A Bomber Too Far

James Carville must be a brilliant man. I say this because so many politically powerful people have called upon him for counsel. His brilliance is exhibited by his rise to such lofty status in spite of remarkably unpleasant vocal characteristics and a face made for radio. He has also shown outstanding cleverness, or perhaps just dumb luck, in his choice of a spouse, Mary Matalin. Clearly his equal or better intellectually, she brings to the marriage a kind of insurance no one can buy. If Carville’s policy suggestions are implemented to ill effect (as I believe they must be) Mary’s position on the opposite side of the political boat will prevent a family capsize.

I further respect James Carville for his present willingness to address the goose as he has the gander. Carville was quick to cast blame on George W. Bush for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yesterday, in true bi-partisan spirit, Carville screamed at George Stephanopoulos that Obama needs to, “Git down h’yah. We are dyin’ down h’yah.” He insisted that the unfolding tragedy of the Gulf oil spill demands nothing less than direct Presidential intervention. He went on to predict political disaster if the oil reaches Florida’s beaches. We all remember how important Florida can be in Presidential politics: hanging chads and all that.

I see a WWII B-17 bomber, flames enveloping both wings, smoke trailing ominously behind as it arcs relentlessly down into the war torn landscape. Carville sees it too. An increasing number of Democrats see it as well. The independents who fueled its maiden flight averted their eyes weeks or months ago. The irony in this failed bomber mission is that enemy fire did not bring it down; perhaps it was the effort to climb too high too fast or the refusal to throttle back the engines after take-off that brought disaster. Whatever it was that doomed this flight, it happened because of the actions of those on board.

I wrote some months ago of rats deserting a sinking ship. I like the bomber analogy better. In the 1970s there was a war movie called A Bridge Too Far. The movie I am imagining might be called A Bomber Too Far. This seems to be the opinion of many decent, well-meaning folks who voted for Barak Obama. He has gone too far. But lest we Christians get too smug, we should recall the Jimmy Carter fiasco. Many believers thought it was going to be wonderful to have a Sunday School teacher in the White House. That turned out not so well.

I would rather have a wise atheist running our government than a foolish Christian. The President of the United States is not a ministry position. The man in the White House is the CEO of the world's largest operation. Would I prefer someone there who shares my values? Of course. But let us not be foolish this November. From the Oval Office to the Drain Commissioner, let us elect men and women who hold to the uniquely American expression of a democratic republic and have experience suitable for the job. Certainly, we can assess their understanding of the divine nature of their appointment. But we must not again stumble into electing an incompetent. If we leave men like Barak Obama at the controls much longer, we may not pull out of this dive in time.

I Don't Believe in God

Shocked? A former chaplain at Harvard reportedly responded to students who said they did not believe in God in this manner: tell me about the god you don't believe in; it may be that I don't believe in such a god either. He then proceeds to describe the God in whom he does believe, the God of the Bible as represented by the God-man, Jesus. This prompted me to think about the "gods" today's atheists don't believe in.

The kindly grandfather god. Picture a white-bearded old gentleman with a warm smile rocking on some heavenly porch. He looks down on us with unconditional approval, perhaps shaking his head forlornly when we mess things up badly.

The angry stepfather god. This stern visage glares at our every move. He waits for the moment he can whip us mercilessly for any misdeed he chooses. He lives to whip us; he enjoys whipping us. Nothing is ever good enough for this perfectionist.

The absent landlord god. There is no clear picture of this deity, for he is not around. He put the universe together quite some time ago and took off for parts unknown. He may have left some rules behind, but one need not be too concerned about them in his absence.

The capricious mythological god. Imagine Zeus casting thunderbolts from high on Mount Olympus. If he doesn't like your hair style today, he will drive the humidity into triple digits to destroy it. If you aren't prepared for a quiz, this will be the day he prompts your teacher to pop one on you.

The eastern mystic god-is-everything god. This unknowable universal life force mysteriously influences everything and everyone, assigning consequences to the actions of all creatures. No personal attributes can be described because there is no person.

The vending machine god. This is the god of the gift. Make the correct prayer, say the proper chant, complete the required task and this cosmic Santa will slide everything you need down your chimney. Need to know the future; drop your token and wait for your own personal palm reading.

