Evolution of Awareness

When I was younger, I didn't really pay much attention to politics. Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat - none of those labels meant a whole lot to me.

Until my mid-twenties, I generally thought of myself as moderate. I followed the popular notion that it was best to vote for the best person, not the party.

Today I can't tell for certain whether that philosophy was a good one, because I was mostly ignorant about the important issues of the day.

It was when I began to be responsible for myself and my family and understood how government policies can impact my life directly that I gradually became aware. And the more I learned, the more I found myself identifying with conservatives.

Today the choices could not be more stark.

Clearly, the Democrats have slid close to the extreme left of the spectrum. Every solution they push to implement requires government intervention and control.

In the meantime, we find that a frigheningly declining proportion of producers are seeing their wealth confiscated to prop up the political class and the consumers.

We've reached the tipping point, where it appears we now don't have enough producers with wealth to raid to keep the government class and their consuming consituents solvent.

The party in power wants to take more from the producers to reduce the alarming deficits, but have no realistic plan to reverse the trend. How can they not be aware that producers will change their behavior to protect themselves to whatever extent they can?

Wherever Obama's cap settles in, defining the cutoff point for the "rich", his plan is to take everything earned by the producers in excess of that number. Producers in turn will simply cut back their income to fall just below that line. Which means more jobs lost, more businesses shutting down, and more suffering across the board.

On the other hand, I am not encouraged that the conservatives will have the will or the courage to do what must be done to reverse the trend. While November's elections might help a bit, without leadership and a clear sales job to the masses, the problems aren't likely to be solved.

When we live in a world where expression of common sense ideas means volunteering to become a target for personal destruction, totalitarian rule cannot be far behind.

My Delta Story

I long for the good old days before Delta swallowed Northwest. It's never been more painfully evident than my experience with this week's trip.

In general, since Delta absorbed Northwest, I've seen a number of changes, all of them for the worse.

Delta uses more commuter flights, even on routes like Indy to Atlanta. Those small planes mostly don't have a first class, and those that do have a very limited number of seats and they're not that much better than the coach seats.

All of a sudden the status level I had achieved as a frequent flyer on Northwest seems to be no big deal on Delta. With Northwest, when the flight had a first class cabin, I always got upgraded. Well, maybe not always, but I can't tell you the last time I was on a Northwest flight where I qualified for an upgrade and didn't get it.

With Delta, it happens about half of the time. Partly because of the little commuter planes and partly because the combined pool of frequent flyers are competing for fewer seats.

Then there's the customer service. Northwest had a labor issue before the merger, so there were a lot of bitter and unhappy flight attendants. But the old Northwest beats Delta in customer service hands-down and across the board. In every conceivable customer-facing experience I can report.

So that brings me to this week's trip.

Took off from Indy on time in the little commuter plane with no first class that was overbooked. Northwest used to run the route with a slightly larger plane and guaranteed first class upgrade. OK, that's just me bellyaching.

Got to the intermediate airport, and found out as I approached the gate for my next flight that it had been cancelled.

Waited about 20 minutes to talk to an agent, who couldn't help me. Apparently all of the flights to my destination the rest of the day, including those that connect through other cities, were oversold. There was no way I could get to that airport until the next day.

But the agent suggested that if I wanted to switch my destination to another city nearby, that could still get me there in the same day. So I called my client to confirm I could get picked up at that airport, then used my cell to call the booking line to avoid having to stand in line another 20 minutes for an agent.

Booking line said, sure, if you head for gate 25 now, you can hop on the flight to the nearby destination. She told me she had me rebooked, and all I had to do was get the boarding pass from the gate agent.

Well, I got to the gate, and the gate agent was flustered. See, she had about a dozen of us who were trying to catch this same flight, because we all were on the original flight that got cancelled. And she could not get the computer to process our rebookings. And she could not figure out why.

So she had us each give her our original boarding passes, and two of the passengers worked! So she gave them boarding passes and sent them to the plane. The rest of us she still tried various things to get ours rebooked, but the system just refused to work with her.

She somehow managed to get one more passenger cleared and sent him through the gate. He came back 2 minutes later to tell her they'd already closed the door and wouldn't let him on.

So she finally gave up, and told the rest of us to try the booking line.

I called them again, and they rebooked me for the next flight to the alternate city, leaving about 4 and a half hours later. I asked about my bag, can they make sure it follows me?

She said, "No problem, that's automatic". Right.

I get on that flight, arrive at the destination, and you guessed it - no bag.

So of course I went to the agent, who was the only agent taking care of all 8 of us (the same group of folks from the original cancelled flight), but was also the only agent on duty and had to check in folks arriving for other flights. So it took awhile.

Then, she couldn't get the computer to accept our baggage claims. She was puzzled by that, but actually was the first person who was able to get somewhat creative. She gave us all her direct number, took down our information, and promised she'd get our claims in the system just as soon as she could.

From the hotel, I called her. She confirmed that the claim had been filed, but so far nobody had updated anything. I asked if the bag was still in Memphis, or maybe had it been sent to the original destination? She didn't know. Could I call the other airport to find out if it was there? No, the system doesn't allow for that.

So I waited a couple of hours and called the 800 baggage number. The person who took my call also told me that so far there was no information about the bag. She couldn't give me any information, because nobody had updated the record in the system yet. Again I asked if there was a way to track it down by calling somebody and got the same answer as before.

She clearly didn't care in the slightest whether I ever got my bag.

I went to work the next day in my shorts and golf shirt. The client was great about it.

The bag showed up at my hotel late the next night, about 36 hours after my flight arrived.

I would bet that the other 8 who got re-routed with me had a very similar experience. Of course, I already know they all didn't get their bags rerouted with them.

So we're down to Delta, United, American. All three have no apparent interest in or understanding of the concept of customer service.

I want to start a new airline. I could do a better job running mine than whoever's running those big three. But then again, it's not like that would be very hard.

Defining Leadership

The conversation about the gulf oil disaster has been centered on Obama, and whether or not he's shown leadership in dealing with the disaster.

If you read me much, you probably already guessed my answer. So instead of the direct answer, let me go directly into definitions of leadership.

Leadership is about getting things done and solving problems.

Obama is about getting political power done and solving problems of recalcitrant democrats who might hold up his political priorities.

So when a real-world problem arises, such as the collapse of the economy, various terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, or the oil disaster Obama's version of leadership is to try to turn the problem into impetus to accelerate his political agenda.

A leader faced with the Gulf disaster would first of all have made sure the department charged with inspecting and regulating offshore oil rigs was doing its job. Failing that, a great leader would have sprung into action decisively and directly as soon as the rig explosion occurred.

