Reflections on Love and Friendship

Blessed are the peacemakers. Matthew 5:9

Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls, for he has no one to help him up. Ecclesiastes 4:9-10

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails...And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of this is love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 13

For those of you who know me well, you know my rough edges. You know my weaknesses, my areas where I need to improve. For those of you who have known me well for a long time, you know that despite much difficulty, I have smoothed a couple of those rough edges in the last couple of years. Many of you have heard the story I am about to tell, but it inspires my sentiments of love and friendship that I want to share momentarily, so I include it for context.

The evening chill had burned off the warmth of the afternoon on July 20, 2005, as Zach Howell and I descended a steep cliff in Unit 13 of Denali National Park. Making our way through the thick brush near the end of the descent, we stepped out onto the gravel bar of the Thorofare River, and the clear blue sky illuminated the grandeur of Mount McKinley. Clusters of bright magenta flowers decorated the moist, silty sections of the mile-wide gravel bar, and we plodded across the well-braided river, enjoying our first day in the wilderness. Isaac Watts's beautiful hymn came into my mind "I sing the mighty power of God that made the mountains rise, that spread the flowing seas abroad and filled the lofty skies. I sing the wisdom that ordained the sun to rule the day. The moon bows down at His command and all the stars obey."

After a slow crossing of the Thorofare, we looked up to see a male grizzly bear about 150 yards away. He began to walk toward us and we waved our hands in the air, yelling at him to go away. He took a second look, and then nonchalantly altered his course in a completely non-threatening way. After the rapidity of my heartbeat had subsided, and I realized our fortune in avoiding an encounter, I looked to the southeast and noticed a mother grizzly and her cub feeding in the thick blueberry bushes on the hilly tundra.

A significant amount of observation passed and we made our way up the next two hills, about 45 minutes later, and upon bounding over the second of the two hills, we saw the mother and her cub in binocular vision, except we weren't looking through binoculars. There they stood, about 30 feet away, completely displeased by our presence. Total body paralysis set in, and I stood there attempting to re-engage my motor faculties. Finally I was able to move backwards, back down the hill we had just ascended, and out of sight of the bears. My left leg convulsed uncontrollably as we waited for thirty minutes, wondering what to do, and enjoying every precious second that we did not see the bears coming over the hill.

We didn't see the bears again that day, and although my life did not flash before my eyes or anything like that, the episode set in motion a serious reflection upon many facets of my life. It is part of that reflection, which continued for the further three weeks I spent in in the Alaskan wilderness, that I wish to share with you now.

Human beings are all born with needs and desires. Maslow ordered them in a hierarchy from most important to least: Physical survival needs, need for safety & security, need to belong socially, need for self esteem, need for self actualization. I most humbly endeavor to challenge that hierarchy, for it is my contention and firm belief that absent the higher three (social belonging, self esteem, and self actualization), it would be preferable for the lower two never to be met. Instead of viewing these needs as a hierarchy, I submit that they should be viewed as both necessary to and contingent upon one another. It is cliché to say, but true, that no man is an island. The hermetic lifestyle makes it quite difficult for one to obey Christ’s command “Love thy neighbor.” You see, Christ did not command “Love mankind.” He personalized it and made it tangible. It is not enough just to love humankind. We must love the man or woman sitting next to us in a restaurant, or standing next to us on the subway. This is because God does not love us collectively as His “creation,” rather He loves each of us individually as his “creature.” A piece of artwork is a creation—the mountains are God’s creation. But we are not an impersonal object or a hunk of granite. We are active, thinking, beings with creative powers of our own. We can even have interaction with our Creator. This is something the mountains and rivers cannot do. Similarly, then we are to love our neighbors, not as we love the gorgeous sunset, or even views of Mount McKinley at dusk, but as living, thinking beings with feelings and hurts and emotions, and with whom we can, and ought to interact.

We must also recognize our ability to affect those feelings and emotions of others, and that sometimes we affect them without even realizing it. Each of us, within the last week, has probably hurt somebody we know and care about. Most likely, we don’t even know that we did it. But because we were not constantly conscious and aware of ourselves, we still did it. Unless we are constantly checking our thoughts against the command “Love thy neighbor” and the criteria for that command “Love suffers long and is kind...” then we will continue to unwittingly hurt others and act in selfish ways without a second consideration.

Our love must be ACTIVE, not passive. Christ did not tell us in the Beatitudes “Blessed are those who do not stir up conflict,” He said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” the ones who are actively making peace. I do not think He was speaking of Geopolitics or International Relations, though the command applies equally to that context as well, I believe. But He was admonishing us at an individual level—blessed are those of you who make peace with your neighbor, or your brother, or your co-worker, or your nemesis. In the context of Hebrew culture, it is important to recognize that the word peace means more than merely the absence of conflict. It means wholeness and completion. In fact, a common greeting in Christ’s time was “how is your peace?” Thus, if we are to pursue this goal of peacemaking, then we first must root out hostility, for hostility detracts from a person’s wholeness. It also means that we must attend to each other’s needs and desires as a chief priority, for we were created to be social beings, and we cannot be complete or whole without both vertical interaction (individual to God) and horizontal interaction (individual person to individual person).

I have found that if I am sufficiently attending to the needs of my friends and family, I have no time to attend to my own. And as I reread that sentence, I can hear the Apostle Paul, or Christ Himself saying “Exactly!” It is that sacrifice of the self, the elimination of the ego, the total focus upon the Grace gifts of God rather than the Acquired Gifts of the World, it is precisely that foundation that leads us to a meaningful and fulfilling existence on this earth. It is not what will end all of our sorrows or pains—no, those will persist so long as we occupy this fallen world. But it infuses meaning into those sorrows and pains.

The Apostle James clarifies this all the more clearly in his epistle. “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meakness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”

That’s heady stuff. It’s kind of depressing to me, because as I read it, I recognize my total inadequacy. Re-read that verse again, maybe three or four times. It starts to sink in after several reviews.

We all need other people; we all need friends. Ecclesiastes reminds us of the glory of friendship (two are better than one). But friends are not inexpensive, and they definitely aren’t cheap, at least not real friends. So as we spend time this season with family and friends, let us remember the value of friendship, but also count the cost. We cannot and should not claim somebody as a friend if we are not willing to sacrifice self-seeking and envy. Remember that the fruit of the spirit are “Love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control.”

As we go forth into 2006, let’s all be of this mind: to love one another and live out these precepts in every moment of our lives. It will not go unrewarded, and then we will truly know that peace inside which truly passes all understanding.

FTAA and a Challenge to the EU

Although the European Union has faced numerous obstacles in recent months to further integration, it still poses a potential economic and political threat to American global hegemony. It is imperative that the United States and the rest of North and South America rise to meet this challenge. The European Union has sought supranaionalistic political integration as well as economic integration. This led to substantial protests from far left and far right political constituencies on the European continent, while England still even holds out against full economic integration. The pursuit of this Customs Union-style integration should be a lesson to those of us in the United States and elsewhere in North and South America, as we examine the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. FTAA is a trade union, in contrast to the customs union of the EU. Trade unions maintain national political sovereignty as well as sovereignty over monetary policy, while having a unified position on trade barriers and subsidies.

The elimination of trade barriers and subsidies in all countries, coupled with each country being able to maintain its own monetary policy and political autonomy gains all of the benefits of EU brand customs unions without nearly as much of the domestic political backlash and integration woes. By not adopting a common currency, and rather continuing to allow flexible exchange rates between the member countries of the trade union, North and South America will not have to deal with the dilemma of maintaining a singular monetary policy for economies at quite different levels of development. The EU, for example, needs to maintain growth-oriented interest rates for the sluggish economies of Western Europe (Germany, France, Italy), while simultaneously needing to curb inflation in the booming economies of Eastern Europe. These sorts of inequity problems will not plague the FTAA, by contrast, for reasons mentioned above.