I don't believe in these gods either. The God I believe in is the God-with-skin-on, Jesus of Nazareth. This God forswore his divine prerogatives for one lifetime in order to walk about dusty Palestine and demonstrate who God really is. This God, in true iconoclastic fashion, demolished the misguided notions and practices of the religious leaders of his day. (Read any one of the Gospels for a blow by blow report; start with John if you are unfamiliar.) For three years he said if you would see the Father, look at me. Then, after the religio-political institutions put him to death, he was brought back to life to validate all he had spoken. Scores of once atheists have set out to prove this God false, their conversions bearing witness to the power of the One who is Truth. I too believe in this God.

Testing the Tests

Someone has said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting to get different results. If that's true, then the folks in Washington's education meddling department must be insane. The No Child Left Behind act (NCLB, pronounced Nickelby) was a dismal failure by the estimate of every teacher I know. Yet now, according to the Washington Post, Arne Duncan, Obama's hand-picked education guru, is retreading NCLB and pushing it on schools as the Race to the Top.

Elements of the new program certainly have merit, but then so did NCLB on paper. An effort to help students across the USA master basic academic skills is laudable. Making schools and teachers accountable for the scholastic performance of their young charges sounds like a good idea. The problem with both NCLB and Race to the Top is the instrument used to measure skills and rate performance. Just as it is true that he who makes the rules controls the game, so also he who designs the evaluation describes success.

Neither Kennedy's NCLB nor Duncan's Race to the Top recognize the wide cultural diversity present in today's public schools. Each of these programs uses testing procedures and materials which discriminate against large portions of the population. One need not be an expert in Howard Gardner's multiple intelligence theory to understand that people have different learning styles and strengths. Add to this the differences between a child from the inner city, a farm, a native American reservation, a metropolitan street and a suburban neighborhood and you may begin to understand why no one test can measure all children accurately.

Two examples of this cultural disconnect will illustrate my point. Inner city children from a background of poverty were asked to write whether they would rather stay at an ice hotel or a regular hotel. Even I had to have the concept of an ice hotel explained (it refers to a hotel constructed entirely of ice.) Few of these children have been to any hotel, let alone something as esoteric as an ice hotel. The same test asked for the ten year olds' opinion of Michigan's beverage container law. Many were unsure what a beverage is; few had an opinion of the law since they didn't understand it was about the return for deposit concept. Under the testing rules, questions from students cannot be answered, so if they don't understand the question, they are not likely to provide a worthy answer.

Another aspect of the testing regime which teachers dislike is the pressure to "teach for the test." Because the test scores effect the amount of funding available to the school, administrators are draconian in their demands of teachers. In the weeks preceding the test, no deviation from preparation is allowed. Teachers feel corralled into dry, unimaginative lessons; the students likewise become quickly bored. One imagines the level of true, worthwhile learning is quite low.

Jay Matthews suggests a solution in his April 25 blog. Matthews notes that the ground shaking book by Doug Lemov is having seismic effects on young teachers. It may sound simplistic, but getting back to the basics may be the best solution to our education woes. As Matthews points out, many young teachers are frustrated by the tried and failed theories of the entrenched leadership. If you haven't seen the movie, Freedom Writers, watch it for an entertaining and enlightening example of this phenomenon. Erin Gruwell, the teacher on whom the movie is based, has continued to inspire students at Wilson High. Her shocking method: treating the students as responsible individuals and providing them with basic skills to cope with a world gone berserk.

What can we do? How about bringing the control of our schools back to the most directly affected people, the parents and local educators who have the greatest stake in the success of the enterprise? How about we send people to Washington who will dismantle the misguided department of meddleducation? We have that choice in the 2nd District in Michigan: Bill Cooper. As concerned parents, we can also become more involved in our childrens' education: attend parent-teacher meetings, PTO, board of education sessions and, most important, teach our own what it means to be responsible, literate citizens in a free republic. After teaching them about God, there is no higher calling.