A great leader would have immediately called together a team to assess the accident, find out what impact it might have, and begin developing recommendations for solutions. He would have met with BP executives and engineers, along with any experts he can recruit from the industry, to talk about the problem and possible solutions.

Then he would have recruited all available resources, whether from BP, the military, or other Oil Company engineers and experts to work together aggressively toward stopping the oil. In a parallel effort, he would work with the gulf coast state governors to take all possible steps to protect the coastline from the oil.

Obama did none of that.

The economic problem that met him when he entered office was clearly defined by his chief of staff, who wanted to make sure they didn't let a good disaster go to waste. Thus came the "bailouts" and rush to pay off everyone in the left-wing constituency with public funds.

The current oil crisis is another disaster too good to waste. Obama's instincts lead him into a two-pronged response: First, destroy British Petroleum. Second, use the disaster to push through a massive redistributionist policy called "Cap and Trade".

A thinking person would need only a moment to understand that Cap and Trade has nothing to do with what its' sponsors promise (reducing dependence on foreign oil, moving us into a "clean energy" economy). It is designed simply to drive all "dirty" energy costs through the roof, make a select group of Democrats led by Al Gore (and Obama himself) richer and more powerful than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and redistribute some of the money to pay energy bills for poor countries, and if they are lucky, maybe a few poor Americans.

When will enough people wake up and realize what's happening? When will the poor finally realize that the party in power won't help them get out of poverty, but make sure they stay there? When will the middle class realize that the current power brokers in Washington are remaking America into one where the priviledged elite are simply shifted from the Corporate barons to the politically connected, all at the expense of the middle class? When will all of us realize that we're all on the brink of permanently losing our standard of living, lowering the bar for everyone from the most wealthy to the poorest?

What I actually find shocking isn't that the president's 46 percent approval rating is so low, but that it's still so high. Unfortunately, that means there are still nearly half of the people that still haven't figured it out.

If they don't figure it out by November, I think we're toast.

So Many Thoughts

Religion and Politics.

A common bit of advice heard often in my lifetime was that these two topics should be avoided in social conversation. Basically because they're the two subjects that engender the greatest amount of passion among people.

If you want to win friends and influence people, stick to topics like sports, the weather, family, friends, vacations.

Lately I'm wondering whether it's such good advice after all.

Religious conversation used to consist of arguments about Catholics vs. Protestants, or Baptists vs. Lutherans. Whether salvation is through grace or works, how the Virgin Mary should or should not be revered, stuff like that.

Now religious conversations are nothing like that; instead, they're mostly about attacks from the atheists and the "social justice" crowd, who either reject the faith entirely or would reframe it to fit their "modern" worldview.

Should one avoid the topic if the arguers are misrepresenting and/or demonizing the faith held so dearly? Perhaps it's the duty of a person of faith to speak up, not stridently or argumentatively, but patiently and gently to point out the fallacy of the anti-Christian argument.

Political conversation has always been about degree. Degree of socialism vs degree of free-market capitalism. Degree of government regulation vs. laissez-faire policy.

Now the conversation seems more about personalities than policy. Both sides seem to enjoy calling the other fascist, which has lost all meaning in the process. Therefore, if someone uses "Socialist" or "Marxist" to label the current government leaders, the terms are discarded by those who they would hope to convince as nothing but more name-calling.

Perhaps rather than avoiding the subject, political discussions should be focused on fact rather than personality. Rather than denouncing the president, his cabinet, and the leaders in congress generally, how about talking about what new laws and regulations they are intent on pushing through and whether or not they are good for the nation as a whole?

I get a bit weary hearing the back-and-forth between the representatives of the Left and Right. If the Right throws in Harry Reid, the Left comes back with Newt Gingerich. Nancy Pelosi countered with Sarah Palin. Barack Obama with George W Bush.

It seems the Left has no particular issue with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but hold a visceral hatred of Gingerich, Palin, and Bush. The Right are appalled by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but don't see a problem with Gingerich, Palin, and Bush.

Stop focusing on the standard-bearers of the parties, and start focusing on what the country needs during this terrible time of economic and moral decline and corruption.

Simply stated, there has never been an example where government-imposed redistribution of wealth led to widespread prosperity. Conversely, prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world came about courtesy of the grand experiment called the United States of America.

Well Done

Check this out.

It's very well done. Every candidate should use it.

Any Sane People Out There?

More and more I'm not so sure.

Let's see if I can catalog some of the latest examples of mass insanity.

Finding out more than half of babies born in the county last year were paid for by Medicaid. Am I the only one who draws a logical and extremely disturbing conclusion about what that says about the state of our society?

The country's rulers are favoring Israel's enemies, who happen to also be our own enemies. Am I the only one who sees the inevitable outcome as a smoking hole in the ground that was once a country called Israel?

The American rulers are hammering Arizona for trying to do something about illegal immigration. Where did I miss the part about it being a fundamental human right to live in America, whether invited or not?

The American rulers are pushing ahead with their ingenious plan to decide for every citizen how big their "carbon footprint" is allowed to be. If you want more energy than you are allocated, you have to "buy" the rights to that energy from people who don't use their share (read: poor), with the well-connected folks with names like Obama and Gore pocketing a commission on each transaction. Who exactly thinks this sounds like a great idea, other than those well-connected leaders who get to pocket the commissions?

A deep-sea oil well explodes, the rulers ignore it for a month, then tell everyone they've been "in charge since day one". The only visible action they've taken is to threaten the oil company, shut down all offshore drilling, and build a small army of lawyers to figure out all the ways the oil company can be sued. This is what they call leadership?

The rulers made sure to push through a huge new healthcare entitlement that is paid for by borrowing from China. Only the self-employed and the unemployed actually have trouble getting health insurance, and nobody is denied care. And even those folks can still sign up for insurance through a hodgepodge of state and federal programs. Am I getting the message right, "you may not have a job, but you will eventually have health insurance"?

The president is the first leader of the country I know of who said, (paraphrasing) "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her to be punished with a baby". Children are now mistakes for which women are punished? When did that happen?

Oh yeah, see the first example.

Either the world has gone insane or I need to be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. Hmm, weren't those also called "re-education camps"?

My Take on the Oil Spill

What shouldn't be a political football at all of course is, given our polarized partisan country.

As is my custom, I try to sift through what information is available and figure out what seems most likely to be true.

In this case, it would seem that these contributing factors are more likely true than false:

The accident probably could have been prevented or at least mitigated had BP been more responsible with safety standards.

Since there has never been an accident on this scale with a deepwater rig, BP was caught flat-footed without a clear plan to deal with it.