The greatest challenges to the FTAA are the US government's unwillingness to end agricultural subsidies and the presence of radical left-wing communist/socialist protests in countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uraguay. The United States, Canada, and Mexico can attest to the vast successes of NAFTA, and should push forward with other freedom-oriented countries in North and South America to ratify an agreement that will benefit everybody, and if the hold-out countries want to limit their economic growth potential, we should let them alone; they will be coming back in a few years when they have witnessed the effects of free trade in their neighboring countries.

Partisanship on Parade

Maybe it was the time change throwing me off, but it seemed like Chuck Schumer had begun his press conference to denounce Judge Alito before the President had finished his own announcement. I am honestly perplexed at how Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer can possibly believe that their rhetoric is not overheated. It seems that the Left (and, no doubt, the Right sometimes too) thinks that the hotter the rhetoric, the more likely they are to be believed. I imagine quite the opposite is true, or is at least coming to be true. The sky hasn't fallen. It's not likely to fall. Sure, we have some serious problems in this country (and globally) that we need to address, but the doomsayers of history generally end up being proven wrong, because right-minded people take action. This isn't to say that doomsayers have no place in the public discourse, because they do. The problem is when legitimate doomsaying cannot be distinguished from the boy who cried wolf. Schumer, for example, said that Alito is somebody who will divide the country, and that the President is being divisive by naming him to the court. Alito was confirmed 100-0 to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; hardly seems divisive to me. Granted, Schumer wasn't in the Senate then, but Ted Kennedy was. How will Ted Kennedy answer for his vote in 1990? It seems hard to say that Alito is less qualified for the bench now than he was 15 years ago. Essentially Kennedy's position is untenable (not that such things have ever stopped him before) because at the foundation, his reasoning must be something like this: "Qualification for the bench is sufficient for confirmation when it is the Court of Appeals, but being qualified alone is not sufficient for confirmation to the Supreme Court." If the Supreme Court is to be truly independent, then it seems that qualifications are solely the factor in determining whether or not to confirm a nominee. I am not the first to remind people that Ginsburg and Breyer were both confirmed almost unanimously, in spite of their strong ideological differences with Republicans in the Senate at the time. Elections have consequences. I earnestly hope that Alito will be a measured jurist and not a Conservative activist. Activism of any flavor is antithetical to proper constitutional jurisprudence. However, undoing previous acts of activism does not itself constitute activism. I pray that Judge Alito, along with the rest of the court, can properly distinguish those two concepts.

Learning His Lesson

President Bush, like a repentant schoolboy allowed to retake his failed final exam, has aced the re-do by appointing Samuel Alito, Jr. to the United States Supreme Court. Alito fulfills President Bush's promise to appoint a Scalia-like jurist to the Supreme Court, and in spite of the calls for a diversity pick, the President appointed somebody who truly could be considered the most qualified person for the job. A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, an attorney in the Solicitor General's office, a former prosecutor, and federal appellate judge with a 15 year tenure on the bench, Alito stands out as exemplary of the brilliant men and women who have become the mainstay of the conservative legal movement over the last 30 years.

The coming battle in the Senate will be more brutal than the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. This appointment truly tips the scales of the Court, and moves strongly toward establishing a solid conservative majority on the court, with four true conservatives occupying the bench: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Kennedy will remain a swing voter, and hold the keys to many important landmark cases. It will be interesting to see how he rises to the occasion. Be ready, though, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, and Ralph Neas are in complete terror at this nomination, and we will almost assuredly see a filibuster of the Alito nomination. Be forewarned: Democratic Senators in Red States. If you try to "Bork" Alito, we will most certainly "Daschle" you. Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, are all supposedly popular democrats in their home states, but Daschle was too. Judicial obstructionism ended Daschle's career, and right now, those four democrats are without serious challengers (except Bill Nelson). Filibustering Alito will not only draw a challenger, but a likely defeat.

This is my new verb for the day: to Daschle "The act of defeating a Red State Democrat Senator for obstructing the confirmation of conservative judicial nominees."

The line in the sand is drawn.

Iranian Diplomacy

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proven himself a capable instigator and a pretty poor diplomat. His call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" surely sends chills up the spine of anybody who abhors bloodshed. Even Palestinian and Egyptian diplomats rebuked Ahmadinejad for his radicalism. The incident, however, crystalizes the total failure of the Europeans to contain the Iranian situation. For the last five years, the Europeans have insisted that diplomacy must rule the day in dealing with Iran, and that they, as extraordinary diplomatists, are capable of remedying the problems in Tehran. Although it is humorous to laugh at the overstated braggadocio of the French and Germans, the situation is dire. Far from advocating a full-scale military operation, I think it is time to re-evaluate the current strategy for handling Iran. Although we have had stellar success in Iraq, despite many missteps (it wouldn't be a war without them), Iran is overwhelmingly a different level of threat, with conventional military capabilities far exceeding those of Iraq's. Remember, Iran has been funding its nuclear and conventional military capacity with legal oil money over the years, when Saddam was forced to accept mostly French, German, and Russian money only (as an aside, three cheers for Paul Volcker standing up to the corrupt entrenched bureaucracy of the sham that is the United Nations). It is time for this administration to quit outsourcing our Iranian policy to Paris and Berlin, and do something before there are 7 million dead Israelis and a nuclear cloud lingering over Jerusalem.

Bush's Opportunity

Harriet Miers's withdrawl from the confirmation process for the Supreme Court was welcomed news today for me and millions of other people across the country who were concerned about her ability to go straight to the nation's highest court for a lifetime appointment without so much as fifteen minutes practicing constitutional law. Had she been a state judge, a federal appellate judge, solicitor general, or anybody else whose job involves constitutional law, her appointment would not have been such an utter and total failure for President Bush. This, of course, is not Miers's fault, it is the President's. If he really thought Miers would make a Supreme Court Justice, why not have named her to the federal bench a couple of years ago, like he did John Roberts; or why not make her Solicitor General or Deputy Attorney General? Well, all of that is past now, but he is back to square one, and he has a tremendous opportunity to completely undo all of the damage that has been done to his administration this year by Katrina, Miers, the failure of Social Security reform, the Rove/Libby/DeLay legal investigations, and the fact that he has not pushed any number of other reform agendas promised during the 2004 campaign.

Bush must do several things to rebound from the last 10 months of political hell.

1. The President absolutely has to appoint somebody like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, J. Michael Luttig, or Michael McConnell to the court. If he does, regardless of the reaction from the left, every single rank and file conservative/republican in the country will instantly rally to his cause. Let us remember that Tom Daschle was defeated in 2004, if for no other reason than that he was an obstructionist on judicial nominations. Conservatives will in fact fight, and they will, based on history, win. If the President bunts again, and gives us Alberto Gonzales, then the President might as well begin tenuring his resignation, because everything he has done for the last 5 years will instantly fall apart, because everybody who worked hard for him in 2000 and 2004 will desert him without hesitation.

2. The President needs to formulate an actual plan for Social Security Reform, and send it to Congress before Christmas. Obviously, Congress will not have time to act on it, but at least then, the President can begin re-selling the idea of reform. Only this time, he needs to talk about the ownership society, and the benefits of real investment rather than blabbering on about hypothetical benefit cuts.

3. Bush should fire Andrew Card yesterday. Card, according to most news reports, was behind the Miers nomination. That is reason enough. But beyond that, it is just time for some new blood at the top levels of leadership in this White House. Things are getting too sloppy, and this is from an administration that for the first few years ran one of the tightest ships in recent memory.

4. Bush should further rally his base by moving on extending the 2003 tax cuts, as well as formulating an actual plan for genuine tax reform, taking into account all of the work that Connie Mack's Presidential Commission has done recently.

