Disclaimer from my other blog before PI

This short post is actually a link to a post some may find of interest, but I chose not to put at the top of my blog.

I trust people who read here know I am a Christian, but like most readers, I find “in your face” religion less than winsome. As a writer, I'd rather let people get to know me over time, and then in that context allow them to see reminders of the faith and beliefs that give purpose to my life.

Likewise, in the heat of this political season, I have thus far chosen not to stir politics directly into the Patterns of Ink pot. Partly to keep peace among friends, and partly because I understand how they can see appealing qualities in both of the leading figures in this race. But mostly I've been avoiding political posts to avoid the mess. I’ve seen such topics boil over in comment sections on other blogs. [Thus the comment section is also at the link.]

So in an effort not to interrupt the thread of these “Unsettled” posts about my homestead, I have hidden a very current first-person, eye-witness report and placed it deep in my archives. It’s rare that I have a “front row seat” to something the whole country is watching, but last night I did, and I wrote about it below.

Wow! What a Night!

Actually written September 17, 2008

I'm sitting at an event that will be shown live on many webcasts and "cut to" on virtually every news channel. Not only am I here, but for reasons I’ll not explain I have a VIP pass in my chest pocket which allowed Julie and I and two friends to enter early and be ushered to seats directly behind the dais. I now have ninety minutes with nothing better to do so I thought I’d attempt to hand write a post from here. I’m writing on the back of a “Reserved” sign because—in spite of the very important “I” in VIP—I’m not allowed to have a lap-top in here. [My pass should say NSIP: Not So Important Person.]

On the opposite side of the arena, however, I see scores of lap-tops open on bare tables and glowing on the faces of journalists. A little while ago, with a flash of my VIP pass, I was allowed to walk in their midst, nodding as if I belonged there. Most of them are the unknown writers who give “copy” to the faces we see each night on TV, but a few of them are the “on the scene” reporters we’ve come to vaguely recognize on cable networks. In every corner and at every aisle of this swarming bee-hive, I see men in black talking into their sleeves—on second glance, I see some women doing the same—these folks are all business and their robotic heads seem to be scanning the growing crowd as if with X-ray vision. They don’t look at you—they look in you. They are on “our side” but their very presence is a reminder of the fallen, broken world we share with drastic men.

I must admit, I’m feeling very privileged to be in “hand shake” range of the two people en route. One of the reasons I wanted to be here was to see their eyes as they talk to a crowd. The eyes say so much about a person, and so much has been said about these two in the past three weeks that I want to see for myself what’s real. Here where we are I can smell the brand new royal blue carpet on the small stage across in front of me.

At this moment, the rafters are rocking and the floor is vibrating from voice and bass riffs of Elvis Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation.” You know the song (revived via Robert’s wedding episode of “Everybody Loves Raymond”)

"A little less conversation, a little more action please

All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me

A little more bite and a little less bark

A little less fight and a little more spark…

Don't procrastinate, don't articulate"

Back when Elvis sang that song, it was good cause for fatherly consternation, but as an opener for a candidate who is not particularly articulate but known far more for a lifetime of action… it couldn’t be a better fit.

This arena is already packed—standing room only—with a jostling line still waiting to get in. Just above the crowd, the klieg lights are not all lit, and of the 25+ television camera tripods stationed around the room, only four are manned. That will change in an hour, I’m sure. I’ve been to such events before: in 1980 and 84, I sat waiting for Ronald Reagan to arrive. I was to his right—that is my seat was to his right—about the only way I’d care to be “to the right” of Ronald Reagan. I’ve been at such events for every Presidential race since then, but never have I been seated this close to the speakerS.