The President didn't even pay attention to the problem until the oil started washing up on gulf coast shores.

The ususal left-wing zealots, who hold themselves up as the protectors of the environment, cheered the disaster, proclaiming that "God must be a Democrat!". Pretty heartless toward the rig workers who died and the thousands of gulf coast folks who will be harmed by the whole event.

Some of the things I wonder about, being a lay person who knows next to nothing about deep sea oil rigs:

The "Top Kill" approach, which may or may not be working to stop the oil spill today, is something even I would have at least suggested. It isn't a hard concept to understand. So why did it take over a month for one of the "geniuses" down in the gulf to suggest it?

A moratorium on further deep water drilling would seem to be a reasonable response. But when issued by Obama, the suspicion is that he'll simply make it permanent because he will claim that the oil companies never satisfactorily proved to him they've learned from the accident and know how to make sure it never happens again.

Of course, if Bush were still president and made the same decision, the Right would be OK with it, but the Left would assume he will wait a few weeks or month before lifting the moratorium, whether or not BP learned from their mistakes.

Is it possible both might have some truth to them?

Obama dithered, of course. If the "Top Kill" works, he's already positioned himself to take credit for it, despite the obvious fact he had nothing to do with it.

The MMS and Interior Departments proved themselves to be incompetent bureaucrats. What exactly is new there? The attempts by Dems to try to suggest that's Bush's fault, in the face of the facts that the agencies are led and staffed by Obama appointees is jaw-droppingly ludicrous.

What a decent President, who is a true leader would have done:

Within the first 24 hours, he would have immediately convened experts from the industry to analyze the accident and work on strategies to minimize its impact.

He would have created a team to immediately commence containment operations while preparing for the "Top Kill" procedure.

Much of the oil would now be contained, and the leak plugged weeks ago.

But Obama's clearly not that kind of leader.

He ignored it for a couple of weeks, then when he did start paying any attention at all, it was only to threaten BP.

How much longer until we see $4 or $5 gas?

Probably very soon.

The Hitler Insult

Editorials in the local newspaper have been angrily denouncing a tea-party type who allegedly appeared in a local rally carrying a sign depicting Obama with the little Hitler mustache. Letter writers who are presumably supporters of the president expressed outrage at such unfair and uncivil misrepresentations.

It got me thinking about how the most popular insult of politicians these days involves comparisons to Hitler. Such comparisons are no more valid for Obama than for his predecessor, but it's interesting to note that they were made far more viciously and frequently against Bush. It certainly is a valid question to pose with these outraged editorialists, whether they were also outraged when the left side of the political spectrum continually invoked Hitler, even going beyond that to openly advocating or hoping for Bush's assassination.

National Socialists probably had more in common politically with Democrats than Republicans. They were, in fact, socialist, which is anathema to American Conservatives. They believed in centralized government control over the means of production, which is a hallmark of current Democrat philosophy.

It's Hitler's idea of the Aryan supremacy and his desire to purge the Jewish people from the face of the earth that makes him the most hated figure in modern history. Of course, no one can reasonably charge the Right with anything close to these attitudes, but Leftists love to try. Their twisted logic suggests that because the Right opposes socialist policies and those policies "help" the poor, and a large proportion of the poor are racial minorities, then the Right must be somehow Aryan supremacists.

The current president is showing hostility to Israel, but even that doesn't necessarily meet the Hitler standard of working for the destruction of the entire Jewish population.

Such name-calling by either side is counterproductive. While some fellow travelers might cheer Hitler comparisons of those they oppose, such comparisons have nothing but negative impact on those who are on the fence. And considering both sides understand that it's the fence-sitters they need to court to attain political power, they would be wise to abandon the Hitler references.

I don't get overly exercised when either side puts up a picture of their opponent with the little mustache added by a Sharpie pen. It's juvenile and silly, and means little. I do think the Tea Party should try to exert some control over their members and stop them from giving their opponents the opportunity to change the subject by painting the entire group with a broad brush, based on one guy carrying around the Obama poster with the Hitler mustache.

Perhaps the most accurate insult someone could make of Obama is to depict him as Jimmy Carter, who is his closest political twin. But I suppose only Conservatives would get it.

Historical Perspective

History is a great teacher for those willing to learn its lessons. That's not a very popular idea these days, as evidenced by those running the government.

For most of history, tribes battled each other for land and game, then as technology advanced, for treasure. Kings and tribal chiefs attained power over their land and subjects by offering protection and prosperity to their subjects. All walked a fine knife edge, balancing between the need for enough resources to raise armies to protect and expand their kingdom and the need to keep their subjects content enough to minimize those who would rise up and throw them out of power.

The Greeks were the first to innovate a new idea of civilization, the idea of self-governance through representation. The Greeks were hugely successful, but eventually crumbled as their citizens became complacent and overindulgent.

The Romans tried to apply the Greek ideal, but in relatively short order lost it to strong emperors who grew increasingly vile and corrupt with each generation, until the Roman empire crumbled under its own weight of debauched corruption.

Until the United States of America threw off the British to establish the modern version of the Greek model, the world mostly reverted to the age-old system of tribal chieftans and monarchies.

Then came Karl Marx, who dreamed of a collective society that pretends to distribute all goods equally among the citizens. The ideas were embraced brutally by revolutionary regimes in Russia and China. The Russian version crumbled, but China has so far adapted to become a world power.

In the meantime, a steady drumbeat has sounded in America over the last 200 years in the form of a movement euphemistically called "Progressivism". Which is Marxism disguised by an attractive name. The Progressive movement took full power over the American goverment in 2008, but has been gaining power for generations.

The Progressives are represented by specific, identifiable groups: Labor Unions, Government Bureucrats, Academics, Trial Lawyers, and those who consider themselves disenfranchised by the Capitalist system.

Their ascendancy took place incrementally, as government expanded, people were encouraged to believe they were disenfranchised by faceless capitalists who they believe selfishly deny them opportunity, and big business was allowed to consolidate into "too big to fail" status.

Ironically, the toppling of the system that permitted a Progressive takeover had at its core a Progressive program, named from acronyms that sound like "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac". Where Progressivism demanded that everyone has a "right" to decent housing, and therefore the government should guarantee mortgages to help them obtain such housing.

Then when energy prices spiked, many of these marginal folks could no longer keep afloat financially, and defaulted in unprecedented numbers.

So the Progressives rose to power on citizen anger over an intractable war against terrorism and a belief that the unsustainable energy costs were deliberately driven up by evil and greedy capitalists. People voted in the Progressives, thinking "let's let somebody else try to save us, they can't be any worse than these guys".