5. The President must point out all of the good that is occurring in Iraq, and he's simply not doing it. The passage of the new constitution, coupled with extraordinary turnout in the referendum is more than satisfactory performance for a country that has never known anything but harsh dictatorial governments throughout their entire multi-thousand year existence.

Hopefully we will see all 5 of these things occur, and in short order. He might turn a beleaguered 5th year into an oustandingly unprecedented second term.

America, 2005

America, 2005
(by Skinner Layne)

Thomas Jefferson! Thou shouldst be living at this hour:
America hath need of thee, for she is trudging down that road
To utter ruin; Bring us thy wisdom, which once hath flowed
In pen and deed; O bravest man who from tyrants didst not cower,
We have replaced thy Republic with a Kingly power,
The likes of which thou couldnst n’er envision,
Whose Senators and Viceroys rule with Roman precision.
Brings us back to independence shining from freedom’s tower!
Thy mind was like a Flame, and gave us lofty aspirations;
Thy words motivated the generations to fight for liberty,
With the ardor of your kinsmen, to preserve our great country.
So didst thou travel a treasonous pathway,
To bring hope for freer future generations,
O Jefferson, come back to us and save us this day!

Soured Howard

"Never ascribe to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

Screamin'Howard Dean is back at it again. On THIS WEEK today, he declared that the Bush Administration is the most corrupt since Warren G. Harding. Maybe that point is debatable. It seems that Napoleon's maxim would ring quite true, however, since we are talking about the Bush administration. But his subsequent comments are simply hysterical. While talking of the Democrats' imminent return to power, he declared the following: "The first thing we're going to do is we're going to have ethics come back to Washington." [Pause while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard]. Ahem. Well, I wonder if he is reminiscing about the days of Bill Clinton's ethics--you remember Clinton, he's the disbarred attorney who was found in contempt of court for misleading a grand jury and was impeached by the House of Representatives. Yes, yes...Democrat Ethics. They are a special class of ethics, whose status is not yet recognized by most philosophers. Someday. Although, let's be honest. Were there really ever ethics in Washington...ever? Dean makes it sound like once upon a time Washington was made up of upstanding, honest folks. All I have to say is: name one. Since the time that the left wing revisionist historians have sullied the names and repuations of our founding fathers, we have nothing left to which we can point and say with confidence "there is a good model." And so, people behave as they will. It's called human nature. It is not so much that people's behavior is corrupt (even though that is true as well), but that their very nature is corrupt. That is precisely why we are supposed to have separation of powers, and limited government. Limited government means there are certain things that government simply does not have the power to do. Good luck finding examples of that in today's political milieu. O Jefferson! where art thou at this hour? America hath need of thee!

Lady in Waiting

Dick Cheney had better be getting somebody warmed up in the bullpen, because it is about time for Harriet Miers to be taken out of the game. This was just another embarrassment the President didn't need. It was humorous that he called all of the criticisms of his administration in recent months "background noise." Perhaps. That is, if you would be willing to stand at Cape Canaveral and call the takeoff of Discovery "background noise." This is what happens when the President's Brain is under investigation and his Administrator sick. You know, there's a rumor going around DC that Dick Cheney is going to resign and Condi is going to be appointed Vice President. I have a better idea: President Bush can resign and Dick Cheney can appoint Coindi to be Vice President. Dick Morris could become the new White House Chief of Staff, and we could turn the second term of this administration around, albeit without a principal player or two. Even better, Lynn Cheney, a true intellect in her own right, might give the President some decent advice on who to pick for the Supreme Court...what an improvement that would be over the "Hillary Lite" we have been subjected to as of late. Maybe Laura is gearing up for her own US Senate run in 2008--unfortunately there's not a seat up for grabs in New York until 2010. She could move to Massachussetts and run against John Kerry, though. Now that's an idea. Somebody pinch me; none of this is going to happen, and we will have to endure 3 more years of George W. Bush, and not much will be left of the progress the GOP has made in the last 15 years. Bill Clinton was much better for our party--maybe Newt will come back and rescue us.

Kangaroo Courts and Kangaroo Justices

With Tom DeLay's mugshot in competition against the media's favorite "Guilty Karl" shot of Rove in the race to be the DNC's Goldstein in the upcoming infomercial on CBS called "The Two Weeks Hate," we should all be concerned, Right and Left, about the state of the justice system in this country. [As an aside, that previous sentence will not be at all funny if you haven't read George Orwell's 1984] You know, it used to be that politicians in America were decent, genuine, honest, upstanding folks who abided by the law, did what was right, and made their mothers' proud. We should all remember such righteous politicians as New York county Democrat Party Chairman William March "Boss" Tweed, who embezzled from the City what would be, in today's Greenspan era no-inflation inflated money, around 2.9 billion dollars. Or what about the days when President Harding appointed the angelic Albert Fall to be Secretary of the Interior, and Fall proceeded to lease protected oil reserves to major oil magnates in exchange for incentive bonuses (I'm trying to be politically correct...I wanted to say "bribes" but it just came out kinda harsh). For those of you whose American history training is limited to public high school or university courses, what I just mentioned is known as the Teapot Dome Scandal. Anyway, history is replete with harrowing tales of political chivalry that cause the crimes of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove to whimper in their presence, but all of that is beside the point. DeLay is being prosecuted by a corrupt partisan. At the same time, DeLay no longer deserves to be Majority Leader of the House. The GOP is starting to act too much like the Democrats of old. It's time for some new blood. As for the Rove issue, according to the Washington Post, he has gotten a tongue lashing from President Bush--surely that's punishment enough.

Since the title of this post is "Kangaroo Courts and Kangaroo Justices" I guess I am obligated to say something about the abysmal nominee Harriet Miers and her latest travails in the most concocted effort of cronyism since, as Steve Chapman noted earlier this week, Harry Truman appointed his poker buddies to the court. The Bush administration has even resorted to releasing a document from 1989 when Miers publicly supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Somebody isn't thinking. Granted, President Bush has to get Conservatives back on his side, but he will not succeed in convincing all of them. At the same time, these sorts of stunts will only make Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy fired up to oppose Miers--I only hope they do.

Harriet Miers 2.0, The Re-Release

According to Mike Allen's column this week in TIME, President Bush and his aides are planning to "re-launch" the Harriet Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court after two completely disastrous weeks. The President's cronies have been sqawking this weekend that "few Republicans have attacked this President so frontally and lived to tell about it." Interesting threat coming from a virtual lame duck administration whose poll numbers are flirting with the 30s depending on the day. The White House should learn its lesson from the Democrats' stunning defeats in the 2004 elections: substance matters more than style. The Democrats thought if they just phrased their arguments better that they would win, because their message was right-on, they thought. Wrong. Poll after poll, and Democrat strategist after Democrat strategist confirmed that the Left-wing message of the Democrat Party was what led to their failure in the '04 races.

Why does President Bush think he is any different? For the last five years (yes, since Bush started running for President in 1999) we have been promised and assured that it was always his hope and intention to appoint justices in the model of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. At best, Miers has only the potential to be like Thomas and Scalia. Thomas and Scalia were both appellate court judges with conservative records on their jurisprudential resume. It has obviously not gone without notice that Ms. Miers has no such resume. Instead, the President has demanded (he has certainly not asked nicely) that conservatives trust him. Indeed, trust him like we trusted his Father (Remember David Souter), Ronald Reagan (Anthony Kennedy), Gerald Ford (John Paul Stevens), Richard Nixon (Harry Blackmun), and Dwight Eisenhower (Earl Warren). The Republicans' history of "trust me" nominees is nothing short of catastrophic. George Will , Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, and Robert Bork, have all publicly opposed the Miers nomination, along with countless other conservative leaders. The criticism is the same: Miers isn't qualified and she isn't proven. And as Judge Bork points out, the only people (other than the President's cronies) who are saying anything nice about Miers are Democrats; that should tell the President something.

