck. We drove to Amarillo, to Plains Chevrolet, because they had several without beds and he wanted to put a custom flat bed on it. We looked at several on the lot before a salesman with a polyester tie, that was much too short (or perhaps his belly was too big) came out and asked if we needed some help.

After some discussion out on the windy lot about engines and transmissions and such we repaired to his "office" ... a glass walled closet with a desk, a filing cabinet, a calculator and an overflowing ashtray. We sat in molded plastic chairs while our new friend took down pertinent information.

At one point the salesman made some comment like "It looks like that orange truck is the one that fits what you need. What do you want to give for it?" I had never been part of any sort of price negotiation before and I thought it was quite generous of the man to let us make the first offer. Dad didn't see it that way and replied with a phrase that I have used many times. Dad paused for a second or two, as if he was thinking about throwing out a number and then he stood up slowly and said,

Son ... I can't do the buyin' and the sellin' both.

Then he looked at me, said "Come on, let's get some dinner." and we headed out of the office.

Predictably, the salesman caught up with us and began the 'let me talk to my manager' dance. They got down to an acceptable price, Dad said he'd think about it and we went and got some dinner. We came back and bought the truck after we got done eating.

Fundamentally, the problem with any government program, whether it's a bailout or national health care or social security, is that we, the citizen and the consumer, the source of funds and the recipients of the services, are responsible for both ends of the transaction ... and the government just sits in the middle, collecting its commission.

I understand that the transaction is not always perfectly balanced, that some citizens pay in more than they receive and vice versa, but I'm talking about the collective we, as in 'we the people.' And we are getting screwed in this deal.

I've often said I just don't get it ... why anyone would think that the government has any answers to problems, but I'm beginning to realize that where you ride on the transactional teeter-totter probably determines what you think of the deal in general. If you pay your taxes and take care of your own business then extra taxes are just a burden you don't really need because you likely won't take advantage of all the services. It's a bad deal. If you pay few or no taxes and depend on programs for a job or health care or housing then you might think it's a good deal.

I'm rarely afraid to stretch an analogy too far so let's say that the two people on the teeter-totter represent the opposite ends of this transaction. The person on the ground is the taxpayer. The person in the air is dependent on programs. I can understand why the person on the ground gets tired if it's their job to keep the other person up all the time. And I understand why the person in the air is nervous, they have no control of their situation and they might even be a little envious of the ground person's position.

But what I still don't understand is why either of them tolerate the government, standing off to the side shouting ...

KEEP IT LEVEL!
STOP IT YOU'RE BOUNCING TOO MUCH!
YOU'RE KEEPING THEM TOO HIGH!
NO, YOU CAN'T BE ON THE GROUND!
STOP SWINGING YOUR LEGS! DON'T TRY TO CHANGE THE BALANCE!
JUST SIT STILL!
JUST LET ME TELL YOU WHAT TO DO!
DON'T LET THEIR FEET TOUCH THE GROUND!

When you are a kid you avoid the "bossy" kids on the playground like they had the ultimate uncool cooties. Unfortunately, it appears that the bossy kids have a talent for getting elected to office.

Overwhelmed

2008-11-18T21:02:00.006-06:00

If you think about it, it's overwhelming, the whole everything-is-a-crisis mindset. At least it is for people like me, who have to gather an inordinate amount of data before making any decision. It takes me six months to buy a car.

On the other hand, I do trust my gut when it comes to certain things, so I've decided to take a shot at applying my gut instincts to some big topics to see if I can pare down my personal list of big issue whelms.

Bailouts?
No. You don't give wine to a wino.

Iraq?
Yes. Finish what you start.

Environment?
Yes and no. Clean up after yourself. I'm not your mother.

National Health care?
No. You take care of your personal business and I'll take care of mine. Thanks anyway.

Gun Control?
Yes! Oh wait. I was thinking gun "safety", which should be required training ... for everyone.

Abortion?
No. Okay, maybe if it's the result of a sexual assault. But stop using the phrase "unwanted pregnancy" ... somebody involved wanted something!

Gay Marriage?
No. The sex is different, the building a family is different ... only the economics are similar to traditional marriage, so 'celebrate your differentness' and be 'spiritually contracted' or some such and leave the traditional stuff to people who respect traditions.

The Economy?
Simple ... lower taxes, cut government programs, de-regulate and stand back.

Energy?
Yes. More please, and thank you.

Iran? North Korea? Russia?
Two words ... military preparedness.

Poverty and oppression in third world countries?
Compassion, yes. Naivete, no.

Remembering Bessie

2008-11-16T21:48:00.013-06:00

I was scanning some photos when I came across this faded one of my first car, a 1956 Chevy. No, it wasn't the V8 Bel-Air model, it was a straight 6, 2 door, three on the tree, Model 210. The picture was taken in 1975, at Hobart Street Park in Pampa, Texas shortly after a new paint job. It wasn't a particularly fine paint job, but it was affordable. I called her Bessie.

