All About BOB

I'm probably almost the last person in America to see the hbo series, Band of Brothers. During the Christmas break, I've rented it on DVD and watched almost the entire thing and I've also gotten the Stephen Ambrose book of the same title and read the entire thing. So even though most people have seen it, it's new to me.

Since I'm away from home and typing this blog on a small laptop over a 28k connection, I'll be making some very short observations on this series and it's relevance to current events.

As a study in the psychology of the American soldier, BOB is right on target. It offers us a glimpse of Americans who couldn't be more different in backgrounds, yet able to cast aside their differences to function as a cohesive team.

In many ways, our WWII American Army seems a lot like our current military forces. They are drawn from a diverse background and called upon to fight in foreign lands for an abstract set of ideals that embody democracy and justice. If the Taliban, the Baathists, or any other potential foe want to find out what we're really made of as a people, they would do well to watch this series.

Fly The Friendly Skies

This blog will be on hiatus until January 7th, 2004 since I most likely won't be near a computer for the next week. In the meantime, please visit these fine blogs:
Evangelical Outpost
Blackfive
Argghhh!
A Collection of Thoughts
They've all been very helpful in my blogging quest and I regularly visit them for new and interesting content.
Check them out and please remember to stop back by on Jan 7th.

GOP 2030

Over at Hugh Hewitt's site there's a link to something called GOP 2030. GOP 2030 is an effort to gather ideas on how to take action to build [Republican] majorities that last until at least 2030. This sounds like a worthy effort to me and I'd like to suggest an idea.

My idea is this: We need talent scouts to recruit and support people to run for office at every level. When I say support, I'm not even primarily referring to funding. I'm talking about assistance with developing strategy, communicating a compelling vision, researching the opposition and all that goes into successful campaigns. Without someone to scout for talent and bring it to the forefront we'll be faced with the current method of finding candidates used by both parties.

Today, in order to run for office, you either have to have a lot of money or a lot of supporters willing to donate money, or both. If you don't have a lot of money, you begin by running for local office while developing a network of people willing to donate and, if you're lucky and skillful, you'll eventually end up with enough resources to run for a statewide or national office. If you are fortunate enough to have the financial resources, you can get on the fast track and run for a statewide office almost right away. The problem with this is that it doesn't necessarily produce the best candidates and it doesn't produce fresh candidates with new ideas.

Instead it produces the same old faces year after year. Some of them are exceptional while most are mediocre. A look at the names in the last several presidential elections basically reveals the same cast of characters year after year. In my home state of Illinois the pattern continues; just the same politicians with hardly any new faces. Voters get really tired of seeing these guys and I think voter apathy is partly the result of this system.

If this system consistently produced excellent candidates that would be fine, but it doesn't. The ones without their own financial resources become dependent on whoever has the big bucks. They essentially sell their votes on various issues, often regardless of ideology, because they want to be re-elected. The ones who have the finances are able to stick around year after year but this is often regardless of their skill or service to the people. These guys are often egomaniacs who are in politics because they consider it to be like "hollywood for ugly people". They love the attention and they love feeling important.

I believe that the best politicians are those who aren't necessarily career politicians. Unfortunately, there's a real learning curve for anyone trying to enter politics. To make matters worse, the politicians who are currently in elected office aren't real willing to mentor and help someone who could potentially unseat them in the next election. To solve this problem, we need GOP Talent Scouts who can look at the local and statewide elections and provide guidance and support to those with potential.

Recently, I decided to pursue statewide or possibly at some point, even national elected office. To do this I ran for, and was elected, to the lowest elected position I could find; Trustee for the Village of Stillman Valley, IL. I'm honored to serve in that position, but I also see it as an opportunity to pursue other elected office. So, I'll next run for the next level up, and so on, until I get to statewide or national office.

There's nothing wrong with this strategy, but it will take a lot of time and I may be forced to make some compromises along the way if I'm to receive the backing of the GOP and of donors willing to support my campaign. If there was an organization in place to provide guidance and support at each step along the way, I could pursue office much quicker and I wouldn't have to sell my soul for the opportunity to make a difference.

I'm imagining that there are a lot of others out there like me. People who might make great leaders, but need an extra push to get them out there. When it comes right down to it, GOP 2030 is only possible with quality leaders who articulate a vision that allows America to remain great.