In light of all of this, the President has determined to re-launch the Miers nomination. He plans to parade a list of Texas Supreme Court justices who will attest to Harriet Miers' qualifications. Since when do we determine the fitness of a Supreme Court nominee based on character references? This isn't the Good Neighbor of the Year Award, this is the United States Supreme Court, and if Ms. Miers' resume does not substantiate her readiness to serve on the high court, the President should think again.

This is beginning to look like the 4th re-invention of Al Gore during the 2000 Presidential Campaign. Here are my predictions for the Harriet Miers 2.0 Re-Release:

1) Miers will swing through the Southern states wearing ankle-length dresses and a bonnet to appeal to Chauvinistic White Males.

2) James Dobson and the President will do their secret handshake in public, proving to conservatives that Miers really is pro-life.

3) President Bush will apologize again for betraying his base and then beg its forgiveness by singing a trio with Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il entitled "Give Me One More Chance."

4) Pat Robertson will publicly demand the assassination of any Republican who opposes Miers.

5) Karl Rove will accidentally leak to Robert Novak the name of Harriet Miers' undercover stunt double who will be filling in for her at the Senate Judiciary committee.

6) To appease Conservatives, Miers will give a contribution to Tom DeLay's legal defense fund.

7) Miers will grow a beard and randomly insert the word "originalism" into every sentence.

8) John Kerry and Harriet Miers will do a joint press conference Monday morning talking about how they miraculously lost all of their wrinkles over the weekend.

9) Miers will travel to Houston to train for her new job on NASA's new zero gravity BLACK ROBE simulator.

10) CBS will launch a new reality series "Who Wants to Be a Supreme Court Justice?" where Miers and 6 other average attorneys from across the country will run around New York playing "big city lawyer" and then be interviewed by Donald Trump for the job of a lifetime.

Quartering of Soldiers

The only amendment to the United States Constitution in the Bill of Rights never to be litigated in court is the 3rd Amendment. Most people probably have no idea what the 3rd Amendment even says, much less that it has never had a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. I imagine that is about to change. President Bush is embarking on an initiative that has dire implications for the liberty of ordinary citizens in this country. If his unbridled deficit spending, multiplication of social programs, meager efforts at social security, medicare, and tax reform weren't enough reasons to criticize this administration, the President just gave us another. I am far from being a wild-eyed liberal critic of the war, and I am a staunch supporter of the military. However, one of the hallmarks of the American system of government is the prohibition against using the military on our own citizens. Cindy Sheehan (the clinically insane protester whose son died last year in Iraq) referred to "Occupied New Orleans" with the sights of American military personal mobilizing to assist in the recovery effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Sheehan took the criticism too far. Without doubt, the lawlessness that was occurring in New Orleans was shameful, and dispatching armed military personnel was excessive, but it was not "Occupied."

However, it is imperative that we recognize the long-term implications of this new precedent. The President announced this week his desire to utilize the military more often in disaster situations and states of emergency. This has all of the makings of a would-be dictatorship under an administration more Machiavellian than the present one. President Bush, despite being an incapable President on budget matters, and an incompetent president in the year 2005 all around, is not evil. In today's age of media presidential campaigns, soundbites, and cameras, the people of America should be weary of any current attempts to expand the scope and influence of domestic military activity in case we someday get duped by a Hitler or a Mussolini.

Rather than establishing an explicitly governmental program of response to natural disasters, Congress and this administration should take a more creative approach to such situations. FEMA should be reorganized to merely coordinate the tens of thousands of potential volunteers so that the average person who wants to help his neighbor in need can be effective in times of crisis. By bringing together the efforts of the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention (the top three providers of disaster relief assistance in the United States), and the countless other organizations who reach out to people in time of need, FEMA and the Federal Government could save the taxpayers millions of dollars on additional federal personnel who would only be used irregularly, while rebuilding a spirit of community among the citizens of the United States. It is when we get past this failed experiment with rugged individualism that we will truly be able to value the individual and the community, and in the process we might well salvage our liberty too.

Nowhere To Turn

As the already impoverished people of New Orleans attempt to free themselves from the putrid liquid that engulfed them in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the spinmeisters and hucksters of the political realm are attempting to make partisan hay out of this tragedy. While Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus try to paint the federal government's pitiful response to the hurricane as being indicative of George W. Bush's racism, the poor people of New Orleans are still alone. The reality is that this tragedy, like all others, will be remedied by the efforts, not of the Government, but private organizations and individuals acting out of pure compassion. From the Red Cross and Salvation Army to the Southern Baptist Convention, hundreds of private charitable organizations are making a positive impact on the lives of the downtrodden in Louisiana and Mississippi.

My question, however, is: where was all this compassion six months ago, or five years ago when the people of New Orleans were living in their poverty? And across this country, even today, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans living in utterly destitute conditions with no hope of ever coming out of them. The government tried for the last forty years to put an end to such poverty, and has failed miserably. It is time for the Church in this country to stand up with creative solutions to help people in need and glorify God by fulfilling Christ's second great command "Love thy neighbor."

Adventures in the Backcountry

I am sitting on a computer in the little Mercantile of Denali National Park in Alaska as I write this entry. I'm rather out of the loop with respect to news and current events, something that is rather odd for me. But that is because I have spent five days in the backcountry wilderness of one of America's largest national parks.

We departed from the Denali Headquarters on July 20 on a "Camper Bus," which drives across the rough, dirt/gravel road through Denali National Park. Along the road, we saw a number of grizzly bears, golden eagles, caribou, and ptarmigan. Of course, we had to stop for every animal at 1,000 yards so people could take pictures that would most certainly not develop well. I couldn't tell for sure, but I don't think anybody on the bus was in possession of Mini-Hubble to view the animals. Nevertheless, after several hours on the bus, we made our final stop past the Eilson Visitor Center, right above the Thorofare River. We made our way along a game trail (that's a trail carved out by wildlife, for those of you who are unfamiliar with outdoors jargon) for a short ways down the hill from the park road, until we came to some rather thick brush. We had to find a place to descend into the riverbed, but there were really no gentle slopes, so we selected the slope with the most brush. Normally, one would never want to travel in thick brush, but whenever traveling up and down very steep inclines, brush is essential, because it is the only thing that keeps one from losing his footing and plummeting to his certain doom--ok, maybe not that dramatic, but broken bones are pretty bad in the backcountry.

We get down into the riverbed, and spot a moose at about 300 yards, just trapsing across the Thorofare. As we began to cross the classic Alaska stream, with its 25-30 braids, we discovered the water, while cold, was pretty shallow in most places, and not terribly swift. With ease, we finished crossing the Thorofare, and thought we were well on our way, when I looked up and spotted a male grizzly bear (quite large...500 lbs or so) at 150 yards. We stopped, hoping he had not yet seen us, and then noticed that he most certainly had, and was moving directly towards us. We waved our hands and shouted "BEAR! BEAR!" as if that is the thing one ought to say to a bear instead of "GO AWAY GO AWAY" or something else (I figure that talking to bears is like giving political speeches, it's not so much the message, but the delivery that matters). He raised up, gave us a second sturdy look, and then nonchalantly moved in the opposite direction. Danger had been averted.

I will continue this post later, but my time on the computer has run out...

The Dangers of Closure

With the recent, rather brutal, battle in the United States Senate over the ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the people of the United States should be increasingly concerned about the policy direction the United States is taking with respect to trade and international commerce. One of the hallmark events of the pre-World War I era was the movement from free trade and free international economic activity to that of relative economic closure, and high tariffs. We would do well to avoid a repeat of this disastrous epoch in world history, but the rising pressures from China's rapid economic expansion, coupled with the resistance of American Organized Labor community to revisions in America's antiquated labor laws confront us with a severe set of problems. First, we are inefficient at production compared to the rest of the world, and second, we are unwilling to accept large trade deficits (despite the fact that most economists will tell you the trade deficit is not the problem; the budget deficit is, and the trade deficit would be relatively resolved if we did not have the budget deficit issue, but I digress).