That last word is, perhaps, the most telling word in this report. You’ll notice I said speakerS with an “S” at the end, plural. You know where I’m going with this, but it is a reality that cannot be ignored. Books will be written about this particular political race no matter what the outcome is. The question is what kind of shelves will hold the books. If tonight’s speakerS, as a team, win on November 4th, library shelves will bend under the weight of the books praising and cursing its historic significance. If they do not win, far fewer books will be written and many of them will be on “CLEARANCE” shelves with faint hope of political resurrection. The same can be said of books about the opposing Presidential candidate, but the “S” he chose to make his ticket plural is far less important to his success. In fact, his “S” will matter only if he loses. Because in that event, his loss will be rightly blamed on his wrong choice of “S.” It was that safe choice that opened the door for the two speakerS coming here tonight.

The feelings run deep for the VEEP slot of this year’s Republican ticket. Never has a choice stirred such a venomous, vomitous reaction from those who “hate” her, while at the same time stirring deepening admiration from those who see in her a new kind of leader. The purpose of this post is not to stir readers to either extreme reaction. (So if you choose to comment, be civil.)
.
Congressman Pete Hoekstra just stepped to the dais. I’m signing off for now, when I resume writing on this scrap of paper after, I hope merely to tell you what I'm watching and venture a guess as to whether or not this momentum has peaked as many have discussed.

Okay… the event is over. In case, you still don't know what it was, I’m at the McCain/Palin “Town Hall Meeting” in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Here are some details you may not hear or read elsewhere.

I don’t know it has always been true, but John McCain enters the arena to Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man.” Click this link to hear those iconic notes and imagine thousands of people waiting for this most veteran of senators to step from the tunnel at the far end of what could pass for a Military airplane hanger. Regardless of one’s politics, hearing that “common man” theme, those regal French horns, and the tympani echoing as if through time itself, the build-up was impressive. For me, I again realized that the man we are about to see is a one-of-a-kind American, the likes of which my generation and his may never see again.

And then he enters in, crippled arms waving to the crowd. And along side him there's a woman, who in her own way may someday inspire a rendition of Copeland’s song entitled “Fanfare for the Common Woman.” Because, my Friends, [Did I just say “My friends”?—that’s a side affect of the past hour of intense listening to Mc Cain.] My friends, say what you will about this lady, it is her extraordinary commonness that is her chief appeal. When all is said to both praise and pounce on the Governor from Alaska, it is her unbleached muslin quality—not some “lily white linen” nor even the mud-stained cloak of her past three weeks—but the unbleached, rough-hewn fabric of this woman’s story that has brought her to the fore.

[I’m now home at my computer—scribbling on a sheet of paper was nearly impossible in the aftermath of tonight’s event.]

Let’s see… where was I? Oh, yes, I was talking about the "Fanfare for the Common Man." Now add this to the mix, during all that fanfare, in slipped a quiet unassuming man just a few seats to my right. No one notice him. He did not sit on the dais but in the seats along side the “common folk.” We didn’t see him until Senator McCain walked toward him and asked him to stand. And there, beaming from ear to ear, was Todd Palin. [See him interviewed here Part 1 and here Part 2 and other "parts" at that site.] He waved in all directions and just as the applause peaked sat down again, content to be out of the limelight.

I watched him often throughout the rest of the evening. His genuine smile and confident, merry eyes were constant, but he did not respond to the cheers and applause around him. He was clearly proud to be there, but knew his is a quiet supporting role to his wife who in turn clearly understands her supporting role to McCain. In the two weeks since her speech at the convention, this political duo has found a rhythm in their interaction on stage. It works, and for those hoping the wheels will soon fall off this bandwagon, I saw no signs of that tonight. Are they perfect? No. But McCain is a better candidate because of her, and she is a far more plausible candidate along side of him, which brings me to my next point.

Much has been said about the qualifications of all the candidates—including one candidate who is no longer in this race, Hillary Clinton. How many times have the “talking heads” from both sides of the aisle asked “Is he/she the most qualified person to be running for President or the Veep slot?” Here’s news: I doubt that ANY Presidential candidate EVER to run for office has ever been THE most qualified to fill it. [Click on photo of McCain to enlarge. Julie and I are to the left of his shoulder. Julie is in pink; I'm in black.]