The J Word

Howard Dean recently unveiled a part of his strategy to be successful in the South. According to this report in the Boston Globe, Dr. Dean is going to start throwing around the J word a lot. But will it work?

Dr. Dean goes on to describe himself as a Christian in "The Northeast Tradition". I'm not sure where the Northeast Tradition thing is mentioned in the Bible but I'm pretty sure it isn't in the translation that I carry with me to church each Sunday. I've never heard of this Northeast Tradition, but I bet the media elite can explain it to us.

Dr. Dean also revealed that he and his wife considered Unitaritanism but decided instead to become a Congregationalist. In his comment about almost becoming a Unitarian, Dean shows just how little he really knows about those whom he's hoping to attract with this new found faith of his. Saying you considered becoming a Unitarian is like saying, "I almost became a professional football player except that I got cut from my high school football team." In other words, it renders what you say practically worthless since Unitarianism is the antithesis of Christianity.

Overall, his comments seem to be a pretty transparent way of pandering to Christians in the south. Somehow, I don't think Unitarianism is that popular down there and I rather doubt that Dean will be very popular either. John Edwards was asked about Dean's recent use of the J word and he wasn't going to touch it with a ten foot pole. Edwards, appearing on Fox News Sunday, was asked what he made of Dean's comments. He replied, " I have no idea. You know, I'll let Governor Dean speak for himself."

If Dean were really going to use this strategy effectively he'd make more subtle comments and let potential voters gradually "discover" his "deeply-held" beliefs. But this guy is anything but subtle and I'm looking forward to watching Bush savage him in the months prior to the election.

President Bush knows how to get his faith across without sounding like he's simply trying to con people out of their vote. In his weekly radio address this week he said, The voice first heard 20 centuries ago in Bethlehem stirs churches and communities to open homeless shelters and food pantries and job training centers to help those in need. Now that's how you weave your faith into a message.

I guess the real difference is that Dean is willing to say anything to get elected. I'd like to hope that people are able to see through this statement and will not be convinced somehow that Dean is the right guy to become President. But then I think of the fact that half the nation voted for Al Gore in this last election and it really makes me want to make a donation here.

Dean is willing to say the J word, but I would much rather have a President who knows the meaning of it.

Fox on The Road

I'm a news junkie so the prospect of having Fox News available in my car at all times was a great motivator to check into XM Radio. If you're thinking about getting satellite radio, you might want to read my comments on this...

For those of you who don't know, XM Radio is one of two services that offer satellite radio. The other is Sirius Radio. Both services offer 100 channels and are comparable in price. My wife, knowing that I was getting ready to buy it for myself anyhow, decided to get XMRadio for me for Christmas.

The service itself works as advertised. I get 100 channels with little or no interference. There is a good variety of channels divided into categories such as Country, Rock, News, etc. As I mentioned earlier, Fox News is there along with CNN, ABC, and the BBC World Service, among others. A full channel listing is here. The cost is about $10 a month. Fox News is basically just the audio portion from the Fox News Channel on television. For me, though, that's just fine.

Now before you run out and purchase this, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. It isn't as cheap as it looks. You might see the basic unit for about $120 plus there's some sort of rebate. What they don't mention however, is that you'll need a car adapter ($70) in order to use it in your car. You'll also need a home adapter ($70) if you want to use it at your house. Then you can start paying $10 a month for the subscription.
   
2. It isn't as portable as it looks. Yes, the actual receiver is pretty small, but unless you plug in some other stuff it isn't much good. The receiver plugs into a docking cradle. (There is a different cradle for the home and audio adapters.) Then you have to connect a power supply, line out, and antenna cord. Mercifully, they at least managed to put all the plugs on the same side of the unit. (Why can't they figure out how to do this with my laptop?) So, you have this small receiver but then you plug it into a bigger cradle, then you have three separate cords coming from it. To top it all off, you can't easily unplug the antenna cable for the car adaptor unless you first remove the unit from the mounting bracket. The concept of being able to move the thing from house to car and back is a good one, but unless you have a high tolerance for misc. wires running all over the place, it isn't that feasible.
   
3. I have the SkiFi Radio and have it mounted in my car. Unfortunately, it really looks crappy mounted in my car and I suspect it will look crappy in yours too. The car adaptor cradle isn't real slim and the mounting bracket protrudes a good inch to allow you to swivel the unit so you can see the screen. Let's just say it doesn't exactly blend in with the dash.

