Thankful it's almost over

I voted early after discovering I'd be out of town on Tuesday. It was fairly busy at the courthouse with other early voters, but I didn't have to wait too long.

The outcome of the election, if it is as close as the pollsters say it is, will be disappointing on many levels even if my choice wins. This election, I am convinced, represents a turning point in our country's history that will decide whether our country will continue to be the great success story or just another secular socialist country like those in Europe.

Whether he wins election or even comes close, all this support for Kerry tells us that somewhere close to half of the country believes these things:
1. Iraq is no threat to us, electing Kerry doesn't encourage terrorists, and the war was just about making Cheney & Haliburton rich.
2. Abortion on demand, no questions asked, paid for by taxpayers who morally object, provided to teen and pre-teen girls without their parent's knowledge, and available all the way up to killing a fully developed baby just before delivery, are all just part of a woman's right to choose.
3. People of faith, including Christians and Jews but excluding Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. should shut up and stop imposing their morality on everyone, their churches should be taxed on donations, and clergy should be forced to marry homosexuals even if their theology clearly teaches it to be antithetical to their faith.
4. The rich need to pay more taxes, notwithstanding that they already pay the lion's share and a huge segment of the population doesn't pay any at all. We should go back to Jimmy Carter's days with 80% marginal tax rates on earnings over $100K everyone except the liberal leadership and entertainers, even if it destroys our economy.
5. While we're at it, we should also destroy our economy with Kyoto-type environmental laws that shut down whatever's left of our industrial base and completes the transition of all of those jobs to places like China and India, then forcing us to ride bicycles to work and no longer be able to heat or cool our homes economically.
6. Now the FCC can finally be forced to stop hassling the Howard Sterns of the world and permit public radio and television programming that includes as much pornography, violence and vulgarity as the public will take. If parents don't want their kids to see it, they can always change the channel, right?
7. Finally we can fix healthcare, giving everyone full access to the system through a government-controlled single-payer system funded by those taxes on the rich. Of course it's worth the damage to the economy, and so what if people need the whole day off to see the doctor after waiting a month to get an appointment, then waiting a few more weeks to fill the prescription?
8. And now the trial lawyers will have the freedom they need to sue everyone with money for whatever wrong they might have committed on an unsuspecting public. Lawyers love Kerry & Edwards, who will make sure they can continue to get multi-million dollar settlements from corporations through class-action lawsuits where the victims get a little grocery money in compensation after the lawyers collect their one-third to one-half share of those millions they won for their clients.
9. Public schools will now be free and encouraged to teach all of the diversity-friendly values that conservatives have been blocking all these years. Elementary school kids all need to know how gay people have sex, that promiscuity is OK as long as you use a condom, that white males are the scourge of the planet and will be made to pay for their crimes, and that religion is for the weak minded.

I've got more, but I'm tired and sad. Good luck everybody with your new society, I'm praying for mercy.

Almost Polled

I was almost polled for the election.

Almost?

The pollster called me this weekend at my home phone. She went right into the questions - first the Presidential race, asking me my preference and attitudes toward the candidates.

But strangely, just as we were getting started, but after I'd made my strongly-held views clear, the call dropped. Did she hang up? Did the connection go down? I'll never know, but clearly the call ended before the poll was complete, and she made no attempt to call me back.

OK, this wasn't a cellular call, where disconnects are normal. It's extremely rare for a call to be lost on the land line, but it seems strange that it happened on this particular call. By the way, no calls since have had any problems whatsoever, and there were no weather problems or other circumstances that could have explained the failure.

Is it possible that they had their quota of respondents already who indicated a strong preference that matched mine? Do you think that the polling company, the supervisor, or the caller herself were disconnecting calls that didn't give them the results they were looking for to force the result to be what they wanted to report? What if the race isn't really close at all, but the polls are being manipulated to make people think it's close to make those on the opposing side turn out?

I guess we'll never know.

Who are Catholics?

Given such clear-cut social and moral issues at stake right now - abortion/partial-birth abortion, gay marriage among the most prominent - you might think that Catholics would be united behind the candidate that's strongest on these issues.