If there were some way to actually determine the “most qualified” candidate in the citizenry of a nation, some bigger questions would still exist: Does that person have the stomach for politics and can that person connect with the common man in order to inspire a following? That is the essence of political leadership. For good or bad, the candidates “following” must translate into a majority of motivated voters, state by state, across the land.

Don't get me wrong a candidate's experience, character, and gut-check preparedness for "such a time as this," are very important, but they only get put in place if the people rally to elect. McCain's choice has made that more likely to happen for him. Tonight I witnessed continuing proof of that.

Before I close, beyond the “most qualified” question, there is another question we hear during political races that is completely meaningless because its terms are undefined. You’ve heard it in countless polls that for some reason get reported as if it's shocking news. It is the answer to this survey question that has much of “the media,” pollsters, and spin doctors perplexed. Here’s the poll question:

“Is the country headed in the wrong direction?”

In any given week, we may hear that 80% of those asked feel America's headed in the wrong direction. If that is true, some people conclude, then there should be no way for a Republican presidential candidate to win an election in 2008. But the question is meaningless because the word direction is not defined. Are we talking economic direction? Military direction? Moral direction? The question never tells us. Because of that, Pamela Anderson would answer the question “Yes, it’s going in the wrong direction” for reasons shared by her Hollywood peers and the 50% of America that cares what "stars" think. Meanwhile the other 50% of America may also answer “Yes” because they shudder at the thought that the opinions of Pamela Anderson reflect the collective conscience of so many. So you see, the answer to the “wrong direction” question is meaningless in that the “yes” responses are often interpreted as a unified assessment while actually masking opposing concerns and conflicting solutions.

That is the essence of politics, and I for one would not choose to be in the business. I don't have the stomach for it, but I do find it fascinating from an arm’s length as I saw it tonight (Yes, that arm's length was close enough to shake hands and get autographs when it was over.) As is true of many people this year, I have good friends still "undecided" in this election, and I can see the initial appeal of both choices. But just in case you’re wondering where I stand, when the curtain of the voting booth closes behind me, there will be no room for Pamela Anderson inside.

Oh, one other thought: Who is the person described below:

I am under 45 years old,
I love the outdoors,
I love to hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have many children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.
.
.
You guessed it... Teddy Roosevelt!

Updates Posted as November 4 approaches:
9-21-08 Sarah draws 60,000 in Florida Sarah wakes up California
9-22-08 NBC's SNL crosses the line. "What makes a generation laugh and cry tells you much about that generation." TK. If the Palins respond to this, they will simply make it more "news worthy," but I'm telling you, folks, the media underestimates the millions of voters who will find the Palin's character all-the-more remarkable as they turn the other cheek. Note to Palin family: You turn the cheek; we'll turn the channel. As for me and my house, no more NBC or MSNBC.

This article by Victor Davis Hanson rationally explains the difference between "head knowledge" and the common sense of wisdom, which is why he has confidence in Governor Palin.

A post VP debate phone interview with Palin.

10 comments below...

Past Post Posited

Please forgive this sudden shift in topic, but I was just flipping channels and found it interesting that on the eve of Hillary's victorious but moot coup de grâce in West Virginia, the Encore "Drama" channel is airing "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" for at least the third time during this political primary season (each time when Hillary's candidacy or motives were under scrutiny).

Rather than again posit the similarities some may see between that film and Hillary's ruthless tenacity, let me simply link you to this past post about a tale of character, motives, manipulation, and the hazards of misplaced trust. I didn't watch the movie this time, but in case you missed our lively discussion last fall, here's the link again.

(Theatrically speaking, I will say that after six months of auditioning various faces, cackles, and personalities, Senator Clinton's current rendition of herself [with Bill kept off screen] is one of her more appealing characters, but like this re-run, her would-be presidency is movie I'd rather not watch.)

Here is Maureen Dowd's take on Hillary's eventual demise as a candidate.

If Art Reflects Life

I Just Watched a Disturbing Movie!