   Add the antenna, line out to the cassette adaptor, and power supply and you've got a tangled mess of wires. I feel like I'm driving a police car with the small computer screen coming out of the dash. The mount feels sturdy enough but I have my doubts about how long it will last. For one thing, it sticks out so far that I suspect some hapless passenger is going to accidentally wipe the thing out with their knee. For another, I have my doubts about how long the adhesive holding the bracket will last. In Northern Illinois, there are a lot of temperature extremes, and adhesive doesn't usually last that long in this climate. (YMMV)

   If you are going to use it in your car, my recommendation is to purchase the XM Commander. For starters, it is a lot skinnier. Also, it only has one wire and it works with your fm radio. At $160 it is a little more than the base unit but it is actually cheaper since you don't have to buy the vehicle adaptor.

4. Keep in mind that you'll have to mount an antenna on the exterior of your vehicle. The one with the vehicle adapter is a little bubble like thing that is pretty unobtrusive. Unfortunately, though, it's probably only going to look good on the trunk which means that you should plan on running the wire from your trunk and under the back seats.

5. Finally, there is a little problem with switching between stations. Unless you use the preset buttons, it's far from intuitive, and difficult to use when you are speeding down the roadway at 70 mph. You have a total of 20 presets between preset A and preset B (10 each). Get them set before you start out on your trip or you just might find yourself enjoying your listening experience from a ditch.
   

I love having 100 stations including Fox News, but I'd recommend spending a little more up front for the commander. I'd also recommend that you plan on just keeping it in your car or just at home since it really isn't all that portable. For those who spend a lot of time in the car, this thing is priceless. I plan on enjoying XM Radio for some time to come, but I'm really hoping I'll be able to keep from running into a ditch while switching stations.

Obscurity and Anonymity

After a great deal of reflection, I've decided to write a guide which I've chosen to title,
How to have an Obscure Blog that Almost Nobody Reads
By following my simple steps to obscurity, you too can have a blog that almost nobody reads. So, in the spirit of the holidays, here they are...

How to have an Obscure Blog that Almost Nobody Reads:

1. Only link to blogs you like and regularly read, regardless of whether they link to you. (Collection of Thoughts, Blackfive, Evangelical Outpost, Arrghh!, Politburo Diktat)
   
2. Be a regular guy with a boring desk type job and not a marine or soldier like this guy or this guy.
   
3. Don't post any porn or even make references that may be construed as even slightly pornographic. (Especially don't mention Paris Hilton)
   
4. Start your own Alliance with yourself as the only member -- and stay away from this pesky group.
   
5. Only make comments on others blogs if you can be anonymous or offensive, or better yet, both.
   
6. Have a complicated difficult to remember url or one that has no meaning to anyone other than yourself and one or two of your closest friends.
   
7. Write wonkish essays on things that aren't necessarily current events.
   
8. Kiss up to Glenn Reynolds. That's right, it won't likely get you anywhere.
   
9. If you discuss religion, make really deep observations and references that only a bored seminary student with no real access to the net would be interested in reading.
   
10. Stay away from the lawyers who write blogs. No good can come from striking up a conversation with them. (Besides aren't they all EVIL?) You'd have just as much luck trying to get something out of the Marines.
    
11. Try to get a reciporical link to one of the official presidential campaign blogs, preferrably the one for Bush. Not even political hacks read them and so there will be no danger of any of them generating any traffic for you. (Except maybe someone reads Howard Dean's official blog, but you can safely assume that those people are just morons whom you wouldn't want to visit your page anyway.)
    
12. Consistently claim that you only write your blog to satisfy your inner desire to express yourself and that you don't care if anyone else actually reads what you write. (Even if you do kind of wish that someone would notice your brilliant observations.)
    
13. Stick with the blogging thing for only a few months and then, just to make things challenging, change the name of your blog.
    
14. Have very few, if any, graphics. They just clutter things up and make reading your blog more of a pleasure. There's nothing wrong with good old-fashioned text.
    
15. Make goofy observations like how you think the Iraq War will be turned into a popular television serious with a liberal peacenik subplot.
    
16. Regularly mention how you are a conservative Christian, an evangelical even, and you'll be sure to become the life of the party.
    
17. Write an insanely humorous article about how to be an obscure blogger and then post it right around Christmas when very few people will be likely to notice it.
    