Given this, there is increasing pressure in the American political community to oppose further liberalization of American trade, and even to impose tariffs on goods coming from countries like China. This is the worst possible course of action we can take in the face of these problems, and the lessons of history teach us that economic closure leads to economic stagnation and even recessions, and then to war. There is no greater form of war mongering than passing tariffs.

Bush's Supreme Decision

Few issues in the last several years have received public attention as much as the American judiciary. The Right has excoriated it for being too Leftist, and the Left has excoriated it for being too Rightist. The Religious Conservatives have claimed that the Court is anti-religious, and the Radical Left-wingers have claimed that it isn't Anti-Religious enough. Leftists claim they want a judge who sees the constitution as a living document, except when that means giving into a majority view that most liberals reject. Conservatives claim they want a judge who "interprets the law rather than makes law." We shall soon see if the Conservative bloc and the President hold true to this conviction, or if the Conservative bloc cheers when the President appoints an ideologue to the court instead of a strict constructionist. The Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It is a set of rules by which we have determined we will govern ourselves. If we think the rules need to change, we have a method for changing those rules. At the same time, existing rules can be applied incorrectly and the Court can determine when there has been a long-standing misapplication of the rules. Brown v. Board of Education is the quintessential example of the Court correcting such a misapplication. Ultimately the underpinning notions of the Constitution are that individuals have rights that must be upheld, must be applied equitably, and in a judicious manner. This means individual rights for all Americans, and the President needs to choose a Justice who recognizes this, even if it conflicts with his ideological beliefs. Fidelity to the Constitutional text should be the foremost concern of any Justice on the Supreme Court, and sometimes fidelity to the text requires the abandonment of tradition. I sincerely hope that equal rights, including private property rights, free speech rights, the right to freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, privacy rights, equal protection, etc. are the fundamental concern of the new Justic on the Supreme Court. I am sketpical that this will happen in our era of partisanship, for which both sides are to blame, but I hope the confirmation process will bring about this desire end in spite of the partisanship. Conservatives and Liberals ought to be united on this front, but politics seems to always get in the way.

A Series of Rants

There is just too much going on in the news as of late, so I will try to comment on several of the major recent news items.

The Supreme Court and Private Property- In one of the most repugnant decisions in American history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that municpalities can seize private property with almost no limitations, as long as it "serves the public interest." This is a perversion of the already perverse doctrine of eminent domain. The Supreme Court, rather than serving as the restraining mechanism of the U.S. government, it has become the great enabler of statists who do not believe the Constitution actually limits government power (except when it comes to regulating war protests and burning the American flag...then it's hands off!). No greater blow has been dealt to individual rights in this country since the wave of gun control policies passed during Clinton administration.

George Voinovich and John Bolton- despite his tears on the Senate floor, the George Voinovich failed to make a compelling case that John Bolton is unfit to be Ambassador to the United Nations. That the Democrats are holding up an appointee to a diplomatic post purely on ideological grounds (don't let Barbara Boxer's smokescreen fool you) is anathema to tradition. Whether Bolton is the "best" man for the job is not the question--that is never the question on appointments. "Best man for the job" is a nebulous description, and if that were our criteria, we would likely never find a person to fill the post. The Democrats are constantly complaining that they never get to talk about what really matters to the American people (what that is, I'm not really sure), so rather than talking about those things, they are holding up appointments to the Bench, to Diplomatic posts, and whining about turning off the Air Conditioning at Gitmo.

Hillary- the new "gotcha" book about Hillary Clinton is yet another example of the media's blatant bias. They have created backlash against the book by the way they have reported it. I have not read the book, and so make no claims either way about it, but the media's behavior has been wholly reprehensible. Meanwhile, Hillary is gearing up for what is likely to be the most vicious, brutal presidential campaign in American history. I do not know if our Republic can survive 2008.

China- The greatest threat to American national security, and moreover, to the very existence of American hegemony is China. China is taking a mixed approach to achieving hegemony in the world: improve the economy and build big guns. China's bids for Unocal and Maytag should cause significant worry in the White House, the halls of Congress, and in the offices on Wall Street. The question, unfortunately, is no longer whether or not China should be contained, but rather are we ready to deal with the uncontainable China that has emerged in the last ten years. Do we have the economic vitality, scientific advantage, and popular will to stand up to the world's most populous country? I fear we do not. American optimism is about to be shattered when the Eagle and the Dragon face off, and the Eagle loses.

Europe's Misfit and America's Ally

The Washington Times today reports on Turkey's clouded future with regard to its EU membership, particularly given the abject failure of the new EU constitution in Holland and France (the only two countries, it is worth noting, to hold a popular referendum to determine whether or not to ratify the constitution) and the troubled Western European leaders who had previously been ardent supporters of Turkey's EU membership. As the Washington Times reports, Angela Merkel, the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the opposition party in Germany, is likely to be the next Chancellor when Germans reject the failed economic and social-experimental policies of the Socialist Schroeder government. Merkel would become the first woman ever to lead a unified Germany, and while she is not a conservative from the American perspective on social issues, she is a staunch economic conservative favoring lower taxes, reduced governmental regulation, and fiscal discipline.

The CDU also is far more hawkish on immigration than Schroeder's Socialists. Due to the immigration policies of the EU for its member countries, Germany is extraordinarily concerned about a massive influx of Turkish immigrants if Turkey gains EU membership. They already consider the Turkish immigration issue one of the most serious of all national issues. All of this, together with Turkey's growing alienation from the Europe it thought was its friend (we can empathize), especially on cultural/linguistic/historical matters exhibits a unique opportunity for the United States to improve its relations with the Islamic world.

Because of America's cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and religious diversity (particularly in contrast with Europe's lack thereof), we are well-positioned to create a primarily diplomatic "empire" that would put the Europeans to shame. The question of course is whether or not we are willing to swallow our pride and embrace countries and the leaders of countries who do not look like us, talk like us, or think necessarily like us. Through the positive diplomatic interaction, however, we can spread the ideas of liberty and republicanism to the rest of the world without the loss of American or foreign civilian lives. For a country whose leaders are at least nominally Christian, we should attempt, as best we can, to apply the teachings of Christ and the whole of Scripture to all areas of life, and that includes foreign policy. And as Solomon tells us in the Proverbs "A harsh word stirs up anger, but a gentle word breaks a bone."

There is one additional factor that is important to this discussion of diplomatic relations, and courting Turkey (among other non-Arab, Islamic states, like Pakistan and those in Central and Southeast Asia), and that is the remarkable diplomatic abilities of the Chinese. The Chinese were, in their golden age, the greatest of the world's diplomats. This has been culturally preserved, and we see that the Chinese are opening embassies in obscure countries around the world where China has little or no economic interests. This is not the behavior of a minor, regional power, but of a would-be superpower. If we allow China to win in the world of diplomacy, I fear the battle is all but lost when they determine to assert their status as one of the world's new superpowers.

Dean, Guerrillas, and Christians

Howard Dean is a tragi-comic character in American politics these days. His inflammatory rhetoric is often so ridiculous that it pokes at even the most serious politico's funny bone. Calling the Republicans the "White Christian Party" was not so off-base in matter of fact, but patently false in the context. The Republican Party is the Party of White Christians. It is the Party of White Christians because the Democrats want little or nothing to do with White Christians.

Dean's pejorative use of the phrase "White Christian" is in fact quite revealing of this reality. The Republican Party, though, is more than just the Party of White Christians. It is also the Party of Black Christians and Hispanic Christians who have more than just a slight problem with the Secularist mindset that has overcome the entirety of the Democrat Party.