Interestingly enough, that's not the candidate that claims to be a Catholic himself. After what appears to be a long record of supporting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood, Kerry came out during the campaign to say he personally believes in the teachings of his Church. I imagine that sort of contradiction would leave even his abortion-rights friends scratching their heads.

But doesn't Kerry sort of reflect a deeper problem in the Catholic Church? As an adult convert to Catholicism, one of the things that has troubled me most about the Church is their apparent weakness on issues of morality. Even though the Church officially strongly teaches moral principles of respect for life and personal chastity and responsibility, their membership is reported to be just as likely as the rest of the public to have an abortion.

How can we reconcile this contradiction? Let me try to suggest my own theory of the multiple reasons for Catholics who aren't really Catholic:

1. They really don't know any better: I'm surprised at how many fellow church members I've encountered who really don't know their Catechism. There isn't much emphasis on study of the faith or the Bible in the Church, which I believe results in an uninformed body.

2. They don't embrace the Church's teachings: The contrast is that there are lots of Catholics who nominally understand what the church believes, but don't feel obligated to follow those teachings. Many will pick and choose based on their own personal feelings or convenience; a great example is a majority of Catholics who oppose abortion yet use contraception. It seems that once the door is open to make individual choices on issues of morality, there's no limit to what teachings will be rejected because of thinking clouded by cultural norms.

3. They lack exemplary leadership: Incredibly distressing are the many stories of priests who have molested children, people who have become atheist at least partly due to experiences with sadistic nuns as children, and priests and religious today who publicly flaunt their apostacy without consequence from the Church itself.

A prominent argument taking place among Catholics today relates to ordaining women and accepting married priests. Both are aimed at addressing a near-crisis shortage of priests in our country. Before action is taken on these questions, I would hope that the Church will first ask the question, "Does this change serve God or is it just a capitulation to popular secular ideas?" Might I suggest that the real cause of the shortage is directly related to a Church that has lost its voice and moral authority, standing up for very little for fear of offending an increasingly secular congregation.

A Church focused on being a light to the world and a commitment to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ never need fear a lack of priests. As soon as our Bishops gather the courage to discipline their parishes and teach their congregations what God wants from His people, there will be no more shortages.

Religion Musings

Religious __________;
Right
Zealots
Fanatics
Conservatives
Fundamentalists
Nuts

Just a few of the perjoratives I hear from the left wingers in our country today. I've even heard evangelical Christians referred to as the equivalent of the Taliban. How have we reached this place in our society?

There seems to be this irrational fear among the non-religious libs that somehow Christian Conservatives are out to "impose their views" on everyone. If a Christian suggests that adultery, homosexuality, and abortion are morally wrong, they are immediately slapped down by the "thought police" who are supremely indignant that anyone should dare to suggest anything is wrong on the basis of any religious belief.

We're supposed to be "tolerant" and to celebrate "diversity" in our culture today. Whenever I hear those two code words, I now experience an internal shudder. Those words don't mean repecting people of other races and religions anymore; they really mean embracing "alternative lifestyles" up to the point of this year's unbelievable debate about gay marriage.

It was interesting hearing about some reported "study" that seemed to find some specific genetic characteristic that was consistent among homosexuals. It made me wonder; if they looked hard enough, might they also find genetic characteristics for pedophilia, anti-social behavior, serial killers, etc.? It seems to me that if a suggestion can be made of a genetic pre-disposition to anything acts to remove personal responsibility and morality from the equation. Or is that ultimately the goal?

Let's be clear, just in case there happens to be a reader who's an atheist/agnostic that is frightened that Christians are going to take over the country and turn it into some sort of repressive Taliban-like regime:

First, Christians are completely supportive of the Constitution, which does not permit the Establishment of Religion. That doesn't mean what too many people have tried to make it mean, where the "Separation of Church and State" grants government the authority to deny people of faith their First Amendment rights. It simply means that the government cannot favor one religion over another, which I do not believe public displays of the ten commandments or creches violates in any way.

Second, Christianity itself is based on free will. Nobody is forced to join the faith, but must reach a sincere decision on their own. Sure, evangelicals see it as their mission to convert as many people as possible, but even they will not use force to accomplish that mission.