An Army of One

They call it "censorship" when it doesn't work out the way they'd like, but it really consists of people making free choices and it's the most potent weapon we have. The most recent example, with the Reagan movie, shows how effective individuals can be when they express their displeasure with a media conglomerate's decisions. Still, it isn't used often enough.

I've been referred to as a "rabid republican" and to the extent that I let my politics dictate my buying decisions, that is very accurate. I don't buy Evian, or any other French product if I'm aware of it. I don't go to movies that have Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, or any of a number of other stars. I won't listen to the Dixie Chicks. Does that make me a censor?

Absolutely not. All of the people mentioned above have a perfect right to express their opinions. Of course, that's one of the great things about America, but that doesn't mean that I should support their lifestyle or their platform for expressing those opinions. Boycotting companies and individuals is nothing new.

However, we really need to take it a step further. There exists in this country a vast liberal media elite who seem bent on cramming their worldview down our throats on a constant basis. It's difficult to avoid. But I wonder how much their actions would continue if a significant amount of the population took note of their commercial sponsors and make their buying decisions accordingly. When was the last time you noticed whose commercials run during ABC News? Maybe you should notice. Maybe you should write a letter to those advertisers and, more importantly, refuse to purchase their products.

If you grant that at least half of the population voted for George Bush during the last presidential elections and grant that at least half of them are conservative republicans, you have a group that makes up at least 25% of the population. Do you think an advertiser would pay attention if they lost 25% of their business? Of course they would. Then Peter Jennings could just take his liberal self back to Canada and stay there.

I'm not even suggesting that we pressure the media to bias their reporting to favor the right. I'd be happy with more balanced reporting. We have the power to make it happen if we take our values and the future of our country seriously.

I guess that's one of the reasons why I decided to change the name of this blog to Army of One. Each of us has more power than we realize if we're willing to make our voices heard through expressing our opinions and by making everday choices so that they support our values.

International House of Justice

It's no accident that politicians like Hillary Clinton are seeking to internationalize the upcoming trial of Saddam. A brief look at their worldview helps to understand why this is so important to them.

Those who take a traditional worldview view the concepts of Right and Wrong as objective concepts that transcend human existence. Generally, Right and Wrong are based on the 10 Commandments and "The Golden Rule". But for liberals and "progressives" it's a different story.

For them, Right and Wrong are based more on majority opinion rather than on absolute concepts. Right and wrong are malleable and can be molded depending on the situation. On further clarification, when I say "majority" opinion" I'm not referring to a simple majority of all people but to a majority of the elites. For progressives, someone is elite if they attended the proper ivy league school, if they are from the East Coast, and more importantly, if they are willing to ascribe to the set of values that the other elites espouse.

The "international community" to the liberals, represents the opinion of the majority of elitists around the world and therefore, must be right. Concepts like national sovreignty are anathema to them. That is why liberal media outlets like the Washington Post, insist on internationalizing Saddam's trial.

Yet it is a sense of national pride (and sovreignty) that is so needed by Iraqi's at this point. Just as liberals don't seem to understand that diversity means having a sense of pride in your own heritage (whatever that may be) and instead seek to reduce everyone's heritage to a rough equivalency, so they are seeking to do the same with nationalism.

The Iraqi people were the ones who suffered the greatest under Saddam and they should be the ones to try and, hopefully, execute him. It is necessary for all of Iraq to acknowledge the injustice that was done in order for the country to move beyond this painful event. It is also necessary for the Iraqi people to realize that the future (just as Saddam's future) is in their hands.

George Will has an excellent commentary on why the trial of Saddam should be in Iraq.

Hooray for Heroes

I'm one of those guys who watches the credits after the movie is over. I want to see things like where the movie was shot and who's on the soundtrack. DVD's are even better. I watch all the special features. I like to know what makes a movie tick.

I'm interested in historical events in the same way and that's why I was so pleasantly surprised yesterday to find some additional information.

Since the end of "official hostilities" in the Iraq War I've been on the lookout for accounts that give a closer look at the actions of our soldiers. Books like, Boots on The Ground by Karl Zinsmeister, are good, but I'd have to say the definitive book on battles during the Iraq War has yet to be written.

Yesterday, I came across a link on Blackfive that pointed to an incredible arcticle at the LA Times on The Thunder Run into Baghdad. You may have to register to get to the article but it's worth it. This is the best narrative I've seen yet that seems to capture the essence of that conflict, including the story of heroic actions under fire by US Soldiers.