But they are worse. Much worse. The Progressives are in power and taking advantage of every moment. They have already imposed a socialist healthcare program that promises to bankrupt the system without delivering its false promise of quality, affordable healthcare for everyone. They are using all available power to shut down domestic energy production, while shifting huge sums of borrowed money into the pockets of their progressive cronies to build boondoggle windmills and solar panels while they lie to the public.

They ram through "financial reform" regulation under the facade of "fixing" the problems that led to our economic destruction, while the reality of that regulation is further consolidation of raw power into the Progressive bureaucracy. As evidence, just consider the fact that the new regulations and agencies do nothing to address any of the causal factors in the economic meltdown.

They are committed to dismantling the military to shift those resources into their social programs. They change foreign policy into one that is obsequiously seeking to pacify enemies while insulting and abandoning allies. They break laws with impunity, knowing they have the power to stop any investigations or prosecutions of their over-the-top corruption.

They plot to impose massive new taxes from the Value-Added Tax to Carbon Taxes. Simply defined, these brand new taxes are on everything we make and everything we put into the air. All of course earmarked to enrich their Progressive cronies at the expense of all productive citizens not part of thier "in" crowd.

Some citizens are waking up to their agenda, but it may be too late. Ordinary people can't get loans even when they qualify. The government controls the largest domestic automobile manufacturer. The government owns or controls much of the financial industry. The government seeks to own or control the energy industry.

In the meantime, real unemployment is above 17 percent and continues to rise. The proportion of citizens dependent on government for their very existence has reached critical mass. Illegal immigration is encouraged to put the size of the government-dependent citizenry into a position to insure permanent Progressive power over the country.

Thus does the latest, greatest society in human history topple.

Unless those of us who understand can find a way to reverse the Progressive juggernaut.

Searching for Balance

Stepping back a bit and trying to be objective, I realize I'm guilty of inconsistent self-expectations.

When I'm busy, it should be great. After all, I'm making money, have almost more work than I can handle, and should be ecstatic.

So why don't I feel ecstatic?

When I'm not so busy, it should be fine. As long as I'm earning enough to stay afloat, why not kick back and enjoy a bit of free time?

So why can't I just relax and enjoy the downtime?

I need to learn to be happy, whatever my situation.

Why I Believe

For a generation that has lost faith, my small contribution can only be to explain why I have not.



History

It cannot be reasonably disputed that there was such a person on earth a couple thousand-plus years ago, who we know as Jesus Christ. His existence and fundamental story is corroborated by a variety of sources, both biblical and secular.



Even the secular sources confirm that Jesus was a Jewish preacher who traveled the middle-eastern countryside spreading his message and performing miraculous healings.



Also mostly undisputed is that he suffered the brutal Roman method of execution, crucifixion.



Had that been all there is to the story, his followers would have simply dispersed and gone on with their lives. The story may have lived on as a terrible tragedy and example of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Jewish religious leaders and the Romans who feared a challenge to their power. But it would not have given rise to the worldwide religion called Christianity.



As Paul himself said, if Jesus Christ did not rise from death, then there is no Christian faith.



After his crucifixion, his tomb was found empty. Nobody disputed that fact; indeed, the Jewish leaders attempted to spread a story that his disciples simply stole the body to manufacture the myth of his resurrection.



But if that were true, it would seem that at least one of the disciples would have recanted in the face of their own torture and cruel death. But all 11 held fast to their faith, so that 10 of them suffered horrific executions while the 11th spent his last years in hiding and exile.

Then there were the more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw the risen Christ after his crucifixion, and that was only counting the men. There were at least as many women who were eyewitnesses to the resurrection as well.

The Church established by Jesus spread like wildfire, fanned by the apostles and those hundreds of eyewitnesses to the point that untold thousands of early Christians were subjected to torture and death they could have avoided by simply recanting their faith. Do any of us today believe in anything strongly enough to give ourselves up to tortures and execution rather than recant?



Personal

God has made himself known to me in many ways and on many occasions.



Not by appearing in some sort of miraculous heavenly glory and speaking to me in a thunderous voice, but by revealing truth to me in personal revelations and life experiences.



I know that sounds strange and vague. But that's sort of the function of individual enlightenment, which doesn't happen in a blaze of glory but in small experiences which add up over a lifetime to create a body of evidence that give me the satisfaction and assurance that there is a God, He loves us, and all He wants from us is our love for Him and each other.



OK, want some examples? I've been blessed with these personal revelations:

• A fleeting vision of heaven (in what some would call a Near-Death Experience)


• Visions of future events (my mother's passing)


• Clear messages (some would call them inner locutions)

You might say these are all tricks of the sub-conscious, and perhaps some may be. But only I had these experiences, you did not, so only I can judge whether they were tricks played in my own brain or supernatural.

But as dramatic as those experiences may seem, on their own they do not form the foundation of my faith. That foundation is actually based on a lifetime of study, seeking God where He may be found. And the wonder of experiencing the miracles of our world, such as the miraculous birth of three children, and seeing one of those children survive and thrive when it seemed almost impossible given his much-too-early arrival.

Those who scoff at people like me and sneeringly call us "weak-minded" or "superstitious" are missing something that goes to the core of our very existence. I feel sorry for these atheists, who like petulant children rebel against their heavenly Father just like my own children would rebel and throw tantrums against their earthly father when he disciplined them or denied them their desires.

I firmly believe every one of us has an innate knowledge of God, but we reject Him because of either personal pride, base desires, or anger with a God who doesn't give us what we want.

The non-believer tries to use two common themes in what they think are disproving the faith of believers.

The first theme is Science and Evolution. Atheists make the argument that evolution represents sufficient "proof" that there is no God. They sneer at evangelicals who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis origins story, throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting no reasonable person could conclude the earth is only 6500 years old.

I simply find it ironic that those most fervently opposed to religion place a religious fervor into their faith in scientific theories, especially the unobserved and unreplicated theory that somehow bringing some of the right elements together will magically create the building blocks of life.

Secondly, the non-believer points to Christians acting Un-Christian as justification for their lack of faith.

That is the most troubling, and certainly there are people who call themselves Christian who treat others worst than many non-Christians. From the well-publicized problem Catholics have with pedophile priests to fallen preachers like Jim Bakker and Ted Haggard, too often Christians fail to meet perhaps one of the most important responsibilities of a Christian.

On the other hand, I know that it's pretty much impossible for any Christian person to achieve perfection in matters of consistent morality. We all fall short, but the point is there is still salvation for us if we simply confront our failings, express true regret, and constantly try to be a better person.