The GOP is also the Party of young Hispanic and Black Americans who want the chance to be entrepreneurs, to make something of their lives without the government riding in their backs the entire way. The GOP, at its core (though unfortunately not in its current manifestation of the Bush White House and the Frist/Hastert Congress) is the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Governmental Restraint, and true, Constitutional rule. The fact that this is no longer the perception in America indicates the dire need for Republicans to examine themselves institutionally and get back on message.

The Republican Party, in contrast to the Democrat Party, believes that individuals, not the government, should control their own future. Republicans believe that individuals, not groups, have rights, and the sooner we start treating and loving people, rather than giving special priveleges and faux rights to groups, the sooner we will ameliorate the malaise of racism, classism, and sexism. The policies currently being propagated by the Democrat Party only further entrench these heinous evils by creating reasons for resentment and anger.

This is what Howard Dean just does not understand. As Howard Fineman wrote today, Howard Dean's problem isn't his mouth, it's mindset. He cannot understand how the word "Christian" could be a good thing, and just assumes that the standard, 60-year old line of the Democrats that Republicans are a bunch of "evil, rich, white men" is true.

Dean has another problem. He thinks that raising money and running a party is sort of like commanding a Guerrilla war. Snipe somebody here, (character) assassinate a leader there, do outrageous things to distract people from other targets while sending a few henchmen to take care of those targets. The trouble of course is that Guerrilla warriors can cause the ruling army a lot of headache and trouble, but Guerrillas are no good at occupying and governing. Their success depends wholly on hiding in the shadows and causing the other side so much pain that it retreats and leaves. This is what is going on with the "insurgency" in Iraq. It is a test of wills and endurance. Although the Republicans under George W. Bush have given in to many Democrat demands in the face of similar Guerrilla tactics, by and large, even this administration has shown a pretty genuine resolve on the things that mattered: tax cuts, judicial nominees, and tort reform. Perhaps the Democrats and Dean will wake up and realize they need to have a plan to govern. That is, unless they like being Guerrillas forever resigned to be in the minority. I'd be fine with that, too.

The Greatest of These Is Love

Christian Evangelist and Apologist Ravi Zacharias has said, I think quite correctly, "A conviction, ungirded by love, will make the possessor of it obnoxious and the dogma he possesses repulsive." The Scriptures tell us "Now abideth faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love," and that "He who loves another has fulfilled the law." With all that is going on in the so-called "culture war," it is time for those of us who are conservative and more important, Christian, to do a gut check and re-examine our approach. Is our political philosophy and is our political advocacy undergirded by love or ungirded by it? Are we reaching out to the people who have fallen victim to the destructive Existentialist philosophy that plagues our nation, or are we standing up like Pharisees and prounouncing judgment and casting the first stone? Jesus did not tell the adulteress "Thou art damned," he said "Go and sin no more." He showed loving compassion to those in spiritual need. It was the Pharisees pronouncing judgment. Christ was the only one who had a right to judge, and yet He did not. Does this mean we should approve of sin? No. But "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not manifested with hateful speech and vitriolic rhetoric. It was Ghandi who said when asked what he thought of Christianity: "I like their Christ, but I don't like their Christian. When I think of a Christian, I see him with a mug of beer in his right hand and a slab of beef in his left." Nietzche, the famed Athetist philosopher, said "I will start beliving in the Redeemer when the Christian looks a little more redeemed." You see, Postmodern Christianity in the Conservative churches teach abstention from alcohol and sex, and if you can do those two things, then you're in good shape. Sad to say, this is far from the truth. The message of the Gospel is far-reaching and radical, and it should infiltrate our every motive, thought, belief, and action. If we are to win this generation to Christ, it will be through showing His love to them through ourselves. We should live each day in the shadow of the Cross, and by doing so will be forced to live humbly, loving one another, and showing mercy to one another. Soli Deo Gloria, that is, To God Alone Be The Glory.

TAFTA

After my last post, I began thinking seriously about the possibility of a NAFTA-like agreement with the free market countries of Europe. I think we should call it the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or TAFTA, and invite Great Britain, Estonia, and all of the other countries who believe that free markets are superior to socialism when it comes to growing an economy. Perhaps the faltering economies of Western Europe, like Italy, will recognize the extreme value of openness and will decide to accede to the agreement themselves. This idea makes sense not only from an economic perspective with economic benefits in mind, but it is imperative that the United States attempt such a project for reasons of political stability. The impending collapse and failure of the EU experiment will leave a vacuum that must be filled, lest the economies of the world slip into autarky again. A period of closure such as that would lead to the same economic decline and thus political nightmare scenarios like those of the Interwar period: Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito.

A Grand Opportunity

The United States should recognize the unique opportunity it has right now to step in and fill the gap that is being gradually created by the incompetent leaders of the European Union. With European government officials publicly speculating about the collapse of the Euro, it seems that the 50 year old dream of the European Utopianists is about to come to an abrupt and bitter end. The United States should sieze this opportunity to reclaim its leadership as the world's maintainer of the liberal international economic order and promote increased trade to head off any moves toward economic closure that might ensue. We should announce our intentions to create a NAFTA-like agreement with Great Britain and the marketizing nations of Eastern Europe like Estonia, whose political economy is much closer to ours (or at least is on a trajectory to be closer to ours) than it is to their Western European counterparts. This sort of economic integration will have tremendous benefits for both sides, as well as further improving political relations between the countries. Western Europe will continue to decline until it realizes that Socicalism is a completely unworkable pipe dream that ignores the realities of economics and human nature. Ironically, Karl Marx was right about one thing. He said history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. The Soviet Union was the tragedy, the European Union is the farce.

Why the French Rejection of the EU Treaty is both Good and Bad

The French people soundly rejected a proposed new constitution for the European Union, which would have further integrated the western part of the Eurasian subcontinent (it is rightly noted by geographers that Europe is not a continent in and of itself, and if history had not developed as it had, Europe would never have been classified as a continent, but I digress).

Europe's bloody thousand-year history was to come to an end after the denoument of the Second World War. So far, it has succeeded. But it is hardly time to make any sort of bold statements about peace in Europe with only sixty intervening years. The French rejection of the new EU constitution, and the impending defeat of the same by the Dutch exposes the deep-rooted, centuries old nationalism and cultural differences that have divided Europe throughout the ages. Without doubt, economic concerns are the overriding reason for the rejection, at least outwardly. But the reality is that the economic sovereignty issues are merely the manifestation of uneasiness the French have in signing over their national autonomy to German bureaucrats in Brussels.

When examining the economic problems of the Eurozone, it is important to recognize that the European economies, particularly in Western Europe, are stagnating rather miserably. They are experiencing little, if any economic growth, and massive unemployment. The situation is so wretched in Italy, that it would not be out of the realm of possibility if the Italians withdrew from the Euro altogether in the next few years. The integration of different economies with different fundamental infrastructures has proved to be a more difficult task in reality than it was in theory. With the widespread inequities in GDP, economic institutions, etc. that separate the countries of East and West Europe, there should be no wonder about why countries are weary of further economic and political integration.

For the United States, this development could be extremely positive, particularly in the short term. Leaders across Europe will now have to turn their attention and focus inward to deal with this major setback, and they will have to engage in serious gut-checking in order to determine the best future course of action in Europe. This strengthens the United States' hand in world affairs, and also puts to rest, at least temporarily, further talk of Europe as a "counter-weight" to U.S. global influence. T.R. Reid and the handful of other American Europhiles who released a flurry of books a few months ago declaring the dawn of a new age with Europe at the helm should now be hanging their heads in shame. The superficial success of Europe has now been proven to be just that, and the picture will begin to dim even further in the coming months.