Finally, I believe any action by the government to force Gay Marriage on the country violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Think of it in this way: Marriage is one of the main sacraments of the Christian faith, and to force recognition of same-sex marriage is an affront to all members of the faith.

I'm very sorry to see that many Christian denominations have begun the slide down that slippery slope toward apostacy in the name of progressivism. Truth is truth, regardless of where our cultural values lead. Trying to "stay relevant" and "update to modern thinking" will make such churches irrelevant and lead many away from God. We can't ignore the fact that divorce and promiscuity are rampant, but not being addressed from pulpits out of fear people involved in these behaviors will take offense. The Church must refocus on being the light of the world rather than following the path of shades of gray that leads to darkness.

The Perfect President

No more debate watching for me. I've seen and heard all I need from the two candidates, and as you probably can tell from prior blogs, there's no way I'm voting for Kerry.

That's not to say I'm a great lover of W. I kind of like him, or at least his down-to-earth and no-nonsense persona. But I've got some serious issues with some of the things he's done.

So, here's the profile of what I think is the perfect president:

• Pro-Life, but realistic enough to know he'll be hated if he's too aggressive about reversing Roe v. Wade. How about a pres who asks the American people to join with him in encouraging alternatives to abortion and removing all the reasons women seek them to make it irrelevant?
• Resolute and tough in the war on terror.
• Solving the Illegal Immigration problem. It's not just a problem of poor immigrants streaming over the Mexican border, but is also part of the war on terror to keep criminals and terrorists from sneaking into the country and creating havoc. He must stop the unholy alliance between businesses who rely on the government to look the other way while they hire illegals at low wages, and Democrats, who have traditionally pandered to the illegal immigrants by offering them amnesty in return for their votes.
• Committed to appointing real judges who interpret law instead of trying to make it up on their own.
• Friendly to business and free trade, but in a balanced way that does not cater to the corporate world or the workers. Trade that's free but fair, labor rules that protect workers from harmful corporate practices and permit unions, but not to the point that it hurts our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
• Committed to Education at all levels, making sure kids get the best education possible even in poor and troubled districts, and helping make college more affordable and reducing massive student loan debts.
• Getting real Tax Reform done, removing pork-barrel and wasteful spending, simplifying the tax code, and making sure nobody's exempt from paying taxes just because they contributed to the right candidates.
• Finding real solutions to Health Care problems, again with a balanced approach that is focused on reducing costs and increasing accessibility without favoring any one constituency over another (Doctors, Hospitals, Lawyers, Patients, Insurers, Drug Companies, Government Bureaucracy)
• A friend of Religious institutions, working to stop the secularists from removing all references to God from the public square. People have the right to believe what they choose and tell others about their beliefs, but it's not right that some wish to silence them because they are "offended" by their speech.
• Fiscally Responsible, refusing to sign any spending legislation until all the pork is cut, priorities are taken care of, stupid programs are discontinued, and income at least equals (if not exceeds) spending.
• Committed to a gradual conversion of Social Security to become actually what it was created to be; a retirement and disability insurance program. Let American workers actually fund their own Social Security account, allowing investments in income-producing instruments and insurance in their own accounts which become available to them and their families upon retirement, death, or disability.
• A Sensible Foreign Policy that helps countries who need it in return for their alliance and friendship, leads the world in rewarding countries who value freedom and human rights while sanctioning those who do not, and continues to engage the world in initiatives for peace and stamping out disease, famine, and civil strife.

OK, tell me I'm dreaming. But is it really so hard to get leadership in this country that actually will work to implement these common-sense policies and protect our values and freedoms?

Just Bloggin'

How about some generalized bloggin' thoughts for a Friday.

Will probably miss the debate tonight to see the Bulldogs hopefully chalk up another win. Too bad Tim's down with an ankle sprain this week, but hopefully he'll be back for Pike next week.