That's what sets Christianity apart from any man-made religion. Jesus asked us for only those two things: Love God and each other. He didn't tell anyone to give him money, make human sacrifices, or force anyone else to "convert" to his religion. Rather, he challenged us to strive to be better people.

There is so much more I could never fit into a blog post, but the best closing argument I can think of is this:

Consider the alternative, which is already visible as our own society descends into anti-religious secularism.

What I know without a doubt is that a moral, righteous man of integrity will never:

Demand someone else give him housing, food, medical care, a living

Leave his wife and children alone to fend for themselves in poverty

Take the government handouts in form of Unemployment and not bother looking for gainful employment

Sell a home mortgage to someone he knows cannot afford the payments

Take out a home mortgage he knows he cannot afford

Sell financial derivative investments he knows will soon be worth zero

Expect a Physician to treat him and his family for free

Provide medical care only to those who have insurance or the cash

Brings lawsuits against people who were not negligent but have plenty of cash or insurance

Engage in extramarital and/or homosexual relations without restraint, then demand special privileges and transfer payments in honor of his "alternative lifestyle"

Lie and cheat for personal gain or to destroy a rival

If at least a majority of men were to choose to be men of honor, would our current societal meltdown have happened? I would say no.

Honorable men are becoming difficult to find.

You see, I'd rather believe and never discover that I was wrong, than not believe and find out much too late that I was horribly wrong.

Elections Have Consequences

As is evident in the latest Supreme Court nominee. Kagan is clearly a leftist, and the only real question is just exactly how far left.

Did anybody expect Obama to nominate a Conservative? Even a Moderate? I don't think so. Conservatives only hoped for a nominee who isn't a raging radical.

What would a Conservative in the Senate do with such a nominee? Line up in opposition? Or go along in hopes the other side might show the same consideration for the next Conservative President's nominee?

When people talk about the polarization between Left and Right (read: Republicans and Democrats), it's truly ideologically based. The argument already being made out front of any Republican opposition to the nominee is that they will oppose her on strictly partisan grounds.

Well, let's see if there are some objective factors that can be used to oppose this nominee.

She has never actually been a judge
She has never practiced law, at least before she was appointed to her current job by Obama
She thumbed her nose at the law when she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard
She's apparently never even written anything of importance on consititutional law

Her only qualifications for the job seem to be that she's a woman, a liberal, and a career academic. How does that translate into Obama's criteria that she "understands the struggles of ordinary people", exactly? Would anyone characterize her as an "ordinary American"?

May I humbly suggest that she's less qualified for the job than, say, Harriet Myers.

Finding Truth About AZ Immigration Bill

I spent some time looking for the content of the actual bill online, and failed. It may be out there somewhere, but nowhere it can easily be accessed.

Instead, all I found were pages and pages of links to articles and blogs that decry the law as heavy-handed or fascist. Such overwrought propaganda is clearly designed to paint a frightening picture of a law that offends civil liberties, whether or not such charges are true.

Trying the second-best option, I found this article from NPR. Some might be surprised that a reasonable and analytical argument on the pro side of the issue would be given air by what many on the Right call National Proletariat Radio.

The information in this article refutes all of the paranoid rhetoric posed by the 3 out of 4 articles on the net and the President, who suggested a family going out for ice cream could be randomly pulled over and arrested for not taking their "papers" along.

The key phrase seems to be "lawful contact". In other words, nobody can be pulled over and harrassed based on a simple visual profile or an offier hearing them speaking Spanish. Lawful contact means the encounter was based on a routine encounter due to a traffic violation or other complaint requiring law enforcement contact.

There's also the important phrase "reasonable suspicion", which also has years of very clear definition. Reasonable suspicion is not defined by what's in the officer's mind at the time, but by clearly defined parameters that represent reasonable suspicion that the person detained for whatever violation may not be legally present. Things like no drivers licence, no proof of insurance, refusal to provide identification.

The outraged argument against the law seems to suggest that it gives license to law enforcement to harrass innocent people without cause. Where it is true that some rogue officers will do so for their own illegitimate reasons, that does not mean the law tolerates such behavior.

The bottom line of the law, as far as I can tell, is to simply allow police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE when they encounter them along the course of their normal enforcement activities.

And I don't have a problem with that.

Immigration Misinformation

Even the President, who if it were anybody else would be above the fray, is right in there with the irresponsible left-wing gangs who are baldly and openly lying about the immigration bill in Arizona.

My own analysis is that the Arizona law does nothing more than permit police to check immigration status on people they encounter in routine traffic stops and investigation of criminal complaints. There's really nothing dramatic about the bill, and the characterization from the President and his media machine are incendiary and shameful.

If reported polls are any indication, it seems a very large majority of people get that point. Which probably is the source of the shouted misinformation by those who follow the old Stalinist theme - repeat a lie often enough, and eventually people will accept it as the truth.

Everybody who isn't misled would have to hold only one of two positions:

• You think everyone in the country illegally should be allowed to stay, unless they're guilty of some heinous crime, or
• You think illegal means illegal, and anybody in the country without permission is breaking the law and should simply go home.

As I've maintained always on this issue, my siding with position #2 has nothing to do with race or country of origin. Either we are a nation of laws that puts protection of its citizens above all else, or we're no nation at all. I don't care if the person here illegally came from Mexico, Africa, Asia, or Scandanavia.

Ideological Isolation

An angry letter to the editor in the local newspaper was written in response to an article published a couple of days ago by Jonah Goldberg, who pointed out the desperation of the Left in attempting to marginalize the Tea Party movement with racism allegations.

This letter writer angrily proclaimed that the Tea Party is indeed a collection of racists and greedy rich white people who don't like the idea that poor and minorities might finally have access to healthcare.

Never mind the lack of evidence of their racism, he says; Their hatred of the President and opposition to healthcare legislation and the rest of the President's social agenda are proof positive of a deep-seated racism.

It seems this guy represents the most important reason for today's political polarization. I'm guessing he doesn't know any Tea Party activists, or he would know their agenda has nothing to do with race.

Another possibility is that he may know one or two of these folks as passing acquaintences, but has never engaged them in political conversation. Not that it would make any difference to him anyway. I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that he would tell you, "I don't know anybody who is against healthcare reform!".

That's because he won't willingly step outside of his comfort zone of like-minded friends to find out what somebody on the other side really thinks.

As a conservative-minded person, I know first-hand the futility of trying to discuss today's issues with a Democrat. For a Democrat, everything is about feeling. They believe they're the compassionate ones, and feel they are courageous in strongly supporting redistribution of wealth. Interestingly, those I've met don't think that includes redistribution of their own wealth; they of course are not wealthy. It's that evil class they call "the rich" that need to start paying "their fair share".