I try to avoid politics at POI--at least until both parties officially choose their candidate, and I have a dog in the fight. I've found that it stirs up too many arguments between the friends who gather here to read my meager musings, but a few hours ago I saw the creepiest movie re-run on TV and the actress in it bears a striking resemblance to a younger Hillary Clinton on her best “make over” day.

I’m not sure why I kept seeing this resemblance because this was not a political film.

The movie began with a background story about a husband who takes sexual advantage of unsuspecting women, and when four or five of them file complaints to the authorities, the wife of the cheating, lecherous man seeks revenge on the women her husband victimized—the movie focuses on one family in particular who at first is completely fooled by this woman’s smile and charm. They welcome her into their home as a nanny and sing her praises to their friends. [These next two photos are both from 1992.]

What they don’t know is that this woman is not who she claims to be. She is completely manipulating their perception of reality. For instance, she stages events and even re-writes personal history to make herself look good. This lady creates problems that don't exist and then pretends to solve them—e.g. she secretly puts an earring in the baby's mouth so she can heroically take it out. She also plants false evidence to harm a black character who has earned the family's trust...and then acts surprised when it surfaces. She pretends to help organize a party but it's all a selfish sham, a backdrop for what she thinks will be her crowning moment.

.

As she spins her web of deceit, it becomes obvious to the viewer (but not those closest to the woman) that this fiendish fraud will stop at nothing to get what she wants! No matter what else she destroys in the process.
.
The woman schemes to undermine the role of the wife and mother, and pretends to care for the children while scamming the man of the house. By the end of the movie, deception, lies, and even murder have nearly destroyed the family that was happy before this smiling female wolf-in-sheeps- clothing arrived. Not until it’s nearly too late does the family see through the never-fading smile and sweet talk of this conniving, pathological interloper whose campaign of terror on the home plummets in poetic justice with some help from the family's black friend. (A moment that bodes well for Obama... if art reflects life.)

It’s a super creepy story—very unsettling! Have you seen the movie? It’s called The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (borrowing from the poetic maxim "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.") The lead role is played all too well by Rebecca DeMornay, who could someday be cast as Hillary Clinton if they ever adapted this film into a movie about her 2008 campaign.

All DeMornay would have to do is shift the ruthless ambition to "rock the cradle" to the second part of the old saying. The title could be The Hand that Rules the World... or better yet...Hillary Rocks! The more I watched the movie, the scarier the similarities became.
.
Like I said, I steer clear of politics here at POI. This is not a political film at all. It's an eye-opening tale of character, motives, manipulation, and the hazards of misplaced trust.
.
[See Trailer here. If that won't open here are some video images from the movie (sorry they're not in English) and a short one here. Here are some video images of Senator Clinton for visual comparison. Avoid NYC Fireman next time, Adapt to friendly audiences, Try to talk tough, pretend your husband left a clean rug in the Oval Office, and Try to lighten up. [More about that cackle here and here.] If you need some more images to make the visual comparison, here are some longer clips about Hollywood connections of a different sort: Part 1 and Part 2. If you choose to rent this movie, get the edited-for-TV version, otherwise it may be flagged for objectionable language.

The question Dems are settling for is: Can she win? The questions all other voters may ask eventually include these: Based on 35 years of documented public and private behavior, do the facts match the face? Will the caring, smiling nanny that shows up on the White House porch be trustworthy when no one is looking or when someone gets in her way? Which part of "Clinton Déjà vu" will air when these re-runs begin?]

Since I do not want to dwell on politics at POI, I will instead post relevant updates for those who may find them of interest:

.

Update #1: 11-25-07. This article from a few weeks after this post seems to confirm some of the concerns above and in the comments below.""I think it's going to come down to: Do you really want Bill Clinton back in the White House?" said Donna Brazile, who ran Democrat Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign."

Update #2: 11-26-07. Hillary makes little girl cry in a New Hampshire diner. "Don't let her take me, Mommy." The kid must have seen the movie! (Just kidding. I made up what the 4-year-old said, but the incident actually happened.)