Got the website posted finally. It's still in need of some work, but you might find it interesting. It's at http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/northhs/athletics/football/

Here's what I'd like Bush to tell everyone tonight:
"During this election year, you have been hearing my opponent repeat as a mantra that my administration lied and misled the American people to rush into war in Iraq. What is most disappointing to me about his rhetoric is that I am certain he knows that those statements are completely and totally wrong."

"Given his poor attendance record in the Senate, and especially the Intelligence committee, I can't be sure he was there at the time, but Senator Kerry received every shred of intelligence available and reached the same conclusion I did at the time: Iraq possessed WMD's, supported terrorists, and presented a real and building threat to our security. Now he wants to pretend that he knew better how to deal with Iraq, even though he publicly stated his support for the war and voted for it."

"Now he's trying to tell you that he will take care of Iraq by getting the French and Germans involved, as if our coalition is invalid without their participation. What he's hoping you won't find out is that the report he's so fond of citing that declared there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time we began the war, but it also indicated that Saddam was actively bribing high-level officials in both countries to try to insure any action against him would be vetoed in the UN. In addition, the evidence clearly shows that he had definitive plans to rebuild his WMD capabilities, including Nuclear weapons, as soon as he was successful at getting the UN out of the way."

"The fact is that we're winning the war on terror. Yes, it's a tough road in Iraq, but we have succeeded in not only decimating the ranks of al Qaida, but also attracting them to fighting our troops there so they are unable to bring their terrorism to our own shores. Not only will we succeed in helping Iraq transform into a peaceful democracy, but the war on terror will be won as long as we stay the course and do not waver. Clearly, a Kerry presidency will place polling and political expedience above our country's security; something we cannot afford at this critical time."

OK, I'll never be a presidential speechwriter, but this is the general message that should be conveyed, along with lots of other messages about protecting the constitution, rebuilding the economy, dealing with the healthcare crisis, etc.

Debate Thoughts

The presidential debate was interesting, and seemed to project a very clear picture of the differences between the two on Iraq. Kerry's taken up the pacifist position that we shouldn't be there at all, and if he'd been president we would still be talking and negotiating with Saddam. Bush counters that it was the right thing to do, has effectively taken the war on terror to the enemy and away from our shores, and our best approach to win is to stay steadfast and unwavering.

I'm very certain that each candidate appealed to their own base constituencies, but doubt that anybody was won over to either camp. Supporters of the President will continue to agree that he's taken the right course, although it can be fair to raise some criticism of some of the current tactics. Getting the Iraqis up to speed with their own security forces is definitely what we should be focused on right now, and I think it might be fair to criticize the President on not moving aggressively enough in that area.

That said, can Kerry do a better job of pacifying Iraq? Absolutely not. His approach is to hold endless "summits" and try to be the world's foremost statesman. Talking has its place, but my impression of Kerry is that, had he been President the last 4 years, he'd still be talking to the UN about Saddam and getting nowhere, and would probably still be working on his coalition to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. His simplistic, idealistic approach assumes that the terrorists can be pacified by being made to see that we're not such bad people, and other countries will come to our aid in Iraq simply because he asks them.

Bush missed some big opportunities. For example, Kerry referred to his refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. Bush could have scored big points by simply pointing out that Kyoto is an effort by other nations to decimate the US economy through outrageous environmental restrictions, which by the way would not apply to competitor nations such as China. Another example was when Kerry referred to his protest activities after he returned from Viet Nam. Bush could very easily have pointed out how that made Kerry the VietCong's greatest ally and led to resurgence by an enemy who was given hope by his activities. He also could have pointed out the suffering it caused for our POW's. Finally, he could have pointed out the obvious self-contradiction of Kerry in calling for direct talks with North Korea above the multilateral negotiations Bush is pursuing; it's funny that he criticizes the president about not bringing enough allies into the Iraq fight while suggesting we discard our partners in the Korean problem.

Finally, if style counts over substance, you'd have to say Kerry won the debate. Kerry was well prepared, articulate, and confident, in contrast to Bush, who was defensive, halting, stuttering, and irritable. If I were to give advice to the Bush campaign, I'd strongly suggest he work on eliminating those negatives and speak clearly, forcefully, calmly, and confidently in the next debate.