Yancey on the Two Kingdoms

I will not often cede this space almost entirely to another voice, but the observations by Philip Yancey I share today so closely mirror my own thoughts and experience, that I could not say it better (despite the whispers of Narcissus in my ear.) The following excerpt is from the last chapter of The Jesus I Never Knew.

"Clearly, the kingdom of God operates by a set of rules different from any earthly kingdom's. God's kingdom has no geographical borders, no capital city, no parliament building, no royal trappings that you can see. Its followers live right among their enemies, not separated from them by a border fence or wall. It lives, and grows, on the inside of human beings.

"Those of us who follow Jesus thus possess a kind of dual citizenship. We live in an external kingdom of family and cities and nationhood, while at the same time belonging to the kingdom of God.... We have seen vivid demonstrations of the clash of kingdoms in our own time-- Albania, the U.S.S.R., China.... Yet despite this government oppression, a spiritual revival broke out [in China] that could well be the largest in the history of the church.

"In fact, problems seem to arise when the church becomes too external, and gets too cozy with government... I grew up in a church that proudly displayed the "Christian flag" next to the Stars and Stripes, and we would pledge allegiance to both. People would apply to the United States passages from the Old Testament that were obviously intended for a time when God worked through a visible kingdom on earth, the nation of Israel. For example, I often heard this verse quoted as a formula for national revival: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' The principle may apply in a general way, of course, but the specific promise was given as part of God's covenant relationship with the ancient Hebrews... Have we any reason to assume God has a similar covenant with the U.S.?

"Indeed, have we any indication that God now judges the U.S. or any other country as a national entity? [Italics Yancey's] As I now reflect on Jesus' stories of the kingdom, I sense that much uneasiness among Christians today stems from a confusion of the two kingdoms, visible and invisible. Each time an election rolls around, Christians debate whether this or that candidate is 'God's man for the White House....' Nowadays, as the U.S. grows increasingly secularized, it appears that church and state are heading in different directions. The more I understand Jesus' message of the kingdom of God, the less alarm I feel over that trend.

"Ironically, if the United States is truly sliding down a slippery moral slope, that may better allow the church... to 'set up a new sign... which is full of promise' [quoting Karl Barth.] I would prefer, I must admit, to live in a country where the majority of people follow the Ten Commandments, act with civility toward each other, and bow their heads once a day for a bland, nonpartisan prayer. I feel a certain nostalgia for the social climate of the 1950's in which I grew up. But if that environment does not return, I will not lose any sleep. As America slides, I will work and pray for the kingdom of God to advance. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church, the contemporary political scene hardly offers much threat."

None As Blind As

I used to think, as many teach, that one of the strongest arguments for the truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the dramatic change and conviction in the early disciples. It made sense to me that no one would stake his or her life on a known lie. Had those early disciples thought that Jesus was still in the grave, they would have faded into history like so many other followers of false messiahs. It only recently occurred to me that this opinion must ignore the fact that Mohammed's followers have down through the centuries made the same costly commitment. As have the disciples of Joseph Smith, Jim Jones or David Koresh and many others.

Today, Barak Obama seems to be ignoring the implications of this radical type of faith. It is not surprising since he shows no signs of having any such faith personally. Neither he nor his supporters apparently acknowledge the existence and the power of life-altering political views. Obama's recent declaration that we won't use nuclear weapons against an enemy if they attack us with other than nuclear weapons reveals this weakness. This parallels earlier statements regarding the use of certain types of interrogation techniques. He seems to operate under the assumption that if we are nice to them, our enemies will be nice to us. Similarly, the New York Times and other media outlets have divulged information critical to our national security which they seem to think demonstrates a spirit of journalistic fairness.

Now, I am not a warmonger. I do not wish to see Muslims dead because they follow Mohamed. I firmly believe that in this country, citizens must be free to practice whatever religion does not restrict the rights of other citizens. This is the only path I know that will ensure that I may hold my Christian faith freely. Yet as all rights are limited by the coexistent rights of other citizens, no religion which denies "unbelievers" equal rights can be tolerated. This is what Obama and his administration have forgotten. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, were radically unconcerned that they were depriving thousands of Americans the right to live as they chose.