Any attempt in engaging them in practical or factual discussions about economic realities in a socialist society, consititutional governance, personal responsibility, or really anything that might refute their emotion-based worldview falls on deaf ears.

Lacking a reasonable argument, Liberal folks will respond with sophomoric comebacks like,

"The richest country in the world should be able to help everyone have healthcare"

"The rich have had a free ride for too long. It's time for them to step up and help"

or, my favorite:

"You've just been listening to Rush Limbaugh"

When I was young, I believed myself to be a sort of nominal Democrat. My first couple of voting cycles I tried to vote for who I thought was the best candidate, regardless of party.

Then came Jimmy Carter, who ushered in the worst economy in my lifetime, at least before this current one. I voted for Ronald Reagan, and became politically aware for the first time. And my own life got better relatively quickly, as I saw a government that actually seemed able to solve problems.

The hostages returned from Iran, the Cold War ended, and prosperity returned to the country.

Now we have this generation's Jimmy Carter in the White House. And a whole new generation has to suffer the pain he's inflicting until, hopefully, Ronald Reagan's party finds the new generation's version of the Gipper to turn things around.

I don't see him out there right now, but have faith one will emerge over the next couple of years.

Arizona Immigration

The law that has Obama and the Left in a tizzy was passed by the State of Arizona this week. To hear the press tell the story, you would think it authorizes a sort of police gestapo to shake down everybody who isn't white and arrest them on the slimmest of suspicion that they just might not have the appropriate documentation.

As is my normal practice, I made the attempt to get behind the media smokescreen and determine what the actual law says. And my conclusion is that it's quite reasonable, and certainly unrecognizable from its characterizations by the leftist establishment and their communications networks.

Crime rates in Arizona are reportedly off the charts, driven largely by their hundreds of thousands of uninvited guests. The Obama administration, which is responsible for border and immigration law enforcement, refuses to take even the most basic steps to help the state solve this problem. So Arizona decided to take steps to try solving the problem themselves.

Going back to the Bush administration and Clinton before him, illegal immigration border enforcement has been a duty abdicated by the Federal government for far too long. And for all the wrong reasons.

Clinton and Obama look at illegal immigrants and see potential votes for themselves and their party. The Bush family see low-wage employees for businesses. If compassion for the poverty-stricken uneducated masses from south of the border who simply desire a better life for themselves and their families was behind their woeful disregard for sealing the border, it seems to me that their approach itself belies that.

Because the decades-old system of telling the world in public, "No, you cannot live in work in the US without filling out the paperwork", then turning to the side and whispering, "But if you can get in somehow without getting caught, we'll look the other way" is doing no service to these millions who answered the whispered promise.

Because an illegal can't, and should not, receive the protections of the US and state government that set the minimum wage, require unemployment compensation, provide welfare assistance, and many other such things.

In the meantime, when times are hard, and 10 percent of Americans can't find a job, where's the compassion in continuing to look the other way while businesses continue to hire illegals under the table at a fraction of market wages? Should a country have compassion first for their own citizens who are hurting, or for people from other countries who managed to sneak across the border?

I support Arizona's new law, and would support the idea of extending it to every state in the union. If the Federal Government refuses to enforce the law, then the citizens themselves must organize themselves to do so. For everyone's safety and welfare.

It's been posted before, but here's the recap of my proposed immigration policy:
1. Seal the borders, north and south. Use physical barriers and electronic detection as appropriate to guarantee nobody can sneak across.
2. Advertise the notice nationwide - anyone in the country illegally has 6 months to acquire the necessary permits or return to their home country. Realizing that the government will be swamped with applications for things ranging from work permits to education visas to citizenship, and those applications will likely take more than 6 months to process, those who in the initial review of their application are deemed likely to qualify can receive a deferral of an additional 6 months.
3. No person illegally in the US who has committed a felony may qualify for any legal residence.
4. Those who return to their country of origin voluntarily may apply for re-admission to the country and be considered if they meet these basic criteria: Proven English literacy, sponsorship by a US-based employer that promises to employ the person on re-entry or proof of adequate means of support.
5. After the 6 month grace period ends, any person discovered through routine law enforcement means, such as traffic stops, sobriety checkpoints, police complaints, etc., who cannot produce evidence of legal residence in the US will be summarily arrested and deported within 48 hours.

That's fairness that applies to all citizens, Mr. President.

Earth and Venus

The old popular book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, wasn't something I ever read, but supposedly it highlighted the fact that men and women have brains that are just wired differently. It was a way of explaining why the two genders have so much difficulty understanding each other, I suppose.

There's something very similar going on in political thought, and I actually think a large part of it ties into the Mars & Venus theory, because women typically lean left and men right.

But in politics, I'm going to suggest that Conservatives are from Earth, while Liberals are from Venus.

For example, the polar opposite attitudes between earthlings and venusians on the Healthcare bill.

Venusians think the bill is terrific, because it purports to stop insurance companies from dropping coverage when their policyholders get sick. It forces them to accept new policyholders regardless of their health status. It picks up the tab for everybody who can't afford it.

Earthlings would actually agree that it would be good if everybody could afford to buy health insurance, and insurance companies should not be allowed to drop people if they get sick. But inhabitants of this world also understand there is no free lunch. Using the brains their God (whose existence is denied by Venusians) gave them, they have deduced that none of these benefits can take place without somebody footing the bill.

Unfortunately, its the Earthlings that are most likely to scratch out a living by the sweat of their own brows. And when the government shows up to promise health insurance for all, the only way they can deliver on that promise is to pay for that insurance. Earthlings know that the only way government gets the money to pay for their activities is by taking it away from them.

So government isn't simply solving a problem with access and affordability to health insurance. Instead it's using the new laws to accomplish something much more sinister: Confiscation of the fruits of Earthlings labor to hand them over to Venusians, while of course skimming off a healthy commission for themselves.

Some interesting but strange Venusian attitudes I've noticed recently also include the following:

Venutians are upset that people smoke and are too fat. So they want government to stop people from smoking and dictate what they can and cannot eat.

The strange contradiction in these attitudes is the exceptions they build in for themselves. Venutians make Earthlings' heads spin when they want to use the force of government to make people stop smoking and eat vegetables, but at the same time demand that the same goverment look the other way from their own abuse of marijuana and other "recreational" drugs.

Venutians love animals. They support laws against any development, especially if it's energy exploration, that might in any way interfere with animal habitats. Whether there's actual harm involved to any animal doesn't really matter to them. Their favorite animals, such as whales and polar bears, must be "saved" at all cost.