Update #3: 11-28-07. This is what I'm talking about--it's re-run city! This article asserts that Hillary's run is all about Bill's "legacy." "Ladies and gentlemen," Clinton told 400 Iowans at the start of his three-city swing, "I have had a great couple of days out working for Hillary." In the next 10 minutes, he used the word "I" a total of 94 times and mentioned "Hillary" just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife's candidacy. Meanwhile some say CNN allowed Hillary to "plant" one of her supporters and co-chairmen into tonight's debate. Personally, I think this reflects far more on CNN than on the candidate who no doubt cackled about it.

Update #4: 11-29-07. Peggy Noonan says at the bottom of this piece: "The second part of the inevitability problem is that once you seem no longer inevitable--once the polls stop rising or start to fall, once that air is out of the balloon and the thing that made everyone fall in line is gone--well, what do you do? If the main argument of your candidacy is you're inevitable and suddenly you're evitable, where does that leave you? .... What does Mrs. Clinton do when she's feeling angry? What has she done in the past? Goodness, this won't be pretty."

Update #5: 12-10-07. "The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics. Those are a lot tougher to overcome. It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their ``boss.'' Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary."

Update #6: This article explains Hillary's Glass House. "Let's take a trip down memory lane, to revisit a sampling of why so many of us came to think that Hillary's first instinct when in an embarrassing spot is to lie."

Update #7: Hillary took a beating in Iowa and seems to be unraveling in New Hampshire. [Update on update... she ended up squeaking out a slim victory there.]

Update #8: 2-8-08 In this article Peggy Noonan compares Hillary to Glen Close in Fatal Attraction. Ouch! But I think the comparison to the film above is even more perfect as metaphors go.

Update #9: 2-13-08 If this is indeed a melt-down for the Clinton campaign, here is an inside explanation of which heads will roll and in what order. "...arrogance ... is the key to understanding all that has gone wrong for the Clinton campaign. Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination. If she wins—as she very well might—it will be in spite of her original approach. As one former Clinton staffer put it to me last spring: “There was an assumption that if you were a major donor and wanted to be an ambassador, go to state dinners with the queen—unless you were an outright fool, you were going to go with Hillary, whether you liked her or not..."

Update #10: 2-14-08 In this radio interview [On WMAL-AM, Chris] Plante asked about Sen. Clinton's reaction to the comments Shuster made about Chelsea being "pimped out" by the campaign….”
Said Clinton, slowly, "I think it was inappropriate for him... to refer ...to my daughter ….in the way he did." He went on, "Hillary never complains when people say things about her or me. But when he involved my daughter, she complained, and I think it was the right thing to do….She just stuck up for her daughter, and for girls everywhere, and women everywhere, and it’s about time somebody did ...."

This strikes me as an interesting comment from the man who was not sticking up for [in this sense] Monica Lewinsky ten years ago. The Lewinsky's "daughter" Mr. Clinton repeatedly took sexual advantage of was about four years YOUNGER than Chelsea is today. Yes, I believe that stained blue dress put "under the rug" in 1998 is why some are still tripping over the thought of Bill in the White House again. America has continued distrust of the Clinton "package deal."

.

Update #11: 2-21-08: Here's what George Will has to say about Hillary's cries of "unfairness and her repeated claims of 35 years of experience.

" [Cries of 'unfair'] are unpersuasive coming from someone from Illinois or Arkansas whose marriage enabled her to treat New York as her home, and the Senate as an entry-level electoral office (only 12 of today's senators have been elected to no other office) and a steppingstone to the presidency." [As to experience...] Well. She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose law firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

Update 12: 2-21-08: Here's an explanation of how Hillary ran out of money so fast.

Update 13: 2-22-08: Ouch! This one asks "Why on earth would Democrats want to sign up for a second ride on the Clinton scandal train when they could opt for a clean slate candidate?...I believe there is a whole group of Democrats out there who are secretly enjoying being able to vote against a Clinton... without having to vote for a Republican to do it."