I thought that I should scan the photo, save it, before it completely faded away.

Bessie had a semi-interesting history. Uncle Lonzo, my Dad's older brother, Marion Lonzo, bought the car for his daughter, my cousin Sue. Sue lived in California and though I'm not completely sure of the history, at some point M.L., which is what the adults called Uncle Lonzo, drove the car from California back to Texas. Through some brotherly dealings, and probably because it had several mechanical problems, Dad ended up with the car and drove it as his 'work car', as opposed to the 'family car' which was usually the newest model sedan in the fleet, though that didn't necessarily mean it was any more mechanically sound than the others. 'Work car' simply meant that it was safe to throw a transmission in the trunk or haul livestock in the back seat when necessary.

The car eventually ended up on blocks (meaning cinder blocks for those of you unfamiliar with the practice) in our back yard, behind the garage. At 15 I had an unquenchable lust for independent transportation so I started bugging my parents for a car, particularly my Dad because I knew he had a weakness for buying automobiles. Dad generously "gave" me the 56 Chevy, and thinking that might be my only shot at having a car of my own, I took it.

Aside from battery, tires, belts, hoses, muffler and assorted fluids, the car also needed a steering column, suspension bits, a shift linkage and U-joints. It probably needed an engine overhaul, too, but that was beyond my expertise and finances. At the time I took ownership I had no idea of the extensive repairs needed because the first order of business was to remove the four foot weeds growing up through the front grill and de-flea the trunk that had served as a dog house and nursery for some recent batch of puppies.

By the time I got my license, and with some mechanical assistance from Dad and friends, Bessie had come to life. Later, with financial assistance from Mom, came the paint job and a new vinyl interior. Bessie had been transformed from a back yard junker to, if not exactly stylish and enviable, at least unique transportation in an eclectic sort of way. I was 16. Eclectic was cool.

When I was a senior, Dad found a deal on a 1971 Chevy Monte Carlo at a used car lot in Booker, TX. It had a 350 V8, air conditioning, an automatic transmission, forest green metallic paint, rally wheels and a black vinyl roof. I was in love. My friend Don White rode up to Booker with me and Dad to pick it up one night in March. Don and I took it for a test drive while Dad negotiated. It had little or no gas in it so we put $5 worth in it at the Allsup's. Dad's comment was if we were going to spend that much on gas we might as well buy it. We drove it back in a dust storm. Bessie was parked again, but at least this time in the relative shelter of a tin garage.

In 1983, not long after I got married, I wrecked a 1974 Monte Carlo that had replaced the '71. I had no insurance and ended up selling the '74 to help pay for the damage on the other people's cars. We were living in Atlanta so I called my brother Bill, probably collect, and asked him to do what was necessary to get Bessie drivable. Cindy and I flew to Amarillo and drove Bessie from Pampa to Atlanta in the middle of summer. Cindy learned the value of a Kool-Cushion before we made it to U.S. 287.

Soon after we moved back to Texas, to Victoria, Bessie was again put into storage. After keeping her in the garage for a couple of years, with all the best intentions of doing a proper restoration*, I finally gave up the dream and sold her for $1200 to a high school kid who was lusting for some transportation.

So now, Bessie's memory, and photo, are preserved and though I may be the only person that cares, it is done.

Previously I mentioned Mr. Nooncaster, my senior English teacher at Pampa High School. One of his standard assignments was the infamous "Thursday Paper." We would show up in class, a topic would be written on the board, and we had the class period to write an essay related to it. When we returned to class on Friday he would have picked out exactly two papers to read to the class as examples of good compositions. The reason I bring this up here is because the only one of my Thursday compositions he ever read was one I wrote about my car, Bessie. I just remembered that fact. And I also remember the topic which was something like "details a casual observer might miss."

A lot of my life has, unintentionally I think, been devoted to preserving memories. I try to teach my son the things I was taught about family and community and country and God. I tell stories, not because they are historically important ... who cares about the old cars I have owned ... but because regardless of the topic, stories are more than preserved facts. We all read between the lines to assess ourselves and to understand the author. I worry about details a casual reader might not get, but I trust a careful reader will. I remember that Mr. Nooncaster chose my essay, and I remember the topic, and I wonder what I have done that will be remembered.

* example of a proper restoration

The Road to Happiness

2008-11-12T19:27:00.010-06:00

I read a comment today that took my thoughts in a totally unexpected direction. The comment was:

It's going to take a cultural re-definition of "enough" to cause any real change. It used to be that building a business and earning a good living, having something to pass along to the kids was "enough." Now it seems that there's no such thing as enough, and our society is paying the price.