In the same way that the appeasers of the 1930's allowed Adolf Hitler to annex more and more of Europe, Obama and the liberals across the globe are now ceding ever larger physical and moral territory to the radical Muslim agenda. These are not people with whom we can coexist. They seek our destruction unless we convert to their way of thinking and believing. While the economic policies of the Obama administration are obaminable [sic,] his foreign policy is so naive as to be dangerous. He doesn't realize that the people he is trying to be nice to will murder him at the first opportunity. He has no real concept of the power of religious belief that is radical.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non of Christianity: without it, there is no religion to believe in. But this reality rests on a mundane, elementary, level. As Paul says, our faith is empty without confidence in the resurrection (1Corinthians 15:14.) This intellectual basis for faith is less exciting than the experiential, feeling based commitment; in the end though, it is far more substantial. The Muslim homicide bomber believes he is earning himself a heavenly harem based on the words of a long dead prophet. I believe when I die, I will be welcomed into paradise by the living Lord who purchased my entry with his own life, then rose from the grave to seal the deal. Both paths require faith and commitment; the difference is the person in whom we each place our faith. The object of my faith is alive; no one has ever claimed that for the prophet Mohamed.

The Curtain, Please

I sometimes wonder if I am becoming paranoid in my old age. Then a voice says, "It's not paranoia if you really are being targeted." Maybe it isn't paranoia, but just cynicism. The point is that I am starting to look for ulterior motives in everything. It's possible that I have begun to see my own heart clearly, and I realize that there are no truly pure motives there either. But enough psychobabble; here is the topic for today. When something doesn't make sense, look for hidden reasons.

Case number one: the group formerly known as the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) was loudly championing Obama's health care reform efforts. This made no sense to me since there was so much for senior citizens not to like about the Democrats' plan. Reduced services, increased premium costs, death panels (so-called,) and more elements made the reform bill onerous to most savvy seniors. I know that AARP lobbying usually tracks with the Democrat issues and candidates, but this one seemed too contrary to the stated purpose of the organization.

In a World Net Daily article , Chelsea Schilling pulls back the curtain and reveals the wizard behind all the smoke and mirrors. According to Schilling's investigation, AARP collected $249 million in membership dues last year (2008.) In that same period, the organization received $773 million from royalties and advertising associated with the "Medigap" insurance policies it recommends to its members. In other words, over seventy percent of their 2008 revenue came from insurance companies. Confused? Aren't insurance companies at odds with Obama over health care reform? Maybe, but when the dust settles, insurance companies will be charging even more for their "Medigap" products because of the way the reform bill is structured. Higher premiums means more royalty dollars to AARP. Make sense now?

(Time out for a brief testimonial: I have discovered an alternative to AARP which seems to be more to my liking. Check it out at www.amac.us if you are interested.)

The way the Democrats abandoned the democratic process to push health care down the throats of their constituents also puzzles me. I used to think, in a mildly cynical way, that all any politician cared about was getting re-elected. One of the most amazing aspects of the health care reform debacle we just witnessed was the way Nance Pelosi strong-armed reluctant members of her party to vote for the bill even though it was political suicide. An LA Times article details the incredible position shifts that were forced upon the Speaker's own principles (if that word applies) and those of her colleagues. No constituency, no cause was safe from "Mean Machine 1," as her late night battle jersey named her.

Unfortunately I can not take you to the Emerald City and pull back the curtain on this one. I have a suspicion about what forces pull the levers in Washington these days, but no real proof. Either through naivete or giant hubris, Barak Obama has chosen to step out from behind the curtain just enough to expose at least the tip of the ideological iceberg that is floating down the Potomac. I must quickly admit that the impending disaster didn't begin when Obama took office. Sadly, George W. Bush was letting some bergy bits bang into the hull of the ship of state before he left (think bailouts and stimulus.)

So in my metaphor, Obama and his merry crew of socialists are sailing purposely into the path of the enormous growler. (Yes, Virginia, they are socialists -- and communists; read the resumes of those the president has gathered to himself.) They have taken over the US auto industry and health care. Steel, coal and petroleum were long ago hobbled by government meddling; a quick survey of recent history reveals several overt statements by Democrat leaders indicating a desire to "nationalize" these industries. Even agribusiness is becoming a government run sideshow with all the ill conceived subsidies and ridiculous mandates (ie. ethanol.)