Venutians also object strenuously to capital punishment. They believe it's horribly inhuman to execute the most evil serial murderers.

But then they again make Earthlings' heads whiplash when the subject of abortion arises. The animal-loving, criminal-compassionate Venusians suddenly turn bloodthirsty when it comes to the execution of infants. As long as the execution takes place before that infant emerges fully from its mother's womb.

Venutians also hold contradictory attitudes about government corruption. Interestingly, when Earthling politicians were in charge, Venutians railed incessantly about Earthling corruption, even though much of that corruption existed only in their imagination.

Now that Venutians have grasped power for themselves, breathtaking corruption among their own political class is ignored. Apparently all the bribery and extortion used to pass their favored healthcare legislation is just fine with Venutians, as long as the legislation passed. Apparently sweetheart deals between their political class and the bankers and financiers that led to the current economic catastrophe gives them no pause, as long as it resulted in their ascention to power.

Venutians seem to be on a mission to eradicate all Earthlings. And so far, it seems the Earthlings are losing without putting up much of a fight.

Pro Sports Extortion

Only a couple of years ago, we heard the news reports that Robert Irsay was using the threat of moving the Colts out of Indy to someplace like Los Angeles, unless the city and state stepped up to help build him a new stadium. They did.

Now we hear rumblings that Herb Simon may be threatening to relocate the Pacers. This time not because he's demanding a new stadium, because the Pacers already have one of the best new basketball arenas in the country. No, because his agreement to cover operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse is losing him money.

The Colts example wasn't that the team was losing money, but that the owner felt it wasn't making enough. The Pacers have indeed been losing piles of money, and the owner is simply looking for relief.

Either way, it's a dirty business in play around the country. The NBA and NFL and Major League Baseball are kings of their respective professional sports. There is no viable competition, and major cities feel they must keep those franchises to maintain their image, attract tourists, and attract new businesses.

It all leads to a skewed balance of power. In what other private business can the owner go to the city or state politicians and demand they build his new plant or office building, and those politicians feel they must oblige?

Sure, tax incentives are offered to large companies all the time to entice them to locate in a city and state. Infrastructure improvement projects specifically undertaken to sweeten the deal are also fairly common. But footing the bill for building and maintaining the facilities for a private concern? Only in professional sports.

My solution to the problem, as I've stated before, is a nationwide law that prohibits any government entity - Federal, State, or Local - from passing any law that favors one company or citizen over another. This would bring the bidding process for pro sports teams to a dead stop.

Owners of sports teams should face the same challenges faced by every business owner. If you provide a quality product, you're assured of making money. If not, you'll have to close or sell.

Certainly the Pacers can make money. In the 90's they were one of the best teams in the league, and attracted plenty of fans and national attention. Until the fight in Detroit, which singlehandedly destroyed the franchise. It has yet to recover.

The NBA overall has decided to be a league that focuses on its superstars. If your team is lucky enough to sign a Kobe or Lebron, the NBA style is designed to feature them. Rather than a team game, the NBA prefers to clear the floor, give the ball to their superstar, and let him go one-on-one with his defender.

In Indiana we know our basketball. And the NBA version doesn't look much like the game we know and love. The Pacers are forced to go with a bunch of no-names, with a second-tier rising star in Danny Granger their go-to-guy. Not enough to be competitive.

If Simon wants to return to profitability, the simple answer is that he needs to put a better team on the floor. Unfortunately, players like Kobe and LeBron are extremely rare, and when a promising young star does become available, he's more likely to get picked up by a big-market team like the Lakers or Celtics.

If the NBA wanted to attract basketball fans who love the actual game, they should make one simple change.

Extend the shot clock from 24 to 45 seconds.

The reason is very simple. 24 seconds is barely enough time to bring the ball up the court, pass it to your superstar, and have him create a shot. For a basketball purist like me, that's a vile apostacy.

If you want to open up the game, make it more exciting, and achieve parity, it will be immediately accomplished with that one simple rule change. Because a 45 second shot clock, like the one used in college, permits teams to play a team game instead of one-on-one. All of a sudden, the game rewards those teams who are disciplined, unselfish, and employ the best strategic game plans. The court is leveled for the savvy coaches and players able to embrace a patient team concept to offset the advantages of the superstar-plus-4 teams.

Suddenly a team like the Pacers, with a group of no-name journeymen, can become competitive with the talent-rich teams, by employing a great coach and signing players that fit a winning system.

Imagine if the NBA playoffs looked a bit more like the NCAA tournament, where good coaching and cohesive team play often defeats superior talent.

That I would watch.

Hopeful or Hopeless?

It's tempting, after seeing Tea Party tax day events drawing thousands in cities around the country, to be hopeful that there's a chance the citizens will elect representatives this Fall who will turn back the clock on the alarming rush to the top-down socialism so favored by those now in power.

But simply electing enough conservative representatives, while still far from a certainty, is also not necessarily a guarantee that they'll do the right thing. Because the right thing is going to be very hard, and will probably turn many of the same people against their chosen representatives.

A troubling valid criticism of the Left against the Tea Party movement isn't the ridiculous and insulting charges of racism and redneck ignorance. Rather, it's the charge that many Tea Party protesters will turn their signs around and protest the opposite point of view if they actually get people in office who enact their wishes.

Because it is certain that for the government to balance their budget, they're going to have to reduce or eliminate a substantial portion of government discretionary spending. It won't take long before the folks find out this includes some of their own government benefits.

The unpopular and certainly corrupt spending that so exercises the Tea Party from TARP and the Auto Company bailouts can be cancelled and the money pulled back, and most will cheer. Except perhaps for the Auto Workers who lose their jobs when General Motors falls apart without continued cash from Uncle Sugar.

Big news this tax day is the fact that nearly half of Americans didn't pay any income tax. Most of those folks not only paid no tax; they actually received cash from the government. Euphemistically called 'Tax Credits', in reality they're cash kickbacks from a President and Congress that hope to buy those votes from the grateful recipients.

Hopefully Tea Party folks realize that the first government goodies to get cut have to be these handouts. No more homebuyer credits, 'cash for clunkers', earned income credits for the middle class, or all of the other varied programs designed to pay off people demographically most likely to vote for Democrats.

Much more will have to be cut for any chance to return the federal government to solvency. That means no more massive handouts to states to keep schools open. It means possible adjustments to the Unemployment benefits that keep getting extended indefinitely. It means cutting the featherbedding in government agencies across the spectrum.

But even those won't be enough. To really get spending under control, serious work has to be done with the biggest monsters of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, and that problem won't be solved by wishing.