The commentator was obviously referring to material possessions, "riches", and later went on to lament that too many people think that "things" will make them happy. The thrust of the argument was that corporations, businesses and people in general need to put the right things first; that until corporations make community contribution as important as profits, things will only get worse.

There's some truth there, and it certainly is a great jumping off point for railing against corporate greed, the evils of capitalism and the moral decay of our society, but what struck me was the admission that our culture needs to change. Greed and self-indulgence may be indicators of a decaying culture, and I assume they would be detrimental to a society, but is that the root of it all? I'm thinking it goes deeper.

There are many people who believe that when left to their own devices, people will behave badly and are irrevocably self interested. So we have programs like Social Security because we cannot trust families to take care of their own, or employers to provide decent retirement plans, or people to plan for their own retirement because they are inherently bad. We must prevent them from being that way; we must protect them from themselves. They believe that the most efficient way to get rid of this "badness" is through the force of law.

To make it simpler, let's call the people who see the world this way "Enlightened." They know best and they want you to behave to the standard they have defined. You can't be trusted to behave properly, unless of course you are Enlightened, in which case you fully understand and endorse the need to impose the proper standard on the non-Enlightened.

There's another group of people, we'll call them the "Enthusiasts", who think that people aren't really that bad. They think that if given an opportunity people will do the right thing. They admit that mistakes will be made, and that egregious mistakes should be punished, but that typical people in normal circumstances, while they may not behave perfectly, will at least behave acceptably. They don't, however, like other people (i.e., the Enlightened) telling them what to do.

The Enlightened believe, and have faith in, their ability to make sense of the world. They believe that with enough knowledge of how the machine works they can pull the right levers and push the right buttons and make the correct changes that will get us all on the road to happiness.

The Enthusiasts, however, believe in something bigger than themselves and that this bigger thing actually powers the machine. It could be a concept like freedom or love, it could be God or it could be their family, community or country. They believe that putting their faith into something bigger, something that exists outside themselves and that they can respond to but not control, is the best way to overcome their own flaws. They have guidance that works on themselves first, before it extends to others.

How is it that the Enlightened ones, who think that people are flawed and basically evil, have come to put so much trust in their own abilities? Could it be that they place themselves above the "common folk"; that they believe only "others" are evil, that they themselves are doing just fine? To put it bluntly, are they trying to take the place of God?

I am a human being. Human beings are flawed and corrupt. Except me, of course. I am so amazingly self aware that I can overcome my own flaws and still have time to fix yours.

Isn't that crazy talk?

The culture needs to change ... "we are the ones we've been waiting for!"..."Yes We Can!"..."Change We Can Believe In!"..."Our Time for Change!." The ironic thing is that this is "More of the Same." It's the same belief that fools us every time, that human solutions can fix a spiritual problem.

The comment was part of an argument that "things" don't bring happiness, that intangibles like family and safety and community are what make us truly happy. It's hard to argue against the truth of that sentiment, but I do have a question. Who built that road to happiness? Where do we get the concepts of love and family and community, the "things" that inspire true happiness? Are they human inventions, or programs provided by the government, or are they a spiritual inheritance that we instinctively know to follow?

Despite my concerns about current affairs, I'm still feeling surprisingly Enthusiastic.

Hooking Up

2008-11-08T21:29:00.008-06:00

When I was a boy our garage was full of crap ... old TV's, old toys stored up in the rafters, miscellaneous hub caps, nuts, bolts, washers, screws, nails, sledge hammers, sewer snakes, broken hair dryers, barbed wire, inner tubes (with repair kits), vacuum tubes, vacuum cleaners, vacuum hoses, insulation, insulators, insecticide, spray guns, nail guns, gunny sacks, 2x4s, 2x6s, 1x2s, wheel weights, valve stems, grease guns, grease zerks, axle grease, bearing grease, motor oil, machine oil, Marvel Mystery Oil ... you get the idea, but don't think I can't go on.

One of my favorite things to do was to head out to the garage and hook things together ... I called it playing 'Mad Inventor'. I'd hook the broken hair dryer to the vacuum cleaner hose, with vacuum tubes punched through the top, and attach that to gunny sacks filled with insulation and insert the sacks into an overinflated inner tube and suspend the whole contraption from the rafters using tape or wire or nails or whatever I could find. I always started with a grand purpose, but soon simply hooking things together became more important than building the automated dog washing machine and making myself rich, famous and respected.

I had plenty of toys and friends and things to do, but 'Mad Inventor' was something all my own, a private game. I secretly hoped that my excursions to the lab would lead me to a great discovery. The process itself was fun, but I never stumbled upon the great inspiration, or, if I did, it quickly became secondary because I likely had an immediate problem such as how to repair the blown fuse before my parents came home.*

I don't remember when I quit playing 'Mad Inventor', but I do remember the same enjoyment of hooking things together, when I got older, from writing. I had outstanding English teachers all through Junior High and High School who encouraged me to write. And then, in college, I started reading things that weren't assigned, and discovered that there was a seemingly unlimited number of ideas out there. I wanted to write. I wanted to write things of substance and be admired for a tight style, unwavering logic and brilliant observation.