Update 14: 3-20-08: March was a very eventful month. As Hillary lost a dozen primaries in a row to Obama. She fell about 150 delegates behind (before Obama's pastor problems surfaced, but by then it was probably too late). Hillary tried everything to get the Michigan and Florida "disqualified" primaries to count, and on March 19 she traveled to Michigan and gave them an impassioned speech abuot how deeply she believes their votes should count and she should get the delegates (since Obama was not on the ballot). She forgot that she had said this in Iowa last January.

Update 15: 5-12-08 (I kept adding these updates to the old post for six months so as not to prompt political discussion on an on-going basis here at POI.) Here's what Peggy Noonan said about this weekend's events: "Mrs. Clinton spent this week making it clear. In a jaw-dropping interview in USA Today on Thursday, she said, '...Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
White Americans? ... If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.
To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by....She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching."

High Noon:
Follow Up on "A Better Life"

A previous post on 1-7-07 prompted some interesting comments and questions from Obsession. As that cautionary film's disclaimer says, the radical Muslims are a minority and vastly outnumbered by those who would prefer to live in peace. Unfortunately, we know from 9-11 that terrorists are willing to borrow the freedom they hate in order to make a statement against it. This makes life more difficult for non-militant Muslims who choose to practice their faith in non-Muslim countries.

I'm writing this on Martin Luther King Jr. Monday. This weekend, I've heard many references to King's "I Have a Dream" speech. This is interesting in light of a BBC documentary I watched last week called "The Power Of Nightmares" By Adam Curtis. (It's on Google Video here. It's in 3 one-hour parts but worth the time.) The premise (though perhaps a generalization) is that political leaders have lost the ability to cast dreams and have resorted to leading through fear.

“In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. While the 20th Century was dominated by a conflict between a free-market right and a Socialist left….at least they believed in something. Whereas, what we are seeing now [post Cold War] is a society that believes in nothing [and is therefore] particularly frightened by people who believe in anything….” (from The Power of Nightmares, Part III)

There is useful information in Curtis' presentation, but I disagree with his premise and many of his conclusions—especially that the fear of global terrorism stems from fear of a misunderstood religion in general. I think it comes more precisely from an understood fear of random death. His treatise (Part I) did, however, help me better understand the long and ironic "prologue" of what some call Jihad and why much of Europe and the Arab world is afraid to speak out against the radicalism behind it.

He also points out that Jihadists who oppose the West (including Westernized Muslim nations) do so because freedom leads to individualism, materialism, and selfish, vulgar living.

In my February 19, 2006 post I said...

"I believe we are on the right side in the War on Terrorism, but this conclusion is not based on our 'goodness' as a nation or our 'fitness' to export freedom [if such were possibe]. Unfortunately, from a moral perspective, it's harder to make a case for democracy's contrast to tyranny if that democracy is linked to moral decay. (e.g. Which is worse: a woman’s choice to be dressed in veils or her willingness to be undressed in vile men's entertainment?)

The cause is indeed complicated by a caricature of Western democracies reveling in unfettered 'freedom' which values the right to have choices more than the responsibility of choosing wisely.... [Curtis would say "there's the rub," and it's why Americans must better model the values promoted at TFFABL.] Freedom itself must be restricted (else why the need for STOP signs?)....That is the cause of the constant tension between freedom and self-governance....Even so, I believe that on our worst day, our system of government—not our moral example—reflects more of our Creator's ideals than tyrannical systems of fear."

I would suggest that the poor moral example set by the West is a result of man's depravity not his freedom. It is my personal belief that the values at the heart of a better life were established by God and cannot be maintained while rejecting Him. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom for those who understand His gospel, but this understanding cannot be forced upon anyone. That mistake has been made by many religions—including Christianity—through the centuries.

As in the 7th's post, I can't say that either side is fighting "for God," but I will say a better life or a bitter life depends on victory over terrorism because fear of the unknown brings out the worst in mankind.