However, there is a distinct danger in the French rejection of the EU treaty this week. As the Turks continue to overwhelm Germany through immigration, and the Algerians France, and various Arab sects the Netherlands, the possibility of a new bloody Europe emerges. With ethnic conflict continuing to rise in the Netherlands and parts of France, and the inevitable rise of radical elements among the indigenous population in response, the Turk will become to the 21st Century German what the Jew was to the early 20th Century German. The dangerous reality for Europe is that the Jew was not a threat in the 20th Century, but the Muslim is. As immigration control policies increase in Europe, so will Islamic violence and terrorism. A fractured European continent enhances the ability of Islamic factions to take control of smaller political units on the continent through strategic immigration.

Europe is in turmoil. Let us see what comes of it.

The Bankruptcy of Secularism

This is really more the title of a book than a blog post, but I hope the reader will indulge my overly-ambitious title for the thoughts in my post today.

I have not posted in almost a month, as life sometimes catches up with us and we get sidetracked. But today's post will make up for it, as this has been one of the chief topics on my mind in the last few weeks.

Life is filled with little observations, little occurrences, mishaps, coincidences, and contradictions. Much of our experiential knowledge of the world is garnered from these blips in our existence, as they seem to be of no consequence at the moment they happen, but later are often instructive if we take the time to reflect. All around me in the last several weeks I have witnessed these small blips in my existence, and in those near me, and I have come to a firm conclusion that not only is Secularism less than ideal, that is, that it is one system among many which is merely inferior, but that it is utterly bankrupt in every regard.

The world cries out in agony today. It occupies itself with distractions, while convincing itself that these distractions are the goals. Distractions have captured the fortress, and we seem not to know how expel them from our midst, since in their capture of the fortress, they have made us worse than servants to their designs, they have made us their prisoners. And though we may violently shake our prison gates, we call out to the night "Oh darkness where is thy deliverance?" Yet the reply is an eerie, deathly silence.

Our jailors do not feed us, and we shriek with hunger pangs. But the night does not feed us either. Our jailors do not give us water, and we groan in the misery of thirst. But the night does not supply us with drink either. When the morning dawns, we think we have a reprieve, and we play merrily with our jailors, who sport smiles during the daylight hours. They give us chocolates and sodas, and we for a time our lot improves.

We think we have no need to call to the Sun for help when he is breaking on the horizon. But as he flees from the clutches of the twilight, our captors' smiles fade and our shackles are put on us again. The temporality of the chocolates and sodas disappears in an instant, and we are suddenly strapped by our lack of sustenance and nutrition. But the night does not respond to our calls.

This is the likeness of America today. We consort with our captors and we call out to the night. Drunkenness, sex, money, drugs, entertainment, popularity have all become our captors. We think they will provide us happiness, and then they do not. But like the burnt fool's bandaged finger from Kipling's great poem, we go wobbling back to the fire. We are the dog returning to his vomit. We know they do not fulfill, yet we return to check again. "It will be different this time," we tell ourselves. But it is never different this time, and while the moment seems pleasurable, the aftermath is disastrous. Our souls mourn over the pain. Then we go back for another round.

Secular Humanism is the manifestation of true Existentialist philosophy. We are here for but a moment, our lives are meaningless, so we must maximize the pleasures and minimize the pains. Instead, we maximize the pains and minimize the pleasures, and lie to ourselves about the state of affairrs. Each moment in the Existentialist life is infused with anxious anticipation for the next moment. For if the next moment is not more pleasurable than this moment, then what will we have gained? And this moment-to-moment living produces despair. We have no hope for future joy, apart from that we obtain on our own (which we never seem to obtain). The reason Existentialism manifests itself as Secular Humanism is that only in the Secular Humanistic conception are we free from all moral constraints, all impediments to our temporal pleasure.

But Secular Humanism is an unstable philosophy. To the question "Where did we come from?" they say "an accident." To the question "Why are we here?" they say "to enjoy ourselves." To the question "What are the rules?" They say "There are none--but there are--but there aren't." And to the question "Where are we going?" they say "to the grave, and nothing more."

The entire system is Secular Humanism was conceived to annihilate moral restraint. But to the question of objective morality, they insist first of all that there is no objective morality, but the nihilism of this response is unpalatable even to the existentialist, for it would instantly justify rape, murder, and genocide. There can be no response to this problem from the humanist. He may attempt a response, but it will not stand up to scrutiny. If there is some objective moral standard, even as simple as "Murder is wrong," then it had to come from some objective moral law-giver. There can be no other way out.

But even if we make an unnecessary concession to the Secular Humanist and say that "there is no morality or immorality, there is only the pleasure of the self wherein it does not infringe upon others' pleasure" (again this is inconsistent with their philosophy, but I must use it to illustrate a point), we are left with an extraordinarily difficult problem. That is, if this life and its enjoyment is all that there is, how absurd is our meager existence? And since life has more pains than pleasures, how can even the physical fulfillments (which do not fulfill at all) make life less absurd, except by way of distraction?

In God, however, the personal creator of all of the universe, we find meaning. As William Lane Craig has said "God infuses every moment of our existence with his eternal meaning." Only through God does life lose its absurdity. More on this in the coming days...

A Lackluster Beginning

This has been a very disappointing 3 months since the President's Inauguration. Standing behind the Capitol in the frigid conditions of that overcast day, I listened to President Bush rattle off a litany of goals he had for his second term. Among them were Social Security Reform and further Education Reform. He also talked about the importance of spreading democracy across the globe. He should have stuck to foreign policy. The Social Security effort hasn't moved off the starting blocks, and the President's approval rating has sunk to an all-time low. There's just something about 2nd Terms that aren't worth a whole lot. It might just be the only legitimate reason to repeal the 22nd Amendment: no more lame ducks. It hasn't helped that the Republicans in Congress have become the same kind of cowards that the Democrats were when they were in the majority. I'm not talking about all of them, just a whole lot of them. What will it take to get their attention? My fear is that it will take a major defeat at the polls. If things don't change soon, we'll be looking at Speaker Pelosi.

The Perpetual Campaign: The Final Nail in the Republic's Coffin

It's finally here: the perpetual campaign. As our Presidential campaign cycles get longer and longer, and as midterm posturing begins on Election night, we have enough to worry about when it comes to long campaign seasons. But there is another addition to the campaign family: issue campaigning. This is not totally new, but my guess is that it is about to become more prevalent. Social Security, Judicial Nominees, Gay Marriage---all of these issues are becoming campaign issues, that is, they issues that the Administration, members of Congress, and Governors are flying about the country "campaigning for," pushing popular support upward for whatever their position is on the matter.

This is a disaster for our system of government. The Republic has been dying for about a half-century, with more democracy (the bad kind) taking root in the United States. The initial attacks on the Republic came in the form of the 16th & 17th Amendments, as well as the 18th but it was fortunately repealed. The advent of information technology and instant news has allowed the transformation from Republic to Democracy to be complete. Now the majority will rule without protecting the rights of the minority, and they will vote themselves whatever portion of the public treasury that they want. Indeed, Social Security and Medicare are the perfect examples of this, and our nation will crumble as a result.

Some Good News for a Change

Corporate Profits are up, way up in fact. This is good news for the economy, though not necessarily for consumers in the short run. It's not bad news for consumers, it just doesn't do a whole lot for them right now. Many on the Left argue that employment and more money for the "little guy" are the best things for the economy, and that nothing else really matters. Well, we had that during the 1990s, the Clinton Bubble (whose burst was very painful), and it didn't do us much good. It also was a decade of very low capital formation, we were spending our way into prosperity, only to discover that prosperity was soon followed by recession. Corporations, at least most corporations who have long term focus (and corporations that don't aren't around for long) are taking their profits and reinvesting them in capital. That is good news for productivity. Capital investment right now could also mean new alternatives to the oil-driven economy. This could be the shot in the arm that will prevent major economic catastrophe in the near future. Let's just hope the Democrats don't win any elections soon, because Big Corporations are the favorite target of Democrat tax increases (well, Big Corporations and everybody else in the country).