My writing, however, seems to borrow too much from the Mad Inventor, stringing thoughts together, oblivious of the original goal, just to see how they turn out. I still have to deal with the occasional blown fuse, and I have yet to perfect the automatic dog washer.

It annoys me that my life has followed the same sort of pattern. At times I wish I would have sat down at 14 or 16 or 21 years old, mapped out a plan and followed it directly and efficiently to the substance and admiration I've always secretly wished for (and even more secretly known that I deserve ;) ). And then, at other times, I just stand back and admire the majesty of the fortuitous connections that got me from there to here.

Looking to the future, it looks like I'm gonna need some duct tape, some WD-40, and a pair of brake shoe spreaders. Perhaps a center punch and a pry bar, too. Some cotton balls, or maybe gauze, upholstery brads, hog rings (with pliers) and some romex. And where in the hell did I leave that soldering gun and the alligator clips? With the magnifying glass, I think!

* Just a quick note here that might come in handy. If you do happen to blow a fuse, and don't have a replacement fuse handy, you can put a penny in the fuse socket and then screw the burned out fuse on top of it so it's not obvious. Be aware, however, that your Dad will eventually open the fuse box and discover the miracle of a burned out fuse that magically still works. Poker faces are useful for more than just card games because pennies in the fuse box are a good way to burn down the house, or so I've been told.

Long Time Gone

2008-11-06T18:07:00.016-06:00

I asked my sister, who lives in White Deer, to send me some panhandle photos to use for the blog. As I was flipping through the photos she sent I kept trying to find a landmark I recognized, or even just a feeling about the general vicinity of the shot. I couldn't definitively place any of them. Maybe I've been gone too long.

I went through them more than once, trying to pick out one or two that might inspire a post. I noticed that I had somehow created a soundtrack in my mind to go along with the images in the slideshow. It took me a minute, but I finally recognized it as "Oklahoma Hills" by Woody and Jack Guthrie, which is, apparently, the state song of Oklahoma. Isn't that odd?

It's not really that odd. My siblings will recognize at least the chorus of the song ...

'Way down yonder in the Indian Nation
Ridin' my pony on the reservation,
In those Oklahoma hills where I was born.
Now, 'way down yonder in the Indian Nation,
A cowboy's life is my occupation,
In those Oklahoma hills where I was born.

... because it was a staple in a list of songs Dad would "beller" out, unannounced, as we bounced around some panhandle highway in some old truck. You'd be nodding off, your neck all twisted trying to find a semi-comfortable and stable spot for your head, when all of a sudden you'd hear Dad at full volume singing:

'WAY DOWN YON-der in the Ind-YUN NAY-shun

It always bothered me a bit because I knew he wasn't born in Oklahoma and who would want to claim that anyway? I'm guessing that the song meant something to Dad. He would've been in California when it was popular, and he was a panhandle cowboy as a young man. The song starts:

Many a month has come and gone
Since I've wandered from my home

I can see him being the homesick type. He must've been because he moved back which is how I wound up being Texas panhandle born and raised.

It's pretty obvious why that song popped into my head. These were photos of home, and even if I couldn't say exactly where they were taken, I still recognized them as home. I'm sure people who grew up in New York City or around California beaches or in Rust Belt factory towns can see a certain type of photo and feel a connection, a familiarity. And I'm also sure those familiar, comfortable scenes shape your world view, like it or not.

Do you recognize the never ending fields? The big blue bowl overhead. Dry air and dust that doesn't just tickle your nose politely, but forces you to adjust to it and not give in to that big head-shaking sneeze. The imaginary horizons existing beyond your ability to see. The fortitude of windmills and fence posts, surviving both drought and blizzard.

If you do, if you can feel those things in these photos, then I suppose it's okay if you were born in Oklahoma. We've probably got a lot in common.

Please Don't Squeeze the Shaman!

2008-11-06T08:57:00.016-06:00

One of the sites I occasionally post in has an 'Off Topic' forum where someone posted a message that said:

Congrats to Barack Obama for being voted the 44th President! This is quite a historic occasion.

To which I replied:

yep. sure is. just like October 25, 1917.

I will admit that my reply was a bit snarky, but I also thought it quite clever, if not downright prescient. Anyway the moderator of the forum removed the thread to avoid potential nasty responses and unpleasantness.* I don't necessarily blame the moderator since that's their job (a volunteer one), but having the thread removed did make me think about why I chose snarkiness.