Iraq is the current focal point of this clash of ideals. The goal is victory not peace. As outsiders, the Coalition cannot hope to settle the ancient civil wars in that region. (We didn't start and cannot finish those.) On the other hand, it must give the new Iraqi government a fighting chance against the insurgents who wish it to fail. Everyone wants the war to be over, but most agree that we cannot simply cut and run.

This war has resembled High Noon from the start. (Rent it and see if you agree.) But the role of sheriff must change to the Iraqi people and its leaders. The insurgents may hate the West, and the Iraqi people do not need to be Westernized, but they must understand the courage of that Western when it comes time for the Coalition Forces to withdraw. For all the obvious reasons outsiders cannot remain indefinitely as the sheriff. Self-government must ultimately be self-maintained. [As seen in this June 2007 update.]
.
Because the intent of this follow up was to clarify these thoughts--not to initiate or prolong this topic on my blog--I have chosen to close comments on this post for the time being. Thank you.
T.K.

A Better Life

This afternoon I was watching the play-offs, and a PSA (public service announcement) came on in the middle of the endless beer commercials. It was like a Hallmark ad, but instead of selling cards, it was selling values. Randy Travis was singing about a truck driver in the middle of nowhere who decides to remain faithful to his wife. See it here. (Scroll down to the frame called "Truck stop" and click on the your media player.)

While you're there, check out some of the other short spots (30-60 seconds long). It's a user-friendly site brimming with inspiration.

The FAQ link of The Foundation for a Better Life (TFFABL) makes it clear that they are "not affiliated with any... religious organizations" yet it clearly espouses a worldview and set of values. I doubt that the dollars behind TFFAL are from atheists trying to fan the divine spark of humanity, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the foundation consists of private members of a very particular religious group trying to appear non-sectarian in order to reach a larger audience and accomplish a "greater good." Either way, overtly leaving God out of the equation makes man sound pretty capable without Him (a la Pelagianism, explained here). Which raises some questions...

Can actions and attitudes be based only on "personal accountability... regardless of religion..."? As important as human accountability is, can it replace accountability to God? Can values survive in the vacuum of subjective thought? The answers to these questions are important, but my intent is not to start a theological debate.

I wish rather to point out that these values are not "religion-neutral" at all. They appeal to us because they are rooted in the truth the Gospel.

Virtually* every value on the TFFABL site springs from Biblical principles and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I'm confident that I could footnote them with a Bible passage (in context). In terms of self-government (salvation is another discussion), they do indeed represent a better life even for those who do not put faith in the source. For that, I like these TV spots.

Question: I've browsed through the Koran. Can Muslims likewise show how the values modeled in the TFFABL TV spots are explicitly taught in the Koran? (I'm not talking about any parts of the Koran taken from the Bible. Since Mohammed and his writings came at least 600 years later. I'm talking more specifically about the words attributed to their "prophet.") I'm just wondering. Look for yourself. If you find similar values there, what is the ratio of such teachings to the numerous calls for jihad and death to those who believe otherwise? It would be encouraging to hear influential non-radical Muslims explain the compatibility of our beliefs in a pluralistic society.

Make no mistake, the war in Iraq is a clash of values. Ironically, it is primarily between the non-geographic strain of radical Islam that would force its "church" on the State and a nation whose "separation of Church and State" has made it forget the source of its high ideals. Only time will tell how well "self government" in Iraq (or here for that matter) can function without a foundation of Judeo-Christian ethics.

I'll not presume to say either side is fighting for God, but I will say that a better life or a bitter life hangs in the balance of victory. If you doubt it, click here, but to fully understand a differing view you may also which to click here.
(TFFABL also have a billboard campaign that includes this reminder from WWII.)
This post generated many thoughtfully expressed questions and comments and agreement from readers, but due to the nature of the internet, I have chosen to close them for the time being. Thank you. T.K.

The Marine Did His Job

Here is my original post from November 17. I re-dated it to move it to the top of the blog again. UPDATE: As we entered this past weekend, this valiant marine was still the topic of much debate. The cameraman's name has become prominent but the marine is still unknown to the public. May it ever be so--some heroes must remain unknown for their own good.