Stagflation Redux

Oil is up, prices are up, employment is shaky--the Fed is responding to all of this with higher interest rates. For those people who were around for the 1970s, the term Stagflation may be unfamiliar, but the realities of it are not. Prior to the '70s, economists believed that Inflation and Unemployment were mutually exclusive phenomena. In other words, there as thought to be a tradeoff: accept a little inflation to have not so much unemployment, and vice versa. This was known as the Phillips Curve in the academic literature. But the '70s broke the Phillips Curve, and economists were standing around scratching their heads. Suddenly there was unemployment and inflation, or stagnant inflation---now known as "stagflation." With oil prices soaring in recent days, and with the job creation numbers out today, it is looking like we could be having a repeat of '70s-style stagflation. The question everybody is asking is "Who do we blame?" Most people want to blame the government. And that works pretty well, but we can't lay it on a single person or group. Everybody is responsible. They are responsible for failing to reduce spending, and further cut taxes. They are responsible for failing to further reduce regulatory burdens on industry and small business. They are responsible for failing to reform the entitlement programs that are sucking the economy dry.

So on this April Fool's day, the only fool is the American public, for buying politicians' lies that more government makes things better. It just isn't so.

Bad News Time

The amount of money the U.S. Government has promised to pay out in Medicare and Social Security benefits in the future that it has no plan to pay for, that is, unfunded liabilities, $75 Trillion.

The price of oil per barrel today, $55.30

The price of oil very soon, $65.00

The price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline very soon, $4.00.

Democrats ignoring these problems and saying that George W. Bush hates the elderly.....shameful.

More Unfunded Liabilities

Exciting news today from the trustees of Medicare and Social Security. These two accounts now have unfunded liabilities totally about $75 Trillion. That's pretty good, it's almost doubled since last year's estimates. I'm not sure what world GDP is, but I'm pretty sure it's not quite $75 Trillion. I'll have to do some checking. The hyperinflation scenario that now looms over our heads is going utterly destroy the U.S. Economy if we do not do something about it soon. Increasing taxes to pay for these massive promises simply won't work. That course of action, too, would crush the economy. The only solution is modifying the promise. Who will be bold enough to do this? My guess is nobody. Alas.

Thugs in Robes

There has been much clamor in recent weeks and months within the conservative movement over "judicial activism," the new red meat issue for ideological conservatives. Taxes, abortion, prayer in school, and all sorts of other issues have been lightning rods on the right for years, and now it seems that the law-trained elite (as Scalia calls them) who occupy our judgeships across the country are the focal point of conservative venom. I cannot think of a more appropriate object of such venom; it's just long overdue. American opposition to judicial activism should have started during the Marshall Court about two hundred years ago. But we let it fester, and now we have such ivory tower ignoramuses as Anthony Kennedy lecturing us about International Law and the Civilized Europeans. If I wanted to live under a European system, I would emigrate. If all Americans wanted to live under a European system, we would change the Constitution. But instead it is being forced upon us by the likes of Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and sometimes Sandra Day O'Connor. It is almost a shock that the Court has not ordered the dissolution of Congress and the Presidency, since the Court now has decided both the make laws and make treaties. A few months ago, I was a little annoyed with the Courts, but after Roper v. Simmons, I am infuriated.

And now, the Thugs in Robes who have refused to allow the death penalty for cold blooded murderers who brutally tortured their victims if only they are under the age of 18, yes, the Thugs have ordered the death penalty for an innocent woman who suffered brain damage under mysterious circumstances, and whose husband wants her dead so he can collect his million bucks. This is worse than hypocrisy, it is depravity.

Easter Sunday

Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away--for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you." So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Mark 16:1-8

Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

Love's redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Lo! the Sun's eclipse is over, Alleluia!
Lo! He sets in blood no more, Alleluia!

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ has burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

--Charles Wesley

Another Liar, Another Cheat in Washington

Politicians breaking campaign pledges is a time-honored tradition in this and every country, at least those countries fortunate enough to be able to elect their own leaders. Perhaps soon every country will be able to enjoy the pleasures of broken campaign promises.

According to an article by Charles Hurt in The Washington Times today, freshman U.S. Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado has reversed his campaign promise to give judicial nominees an up or down vote. When asked about the issue, Cody Wertz, Salazar's spokesman, said "Senator Salazar has made no decision on any judge," and that Salazar had made no such pledge. When confronted with the evidence, Wertz said "I'm not sure how that question was phrased." What a horrible spinmeister. If I were Salazar, I would send Cody Wertz packing. The best he could come up with was "I'm not sure how that question was phrased." Pathetic.

Well, this is a lesson to Red States who will be voting in the '06 election for a United States Senator. If the candidate has a "D" by his name, he will say anything to get elected, take conservative or moderate positions, and then promptly go to D.C. where Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton will have another lackey in their pockets to order around. You really aren't voting for the person anymore, you're voting for the party, and the Democrats are going to continue playing the same obstructionist games that they have played during the entirety of the Bush Administration.

Tribute to a Great Man and Great Friend

On Saturday, March 19, Dr. Fay Boozman was killed in an unfortunate accident on his farm in Rogers, Arkansas. Fay, or "Bud," as he was known by family and close friends, dedicated his life to the service of the Lord and his fellow man. He was an excellent physician, passionate public servant, and the one of the most dedicated family men I have ever known. For the past five years, he served as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, and he had previously been a State Senator here in Arkansas. I remember the first day I met him, back in 1997. It was the day that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban passed the Arkansas Senate; he was the bill's primary sponsor. Over the years, as I got to know him better, I came to admire and respect him very deeply. He was a role model, in the truest sense of the term, and now in his tragic death, his life serves as a testimony to truth that a man can enter politics and not lose his soul. He loved the Lord with all of his heart, mind, and soul, and he loved his neighbor as himself. He truly exhibited the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Thank you, Fay, for the impact you have had on my life. You will be sorely missed.

The Medicare Crisis

Social Security needs reform. I commented yesterday on the real reason for this. But today I want to discuss an even worse crisis that looms on the horizon. Currently, there is a $45 Trillion balance of unfunded liabilities in the United States. That means that the U.S. Government has promised, at some time in the future, to pay out $45 Trillion that it will not have the money to pay out. That is $45,000,000,000,000. That's approximately $155,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States today. In other words, the U.S. Government plans to add $45 Trillion to the $7 Trillion or so it already owes. About $30 Trillion of that is in the Medicare account alone. That number will only rise as new benefits (like the recently added prescription drug benefit) are added. And it is almost guaranteed that such benefits will increase in the next twenty years, since the 60+ crowd makes up the largest portion of the electorate already, and the number of people in that group is set to rapidly expand as the baby-boomers continue to age. They will vote themselves increasing amounts of money from the pockets of the decreasing pool of working-age citizens, and so the unfunded liabilities account is likely to skyrocket. This can be stopped, however. If Congress acts now to cut the annual increases in medicare benefits by only half, we can shave off $15 Trillion from that sum. That is not a cut in benefits, it is only slowing the increase in individuals' benefits. Failing to take action now will lead to dire economic consequences in the future.

Social Security

The Social Security reformers are making a blunder of incalculable magnitude. The real problem with Social Security is not that it will go bankrupt in 2042. The crisis of Social Security reform is 2011, the year that the babyboomers start retiring. When they do, they will begin withdrawing money from their 401(k) accounts and IRAs. The massive amount of capital flowing out of the stock and bond markets, if not replaced by a massive influx of new capital, will cause a steady, strong, and irreversible decline in U.S. equity markets. Partial privatization of Social Security will provide that new influx of capital. Nothing else likely will.