First, I don't want to congratulate Obama ... why should I? If I work real hard to educate myself, start at the bottom of the career ladder, gain valuable experience working my way up and finally, after demonstrating significant competence and ability and dedication to my organization, I get promoted to an executive position, I might expect some, and be entitled to, congratulations.

If, on the other hand, I'm given every break in obtaining an Ivy League education, use political means and a network of connections to advance, use questionable tactics to take out those competing with me for promotion at every level and finally, after recognizing and taking advantage of an organizational weakness, I am chosen as CEO despite my inexperience, should I be congratulated?

If you want to congratulate Obama for being a shrewd politician and knowing how to work the system, that's fine. As long as you know what it says about you for admiring those characteristics. Getting elected President of the United States was a remarkable achievement, but that doesn't mean he earned it, or our congratulations.

One might say he was entitled to win, but then someone would point out that entitlement implies government programs and is therefore a racist comment, which brings me to the next issue.

I find it incredibly disturbing that there is so little tolerance of any criticism of Obama. It's been apparent since the beginning. If you expose the tactics, you're racist. If you question the ideology, you're racist. If you run critical ads, you're threatened. If you report unflattering facts, you're shouted down. If you ask difficult questions, you're banished or investigated. If you don't agree with him, you're marginalized.

Given this track record, I doubt that President Obama will be the same "good sport" that President Bush has been when being ridiculed by Stewart, Colbert, Letterman and Maher. Oh wait. Nevermind. He won't have to be. I'm sure they've already gotten the memo ... "please don't squeeze the Shaman!"

* update: the thread has been re-instated and has been met with a rather large yawn so far ... an update to the update ... the thread actual spawned a long and reasonably well mannered discussion of many political issues, the most recent of which is the discussion of the automaker bailouts. See, it is possible to have polite political discussions ... but, apparently now not only can you not criticize Obama, you can't even ask them to tap the brakes on the praise!

Headlines

2008-11-04T11:12:00.014-06:00

McCain Wins. Olbermann's Head Explodes!

McCain Wins. Matthew's Suffers Leg Paralysis!

McCain Wins. Andrea Mitchell Dumb(founded)!

Obama Wins! Markets Rebound!
On Strength of Battery and Bottled Water Sales

McCain Wins. Dems Vow to Improve Voter Fraud Programs!

Obama Wins! France Vaults to #1 in Military Rankings.

McCain Wins. Americans Remain Arrogant Racists.

A Winner Declared! Urban Centers Riot!

Obama Wins! Fairness Doctrine Re-enacted!
Mark Levin to Co-Host MSNBC's Countdown

Obama Wins! Pelosi & Reid Caught 'Celebrating' in Janitors Closet At Victory Party*
*Photo ID's Required

McCain Wins. Obama Consoled by Wright!
Wright: "God #@$& America!"

Obama Wins! Inauguration Plans Revealed!
Ayers to Read Poetry of Mahmoud Darwish

McCain Wins. Dems Fire MSM!
Rush, Hannity, Levin et al Not for Hire.

McCain Wins. Democrats Sue!
Claiming Racism, Stupidity, & Failure to Submit

McCain Wins. Palin Forgives MSM.
Invites Katie and Charlie to Church

Obama Wins! Angry Poodle Savages Stuffed Animals!

Please submit your suggested headlines in the comments below.

inspirational thanks to aball ;)

Just Call Me Moses Rose

2008-11-02T17:27:00.016-06:00

This particular presidential election has made me feel like Moses Rose's first cousin. Obviously it got me motivated to start this blog, to try to express (or should I say vent) my thoughts, but it goes beyond simply being anxious; Barack Obama scares the hell out of me.

I've never been a huge McCain fan, and frankly, I doubt that I would have been so worked up about it if the Democrats had nominated Hillary or John Edwards. If I'm honest enough to admit that, then it must be Obama that scares me.

There are two primary causes of my concern. The first is, I simply do not understand why his supporters are so enthusiastic. It's not simple admiration or logic or even partisanship, it's like he holds them in thrall and they are incapable of reason or critical objectivity. When I can't understand something or even imagine the perspective it comes from, that scares me.

Secondly, people like Obama who reach beyond duty, service and the operational execution of their responsibilities by invoking spirituality are scary. Typically they want to merge the spiritual with the practical, faith with reason and emotion to duty not because they truly believe it's "the right thing to do" or "God's plan", but because it gives them power. He has said point blank that he wants to "fundamentally change" America, and it's accepted without question as a good thing. He has said he wants to "change the world". By what power? He has said he wants to create a "civilian national security force." Say WHAT? What if Cheney had proposed that? What's amazing is the same people who rail against religion in America and oppressive faith based Muslim regimes are willing to assign him the role of de-facto spiritual leader. That is scary.

Some may say, "you're over reacting" or "it's not as bad as you say it is" and I certainly hope it's not, but the early voting numbers support my concern. I believe that people are either in love with Obama, or they fear Obama, and that is driving the turnout. I hope they fear him.