The longstanding practice of raiding the Social Security surplus to fund every whim of congress has finally turned the program upside down. It's time for the government to tell the truth about Social Security; it is not a retirement savings and insurance plan, but an income transfer between workers and retirees.

The government told the mother of all lies when they sold our great-grandparents on Social Security. See, if every dollar of the 15 percent of our earnings actually went into some sort of interest-bearing account that paid off when we retired, we could all retire pretty comfortably (at least those of us who work). But that's not how the program ever was intended to work, because if it actually worked that way, then it would serve no benefit to the political class.

Now the baby boomers are retiring. And the numbers just don't work. The tipping point is here. The ratio of payers to payees is too low, unless we decide to take 40 percent from all the payers.

Something has to give. And there aren't any painless options.

I just hope everybody in the Tea Party understands the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for ..."

Indiana 9th Debate

I seldom do this, but last night I made my way to the Jennings County fairgrounds to take in the 4-way debate between the four guys fighting for the chance to take Baron Hill's seat in the US House.

Here's the cast of characters:

The Grizzled Veteran - played by Mike Sodrel
The Regular Guy - played by Rick Warren
The Lawyer/Politician - played by Todd Young
The Evangelist - played by Travis Hankins

Each candidate has a very specific and readily-identifiable set of positive and negative attributes. If there were any surprises for me in seeing this debate, they were with Sodrel and Young. I expected to be more impressed with Young and less with Sodrel, and the opposite held true.

If I were to name an overall "winner", in terms of performance, I'd have to give the nod to Sodrel. Which is something I would have bet against going in.

In my opinion, the big "loser" on the night was Young. He failed to connect with the regular folks, and wasted too much time looking petty by incessantly attacking Sodrel.

They're all conservatives, they're all republicans, and any policy differences among the four are insignificant. I'd have no problem voting for any one of them against Baron; but then again, I'd probably vote for a convicted felon if it facilitated our current congressman's immediate retirement.

Here's the breakdown of each candidate, with advantages and disadvantages:

Sodrel, the old veteran, has been there, done that. He knows the ropes, he clearly knows what he's talking about and how to navigate Washington.

His positives are experience and grasp of the issues, his 'regular guy' persona. During the debate, he was at his best when just speaking off-the-cuff, giving honest and common-sense answers to the questions posed. He was the only candidate who showed up in casual clothing, perhaps purposely attempting to differentiate himself from the others. He was especially good in responding to Todd Young's attacks with brief, concise refutations that made Young look foolish.

Sodrel's biggest negative is also his experience. He's run for the same seat against Baron Hill every cycle for as long as I can remember, and lost every time but once. He was also in office with the Republicans who made such a mess of things and got swept out by the Democrats as a result. Whether or not he supported the GOP spending spree and outrageous earmarking in his two-year stint actually matters less than the perception that he was in office at the time, and therefore part of the problem.

Warren is very much the regular guy in the race. He's far from eloquent, and obviously lacks in any identifiable qualifications for the office he seeks.

Warren's positive is his 'regular guy' approach, which is genuine. He demonstrated in the debate that he sincerely holds his views, and will hold to his principles in office.

But unfortunately, Rick will get eaten for lunch by Baron Hill's well-funded Democrat party machine.

Todd Young is the guy I've been hearing so much about, but hadn't yet seen him in person. He's a lawyer, obviously intelligent and well-spoken.

Todd's positives are his qualifications for the office, and a generally good presentation. He's sort of wonky on policy issues, and probably has very detailed proposals on the key problems faced by the country.

Todd's negatives are too many. He came off as petty and sort of the same old lawyer-politician type most regular folks feel got the country into this mess in the first place. He shouldn't have spent so much time trashing Sodrel, and the fact that no other candidate engaged in the mud slinging made him appear mean and petty. Of all the candidates, Young connected with the people in the audience the least. He came off as arrogant, and while attacking Sodrel treated the other two candidates as irrelevant.

Travis Hankins was the evangelist of the bunch. He wears his faith on his sleeve, and whenever he spoke, it sounded just like a Baptist preacher exhorting the flock.

Hankins' positives are his energy, passion, and idealism. I was convinced he was sincere in his desire to try to shake up Washington.

Hankins' negatives are not negatives from my personal perspective, but will be negatives should he earn the right to take on Baron. His emphasis on faith, morals, and values, while exciting Social Conservatives in the district, will put off the very large population of nominal and non Christians. He's also rather naieve, whether in his goals of rolling back spending to 2002 levels, building a fence along the entire southern border, or pushing through an end to abortion. All noble goals, but he can't realistically get them done in the 3 terms in which he's promised to limit himself.

In the debate, Travis irritated the crowd by several times asking the moderator to clarify that "I'm the only candidate who ....". The first time drew chuckles, but by the third and fourth repeats, he just drew groans.

If I voted my personal favorite, I'd be tempted to go with Travis. I like the idea of sending a fiery, energetic, idealistic young new face to congress. Because of the anti-Hill sentiment in the district, I think he could win, but also think he'd be very vulnerable in the next election cycle.

If I voted for the candidate best positioned to defeat Baron, I suppose it would have to be either Sodrel or Young. As mentioned above, my biggest concern for Sodrel is the 'same song, different verse'. People want real change in congress and new faces, and for better or worse, Sodrel represents the bad old days.

Strangely, I suddenly find myself wishing for one more candidate. Too late, I know. But my ideal candidate would be a local businessman, relatively young, energetic like Hankins, but obviously extremely intelligent and capable, while down-to-earth and approachable. Sort of like Mike Pence, I suppose.

How can one of these guys win my vote?

Hankins can win by toning down a tad. I'm in no way suggesting he give up the primacy of faith in all he does, but just that he brings it down just enough as to avoid turning off the voting contingent that doesn't share his faith. He also should change his speaking pattern to be less like a Baptist preacher and more conversational.

Young can win by knocking off the spitballs at Sodrel. He needs to sell me on who he is, not who Sodrel is. He also needs to find a way to be more personable, more approachable, less arrogant. That might be hard to do, since I suspect he was being himself in the debate last night.

Sodrel can't overcome his negatives, as far as I can conceive. Maybe if he talks more about what happened during his two years in office, and why those things happened, and what he learned from the experience and would do differently this time, it would help.

Unfortunately, Rick can't win my vote. I certainly like the guy, and thought he did as well as a person like him could possibly do in the debate. But he doesn't have what it takes to win the office, and I suspect he'd be swatted like a fly if he made it to Washington.

I'll keep my eye on the candidates until it's time to choose one. Then, we'll see.