.

Last week in honor of Veteran’s Day, ABC aired Saving Private Ryan, the first Hollywood movie ever to cause me to grieve. It’s a film that earned is strong "viewer discretion" warning, but it's also one that should be seen by every American old enough to understand the words “freedom” and "cost." War, accurately portrayed, is hard on the eyes and harder on the stomach, but to the post WWII generations, Saving Private Ryan gives new meaning to five words:
Duty, Honor, Country... Thank you.

Monday night and again tonight, I saw a similar film. It was shorter—not shot by Spielberg but by an NBC imbedded cameraman in Iraq. I hope you have not seen this footage, and I hope it soon fades into the fog of "news that isn't news." But if this story has legs, I fear that a young marine may be in trouble for actions that should never have been seen in our living rooms. Allow me to describe what I saw, taking a few liberties afforded a typical screenplay:

A handful of marines are seen crossing an iron bridge in Fallujah, Iraq. As they approach the road ahead, they look up at the empty black girders of the bridge. The frame freezes and dissolves into a Flashback of the same image—this time with two charred bodies of American contractors hanging overhead with a throng of laughing thugs dancing below, firing rifle shots in the air. The gun bursts snap us back to “real time” and our marines take cover at the foot of the empty bridge. They trace the fire to a nest of remnant insurgents about 100 yards away, hit it with a small missile, and all is quiet but the sounds of war in the distance.

As they move along the rubble, they meet up with part of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment with an imbedded NBC cameraman. They exchange wary glances, and the newcomers are warned that the mosque they're approaching had been raining “AK-47 fire from Ala” down on them for two days, but it was finally put out of business yesterday just before the main wave of fighting moved north. As they cautiously advance, they give a wide birth to the strewn bodies of masked enemy soldiers along the road. The camera guy gets some shots of the carnage. “Don’t touch the bodies,” one grunt warns. “Some of them are booby trapped. One went off on our buddy yesterday. Killed him.” Another marine, whose face is still bloody from what looks like a bullet graze, adds, “And shoot anything that moves. Yesterday I nearly got my head blown off from one of these buggers who didn’t want to die alone.”

Suddenly, the boots stop at the base of a minaret, which the day before was illegally used as a machine-gun nest. They quietly enter the shattered sanctity of the mosque, camera rolling. The distant popping of gunfire fades. “It’s too quiet,” a voice whispers. Each trigger feels a tremulous finger, poised. Sunshine streaks in through high windows. The Marine’s eyes adjust to the light and each pulse quickens as the shapes of bodies on the floor emerge from the shadows. The marine with the wounded face cautiously steps toward one of them. The body is on its side; his hand is out of sight. Is he alive? Is he hiding something? “Why risk it again,” he thinks, remembering yesterday’s stinging blast to his face. And with little thought he fires a shot into the heap on the floor. Camera rolling. End of screenplay.

On the big screen, that scene in the mosque would run about 30 seconds, but unfortunately the incident was real, and the wounded marine who fired the gun may face criminal charges for shooting an unarmed “prisoner of war.” That’s the story. I don’t know every rule of the Geneva Accord; I don't know this marine (and hope that his name is never released). I don’t know every detail of this incident (though all but the dialogue and part about the infamous bridge is in the reports). But I do know this: that battle-weary marine was doing his job. Most soldiers in this unconventional war of human bombs and desperate terrorists would have done the same.

War should never be reduced to “reality TV.” There are no commercial breaks; no game-over buzzer at the end of each battle; no getting voted off the island. War is a mangle of man and machines where things blow up and people die. The horrific images should not be casually viewed and second-guessed from a living-room couch. I suggest a new rule for our military and our imbedded media:

.

Whenever an imbed's footage can help prove the facts of this war on terror—use the footage. But never should an imbedded camera be used to subject a fighting marine to criminal charges for pro-active self-defense in a time of war.

.

Soldiers live between frenzied snaps of time, and he who hesitates is lost.