As I stated earlier, I don't understand the enthusiasm for this man. He has done nothing of consequence, and somehow that is a virtue. The greatest argument he makes for himself is that he is not George W. Bush, but doesn't that apply to nearly everyone, including his opponent? Even if you do not consider his specific ideology he's shown no particular skill in economics, foreign policy, national security or even holding a job! As for character we only know two things about him ... what character he says he has, and what character he has demonstrated ... but unfortunately, the main tool for discovering his demonstrated character, the press, has decided to take him at his word on character issues.

I've talked to a few Obama supporters, to try to help me understand their enthusiasm. Here's a synthesis of some reasons I've been given.

Have you read his books? He's so intelligent. They are beautifully written and if you've read them then you do know him. He's an articulate, spiritual person who really knows and trusts himself. He's not the typical politician. He's different.

Yes, I've read his books, and sorry, I wasn't impressed. He comes across as more confused than convicted. If he's such a gifted writer, why didn't he publish anything for the Harvard Law Review when he was editor? Is he articulate? We don't know because we have not seem him under pressure, and we have not seen him outside of a controlled environment. And spiritual?Oh please, give me a break. You do not attend a church for 20 years, describe its pastor as a spiritual mentor, and then suddenly discard and discount all of that for political purposes. But they are right about the 'not typical' part; he's an extraordinary politician ... dangerously extraordinary ... who has gone from being unknown to being the leading presidential candidate in what, four years? He's either a political savant, or fulfilling destiny.

Look, the time is right. We need change. He knows what's wrong with America. He was against a war that no one wanted, and he's the polar opposite of those in power now, who don't see how bad things are. We must shake up 'politics as usual'. He's our symbol. He's opposed to Republicans and he's legitimately defeated the old guard Democrats. How can that not be destiny?

We need change? No, we need to improve, but we don't need to change for change sake. And the war? He should get zero credit for his stance because HE WAS A STATE SENATOR AT THE TIME WITH NO STAKE IN THE GAME! Hell, we are ALL against war when we've got no responsibility. I can't believe how easily the Democrat party voters were manipulated on that topic. Doesn't it really just prove that we don't like ourselves very much and that we (meaning all the generations before us) have been on the wrong path? Do we really know better than our fore-fathers? Is it really time to tear that down? And he is no symbol. He is an opportunistic politician who has wrested racism from the social conscience and used it to promote himself. Review his political career and tactics and tell me what part of 'politics as usual' he has not exploited for his own political gain?

Electing Obama will prove to ourselves and the world that we are not a racist society, and that we want to become an equal partner in the world community. Obama as president tangibly demonstrates our concern for being part of that community and he will restore our international reputation.

No, it won't. Our friends will remain our friends and the people who want to kill us and see America brought to its knees will still feel the same way. As an added bonus, they may want to exploit our new found sensitivity. Face it, the world needs a strong America. You may not want to live up to the responsibility, but are you willing to abdicate that responsibility to Russia? to China? to a Muslim empire?

He cares about the middle class. His policies all reflect his concern for them. He understands that sometimes people need help. He's for healthcare and jobs and environmental goodness. He's in touch with what the common people need.

The only reason he invokes the middle class so frequently is that he needs their votes. He'd like to see them controlled by labor unions, whether they are labor or management. He'd like to control a big piece of your personal life by taking healthcare choices away. He's not interested in lifting up the middle class, he wants to keep them down by taking away incentives and creating a 'limited good' society. It does not take a scholar to see that the creation of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid has actually taken away our freedom of choice since you cannot even discuss altering those programs without risking political suicide. Obama wants to create more of those programs. We, the generations after FDR, are paying the price for the failure of Social Security. Do you want to saddle your children and grandchildren with the debt that further programs will require? How selfish is that, and how does that help the middle class? I suppose it does help to keep them in their place.

Frankly, I can find no logical reason to support Obama. None of his social, foreign relation or economic policies make much sense, unless of course you want to see America become yet another weak, socialist country with no sense of purpose. And his intangible leadership skills are suspect because the only thing he has excelled at is promoting himself. I've already admitted that reasonable, objective criticism cannot be expected ( and probably won't be tolerated if he's elected ) and so any logical reasons against Obama will have no meaning to his supporters.

I could argue for a long time, and others more effectively than me, about how experience, character, political tactics, radical ideology, judgement, anti-semitism, corruption, culpability in the housing crisis, racism, promoting class envy, the moving definition of "rich", socialism, the importance of past associations, black liberation theology, missing pieces of the biography, fraudulent fundraising and the divine inspiration of memoirs would, for any normal candidate, create the scenario for a monumental defeat. But those have no meaning in this debate. Obama is, apparently, above it all. Every reasonable question is off limits with this guy.