I may be too trusting, too optimistic, but I hope that Michigan candidates like Bill Cooper and Pete Hoekstra can get elected and become a counterbalance to the leftward swing we are seeing. I hear hopeful honesty in national voices like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Tom Tancredo and many others. I hope there are enough people dissatisfied with the wizard who has been revealed to vote him back to Kansas (or Illinois.) I trust my Oz metaphor is near to the truth. I sometimes think, however, that this is more like Alice's tumble down a rabbit hole. If we have descended into absurdity, there is no hope.

Clouds Without Rain

For several years now I have had an idea for a novel simmering on the back burner of my mind. (This time frame is not unusual; it took three decades of simmer and one of writing for my first novel to see printer’s ink.) The working title for my back burner project has been Clouds Without Rain, from “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give.” (Proverbs 25:14 ESV) The key scene is a smoky back room meeting between fictional characters John Dooley and Horatio Mann. These two entirely imaginary villains concoct a scheme to take over America not by violence or political action, but by surreptitiously flooding the public schools with subversive curricula. Over a few generations, these patient masterminds propose to convert the entire US population from independent thinking, free market capitalists into mind-numbed robots groveling at the government teat.

I hadn’t progressed very far with this idea, for lack of a good cast of supporting characters and a credible plot line until this week. In one short periodical, Eagle Forum’s March edition of Education Reporter, I found enough ingredients to move the pot from simmer to boil. In one article, the Reporter cites recent research published in the Archive of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine concluding that “abstinence-only sex education can be more effective than so-called ‘comprehensive sex ed.’” Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation identifies eleven other studies that found abstinence programs reduce sexual activity. Not only that, Rector notes that abstinent teens are happier, less likely to drop out of high school, and more likely to graduate from college. If this is surprising news to you, perhaps it is because previous positive evaluations of “comprehensive” sex ed programs by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) are not supported by the evidence and suffer various methodological problems, according to two independent reviewers. In less kind words, the CDC has been promoting false information.

Another attack submarine waiting to be included in my plot was discovered in a reprint of a National Review article by Roger Kimball commenting on the legacy of one Howard Zinn. (I won’t even have to change his name because it already sounds sinister.) Few people outside academia would recognize Zinn, but as Kimball reports, Zinn’s A People’s History has been beloved by progressives since it was published in 1980. And why not, as it encapsulates their hatred of America as an imperialistic, “wellspring of earthly evil,” according to John Perazzo from frontpagemag.com. Purporting to tell history from the perspective of “the slaughtered and mutilated,” Zinn does his job as well as a tour guide at Versailles who presents a tool shed as exemplary and then comments on how shabby the whole place really is, says Kimball.

So we have the degradation of both morals and morale underway; what else might thicken the stew? How about an Orwellian plot to track the success (an uncover the failures) of the clandestine educational plot. The front page of the Forum’s March Reporter details Obama’s plans to require applicants for "Race to the Top" money to establish pre-K through college data systems to “track progress and foster continuous improvement.” If these records included only test scores, it might not be cause for alarm, but much more is anticipated. Other data may include Social Security numbers, disciplinary records and family wealth indicators. One has only to consider the things that go into “disciplinary records” these days to worry about their misuse. In our PC crazed academy, fostered by “outcome based,” touchy-feely standards of “tolerance,” the potential for mischief is beyond troubling. One wonders if nine-year-old Patrick will suffer later recrimination for threatening his schoolmates with a weapon, a two-inch plastic toy that he placed in the hands of his Lego policeman.

It would be sad enough if our public education system had merely failed to deliver the promised gift of a well informed citizenry. The real story of my novel is that the clouds which appear not to bring the promised rain in fact bring a deadly radiation of poisonous thoughts that will ultimately set the stage for America’s destruction through internal decomposition. Think about that the next time you hear one of Obama’s people talking about setting national standards for education. Maybe if I get my book in print quickly, I can look like a prophet when disaster comes. Or maybe we can stop it.