There are several accounts of the battle. The LA Times' is the best one, but the others help to provide some perspective and as a junkie for this sort of thing, I like getting the extra detail. This article from The Telegraph is excellent. The articles here and here. Finally, there is this article that provides some understanding of the tactics behind The Thunder Run.

Sitting behind my computer all safe and secure in the Midwest, it's sometimes difficult to imagine the bravery of those in uniform. In the stories above, the bravery of the supply units who literally drove gasoline tankers through a hail of bullets, is the most impressive.

Why I Believe

Recently I've noticed a few blog articles that deal with the subject of defining Christianity in various ways. The Evangelical Outpost has an interesting article, Fundies, Holy Rollers, and Born-agains: Defining Religious Labels and there's a hostile article purporting to be A Primer on Fundamentalism.

Ultimately, the whole definition thing gets to be pretty confusing. As a result, I thought I would skip beyond that and just give my own reasoning behind my religious faith and leave the definitions to someone else.

The convincing reasons for my faith aren't necessarily scientific or even meant to be. They may not convince anyone. If you're looking hard enough for holes in them, you're likely to find them. If you're looking for something airtight, you'd be better off reading one of the classic works of aplogetics by someone like CS Lewis or a compendium of arguments like this one, or by just reading the Bible for yourself.

My beliefs can best be summed up by this statement but the reasons why I believe are as follows:

1. The Illogical Nature of Evil
   There are the common criminal acts done every day like murder, stealing, etc. For most of these there's a logical reason behind them. They were either "crimes of passion" or motivated by greed or envy or any number of (more or less) rational reasons. I'm not talking about those types of acts. The illogical acts of evil I'm referring to are ones like the Holocaust where millions of people were killed for no apparent reason. Evolutionary theory can't explain the cause of the holocaust. There is no rational reason to explain such an event aside from acknowledging an Evil Entity that exists outside our normal human experience. The existence of such an entity then argues for the existence of a corresponding Good entity for without one the other would, by definition, not exist.
   
2. The Testimony of The Saints
   
   Many great men and women of faith have preceded me, some of whom I've known and others known only by history. They range from the incredibly intelligent to the most humble. They literally bet their lives on Christianity. I admire them all. Am I so arrogant as to assume that there is some kernel of truth that they missed in considering where to place their faith? They made a calculated risk in choosing to follow a certain path. Am I so different from them? Of course not. Therefore, I choose to follow the same path.
   
3. The Veracity of The Word
   
   The Bible contains some difficult concepts. At times, it seems to contradict itself. There are things that I don't understand and even a few things that I find almost unbelievable. It doesn't fit together perfectly, but as a whole it makes sense. If I were to invent a religion I would make sure everything fit together exactly. I would make it simple. The Bible is none of those things and that's part of what convinces me of it's authenticity. It can be understood within the context of itself but it doesn't fit together perfectly like something invented by man. There are more complex reasons why I believe in the veracity of the Bible but they ultimately boil down to the fact that it seems genuine and convincing to me, not concocted.
   
4. The Lack of Realistic Alternatives
   There is no alternative worldview that satisfies me. All of them require much more faith than Christianity.
   
5. Personal Experience
   I've personally experienced God's love, comfort and blessing in a way that convinces me experientially that he is for real.

There are two further points that I'd like to make.

• Legitimate Christianity is all or nothing
  I'm constantly amused by people that say Jesus was a great prophet but couldn't possibly be God. Judging by the things He said, either he was God or he was evil. If he wasn't God then at the very least he was misleading his followers to their deaths for the sake of a lie. If he wasn't God, then he was a traitor to his people because he failed to use his considerable skill in the fight against the Roman occupation. If he wasn't God, then he must've been hallucinating and/or mentally ill to make statements about rebuilding the temple or being able to cure people. There is no halfway point. Either he is what he claims or he is a lunatic.
  
• Some People Will Never Understand
  Some people seem incapable of believing the Christian faith. There may be many causes for this spiritual blindness but ultimately it makes no difference. They will never see.

I don't know that my reasons for believing convince anyone, but they convince me. They provide comfort and hope for me in the midst of doubt. It ultimately doesn't matter how I'm defined in terms of Christianity; whether I'm considered a fundamentalist or evangelical. The only thing that matters is that I've examined everything and have placed my faith where it is most warranted.