When reason does not apply, only faith can provide an answer.

This morning I attended church. Pastor Harry's sermon was, as usual, well prepared and delivered. The subject was 'risk taking mission', how we should step out from our comfort zone and reach out to those outside of our church family. To look for opportunities to show love and compassion and caring to others that we may not have considered before.

Of course, I had brought my election anxiety with me and it was easy to see the power in the desire to 'change the world', to make it a better place, to promote love and compassion and understanding. Is that what Obama is tapping into? Is he helping us to be better people? Is that his plan to change the world, by having us be better individuals, asking us to give more? Is that the source of his supporters fervent belief? Do they believe he will help them be better people and America a better country?

A beautiful thought, but scary. I don't believe that Obama can make us be better people, and in fact, I would strongly argue that his ideology would do the exact opposite. It would turn us inward and make us think in terms of what we are entitled to instead of what we can strive for. I don't know if he's arrogant enough to believe that he, individually, can make that sort of difference in the world, but I have no doubt that he believes the power of the American economy and the spirit of the American people can change the world.

The problem is, we are already doing that, and "fundamental change" is only required if we agree that we need to change America to meet his vision. God gave us free will, and when we choose to change the world, to make it a better place, from within our own personal, individual desire, that is powerful. When you do those things at the direction, or coercion, of another, instead of from a personal commitment, you have given up control of your spiritual life.

It doesn't get scarier than that.

Detention?

2008-10-29T21:03:00.003-05:00

I've gotta say, I wouldn't have passed Mr. Nooncaster's Senior English class* if I had this many tardies.

* look for the chapter "A Coach for All Seasons" on page 103 if you are unfamiliar with Aubra Nooncaster.

Much of Nothing

2008-10-29T14:47:00.007-05:00

I never should have started with the old picture bit. This is another one that haunts me, not necessarily in a bad way though. This is another photo of Dad.

Spring is my favorite panhandle season. It usually happens on a Thursday.

Born in 1918, so I'm guessing early to mid 1930's? It's hard to tell his age, isn't it.

Those clothes don't fit, maybe the boots. Probably the riding heel boots he once said he lived and earned his living in.

Is that tie blowing a little? Maybe a calm spring day in the panhandle. Easter?

That road just disappears. It seems to go nowhere, or maybe it's just too much for the camera to take in.

How often do you think he was seen outside without a hat?

The whole thing seem so posed, so staged, but why this huge, empty stage? And yet, he seems to be staking a claim to this wide open space, just standing there like 'here I am.'

That pasture seems to be pretty green. Spring rains maybe.

Those tracks seem to be from pretty narrow wheels. Wagons maybe.

Those hands. Those black, working hands, so uncomfortable at his side wondering 'where are the damn reins.'

It Figures

2008-10-29T01:43:00.003-05:00

Here's a photo of the Sinclair station I mentioned earlier. Dad is on the left. I'm not sure about the origins of the photo, but I do remember seeing it around the house in a black frame. In the photo it looks like Dad's left arm was amputated at the elbow, but it really wasn't.

Up to this point I've mainly talked about things my Dad said and thought. I suppose I've been a bit neglectful of Mom's lessons. That's probably because the one phrase from Mom that is burned in my brain was "I can't get five minutes peace to myself!" To my credit, I only made the mistake of saying, "It's not my fault you had seven kids!" once. She had her own way of teaching, which typically didn't involve a folksy turn of phrase like Dad.

This particular photo was one of her teaching tools, at least for me. I couldn't figure out how or why my Dad didn't have an arm in the photo. I was positive he had one, at least he had one any other time I saw him. I couldn't very well ask him. If he was missing an arm, and I had not noticed, I would feel embarrassed about bringing it up. If he wasn't missing an arm, I'd feel silly for asking. If he was missing an arm, the prosthetic was incredible! It was much more impressive than the hook/pincher thing the old man who lived over on Dwight St. had; it would be a must for show and tell.

And so, naturally, I asked Mom. I didn't get "He was waving when the shutter was open and either the shutter speed or the film speed was too slow to capture the motion." I didn't get "Oh you silly boy, of course your Dad isn't an amputee, it's just a bad photo!" And I didn't get "Here, look closely. See that blur?* That's because your Dad's arm was moving."

No, I got something along the lines of "You're so smart, figure it out yourself." And eventually, I did.

To some people that may sound a bit harsh, but I certainly didn't take it that way. I took it as a challenge. I suppose if I had never figured it out I might have developed some self esteem issues, though I'm not sure those existed for kids in the 1960's.

Instead, I did figure it out and I found there's satisfaction in solving a puzzlement. And I learned that if it seems there should be an obvious answer, there probably is and it's likely just a lack of knowledge that keeps you from seeing it. I learned that a first glance, even a cursory one, can alert you that something is out of place if you truly know what you're looking at, and that the little flag that pops up in your head when you notice the anomaly is a signal that something needs to be studied a little more closely.

Figuring things out for yourself is a good skill to have. I highly recommend it.

* The Sinclair logo on the other guys shirt (Bill's) was the key to me actually recognizing that there was a blur. The blur covered up the logo that should be there and then it was simply a matter of figuring out what causes blurs in photographs.

Those People

2008-10-26T21:03:00.008-05:00

Dad ran a Sinclair station on the corner of Hobart St. and Highway 60 in Pampa when I was a kid. This would have been in the mid to late 60's. Sometimes I would ride my bike up there and hang out, checking the oil level and tire pressure on customer's cars or pumping gas. And sometimes just monkeying around in the service bays. In those days you 'monkeyed around', you didn't 'eff things up'.

Anyway, one thing I noticed about Dad during that time was that he was the same guy at work as he was at home. He'd take too long to tell a story. He'd patch a tire instead of sell a new one. He seemed perfectly content with his station in life ... never pushing too hard to get ahead ... always seeming to accept things as they were and doing his best to just roll with it. From his Dust Bowl and Great Depression shaped perspective I'm sure he thought he was doing just fine, thank you.

One of the men who worked with Dad was named Bill. Bill was a small, wiry guy with a lined face. He was also a tobacco chewer, which fascinated me, especially because he seemed totally unconcerned about the spit and the stains and the great, gross wad of wet weed in his mouth. Dad said he was a 'drinker' too, which, in his opinion, was better than either 'drunk' or 'teetotaler'; extremism of any kind was frowned upon. Bill also had what Dad called 'short man's disease', what others might call a chip on his shoulder or self esteem issues, but in the end all that mattered to Dad was "he's a good hand."

Dad went out periodically to "collect", which meant that he drove around town and collected payments from all the folks who bought gas or service on credit. They didn't use a credit card, they just signed a ticket and once a month Dad wrote them up a bill, went to their house or business and collected the payment. Sometimes they paid the whole thing, sometimes they didn't. If they didn't pay something, their credit at the station got cut off.

Dad came back from collecting one day and someone had paid him in trade ... he had accepted a 12 gauge Savage Arms pump shotgun* in lieu of cash. I did not know the details, the who's or the why's, but Bill certainly had a strong opinion about it. He didn't know why Dad did business with "those people", much less give them credit, they were all "no good and lazy" and next time they would pay him with "a fried chicken and a yella meat melon." Dad's reply was simple. He said, "'Those people' that pay their bill, that's who I do business with and give credit to. That's the only kind of people to do business with."

Dad was ahead of the civil rights curve for a man of his generation; he brought up that incident every time we took that shotgun bird hunting and would drive the point of the story home with words like:

It don't matter what people say. A white guy will screw you just as soon as a black guy will.

I don't need to know where a man goes to church, I need to know if he paid the last guy.

Watch what folks do, not what they say, 'cause what they do to others is what they'll do to you.

The basic theme of these lessons was to judge people on their merits and actions, not their skin color or their community standing. Dad wouldn't have much trouble deciding who to vote for in this year's presidential election and his decision would have nothing to do with who's white or who's black.

Obama used a technicality to get elected to the State Senate in Illinois which was called either "not honorable" or "shrewd", depending on your particular perspective.

Then he said he would not run for president in 2008 because he felt he was inexperienced, but he did anyway. I'd post the link to the video on youtube, but surprisingly (?) they have all been removed.

He went from State Senator to U.S. Senator to Presidential candidate in a very short time span, because he is, well, pick your adjective ... greedy? opportunistic? arrogant? confident? Wait, I have one ... "destined" ... that's it.

I'd like to buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he'll bring.

Then, of course, he reneged on a pledge to accept public financing for the presidential campaign. His campaign has also "motivated" supporters to flood the lines on radio talk shows, to threaten prosecution for advertisements, and has recently decided to take their ball and go home rather than answer tough questions.

Contrast that with the career and actions of John McCain. Which one would you do business with?

When Biden gets tough but fair questions, he runs and hides, but Palin expands her role despite the entirely unfair attacks. Biden lies so smoothly it comes off as intelligence when it's really ignorance. Palin can't even tell a white lie convincingly; I don't think it's in her. Which one would you give credit to?

It is John McCain and Sarah Palin who are "those people" in this election ... the kind who pay their bills and you can give credit to. If Dad were asked about Obama and Biden I can guess he'd say:

They're as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

They wouldn't know an honest days work if it bit 'em in the ass.

They're just like a blister ... they show up after the work is done and want to get all the attention.

What you see is what you get, folks. The question is are you paying attention to what they are showing you? Are you right sure you know who you're doing business with?

* I still have the shotgun, though I don't go bird hunting much anymore. Who knew poodles were gun dogs? He loves the smell of gun oil.