The Prophet's Eye

Non Sequitur --- A Letter To The Cartoonist

Mr. Wiley Miller,

This concerns your Oct 30th Cartoon which was published in the Austin American Statesman. I enjoy your strip, read it faithfully every day and while I don't always agree, you usually make very valid points which make me think (which is all I ask of those who disagree with me).

The above strip was not one of them.

The inference in the strip (correct me if I am wrong) is that if we allow for the Intelligent Design argument that there are certain things so complicated that there is no other rationale argument except that something intelligent put them there, then we basically have given science over to theological control and will stifle all other scientific discoveries and thinking.

If this is your point, you sir are 100% incorrect.

If not for the Church and many famous early Christian Scientists I daresay science itself today would not exist. If you will look at the list it includes the founder of modern Chemistry, classifier of all living things, a pioneer in genetics, originator of Joule's law and discover of pure mathematics. Albert Einstein himself was quoted as saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. As for myself personally I am an avid reader of science and science fiction, build and maintain networks for companies for a living and yet you will find me in one of those “Holy” roller Churches every Sunday worshiping Jesus and serving the children. The idea that rational, intelligent people cannot believe that the Bible is the Word of God borders on bigotry. If I have gone to far on your intent I apologize, but I think not.

It is interesting to note that your strip hints that if intelligent life outside of our system were to be found than this would usurp the authority of the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not there is intelligent life forms on other planets doesn't change or solve man's biggest problem; his sin nature.

Accepting the fact that there has been divine intervention does not mean that we “fundamentalists” believe that all knowledge is in the Bible. We we believe that all truth is in the Bible. There is a fundamental (sorry, couldn't resist) difference between truth and knowledge. Truth leads to life. Knowledge has lead us to sorrow over the last six thousand years of known human history. It has brought us wonderful things (medicine, surgeons, cheap food, electricity) but it has also brought us nuclear weapons. Science is a hammer; it can be used to build a house or put a hole in someone's head.

I know that there is a group of people out there that despite all of the mounting evidence still wish to cling to their outdated belief system by sticking their head in the sand and refusing to listen to any coherent argument. They chastise anyone who speaks up against them and turn a blind eye to any evidence that is presented to them that is contrary to their theology. Still, I have hope for them. If the 18^th century church learn to live with the changing world around them, I am confident that eventually so too will the Neo-Darwinists. :).

A Letter to The Editor of The Austin American Statesman

Rich Oppel took over the flailing Austin American Statesman several years back and has done what I consider a really good job of taking a far left wing neswpaper and bringing it center (he nearly was lynched for backing President Bush in the last election). However, sometimes they relapse as they did this last Sunday with the following article Evolution of Evidence. I wrote him the following reply which probably won't get published due to length:

The Austin American Statesman would do better to publish its own investigate reports than to buy hackneyed jobs from the Washington Post. Rick Weiss and David Brown's article has so many errors and omissions that it would be easier to list what little was accurate. Note the following; Evolution is the known scientific fact that life mutates to adapt to its environment. Neo-Darwinism is the belief that random mutations in a species using natural selection eventually results in new species which eventually results in higher life forms. Weiss and Brown conveniently combine this two distinct points to gloss over the following known facts:

1. There has never been an observed random mutation in the DNA of an organism that results in new physical traits. Presently, all mutations that are observed that are helpful to the organism are “buit-in”, in other words the species already has the ability for the mutation built into the DNA. All observed random mutations in organisms is either not helpful or, in the majority of the time, deadly to the organism (as observed regularly in humans).

2. In six thousand years of recorded human history we have never ever observed Neo-Darwinism through natural selection in action. Ever.

3. Brown and Weiss do not adequately defend against arguments first presented by highly respected microbiologist Micheal Behe in “Darwin's Black Box” where he shows irreducible systems in the human body (systems that cannot be broken down into simpler parts). Their explanation is “Evolution, which takes pieces and parts and  re-uses them, explains the systems”. Either Neo-Darwinism is random (and if it is random, there is no way that it could be re-using parts, that's what mechanics do not random acts) or not. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.

4. Brown and Weiss constantly point to the fact that we all have similar DNA to common ancestors. Yet this could also be construed as evidence of Intelligent Design. The result of random mutations of DNA should be a myriad of DNA structures, however we have great similarity, which could be interpreted as building blocks of “toolkit genes” that were used in our “construction”. Wait a minute, that is what they quoted Sean Carroll as saying.

5. Brown and Weiss conveniently ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics which goes directly against Neo-Darwinism (look it up yourself).
   
   

I challenge the Austin American Statesman to allow someone from the Discovery Institute to respond to this article in full. Since Brown and Weiss only quote John West from 1998 and only once, this article does not appear to be balanced or objective. I have seen some improvements to the Austin American Statesman in its objectivity over the last few years. This Sundays Insight edition was a horrible relapse.

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

The fight is on.

I seriously considered not publishing this soon to be string of essays on Darwinism and Intelligent Designs. My hesitations are, IMHO, prudent.

First of all, I am not a Scientist. I took two years of Astronomy and Chemistry. Nearly twenty years later, I can still often be found with a science book in hand. Twenty years of semi-casual study does not an expert one make. I definitely consider myself knowledgeable, but nowhere near a University Science grad student working on his doctrine. Even an undergrad would probably run circles around me.

Secondly, I am a reformed Darwinist. I still strongly believe in Evolution. What I no longer believe in is Darwinism. So I still have sympathy for the Darwinist groups, I just believe they are wrong. They have a taken a known fact (Evolution: The ability of an organism to mutate to adapt to its environment) and run with it much further than was intended and as a result, as we shall see, have run into some very strange territory. The analogy that comes to mind is the Physicists of the early 20^th century who discovered the structure of the atom and after proving their theory by building the nuclear bomb felt that they had discovered the foundations of the universe. Unfortunately for them, this did not last. The world that they have discovered underneath the atomic structure is so strange and wonderful Physicists couldn't have invented a wilder story on large amounts of mind altering drugs.

Thirdly, my talents tend to lay in the arena of Philosophy. People who start debates with me on the existence of God and the validity of morality usually quit rather quickly. Debating the scientific merit of Darwinism puts me in new territory.

However, after recent events I can no longer be silent (I can see my wife rolling her eyes as she reads this :)). President Bush started the national dialog with his statement about Intelligent design. This has cumulated in the recent weeks to the Dover School board trial. It appears that a national dialog has started on Darwinism, and it is quite obvious that the ones not interested in the discussion is the Darwinists.

This series that I am going to run on ID vs. Darwinism is going to be long. Why? I want to be thorough and leave no stone unturned. I want to first systematically address the problems I (and many scientists) have with Darwinism. Then I want to address the philosophical implications of Darwinism. We are going to start out with science, but I think it is philosophy that could prove to be the real problem with Darwinism. We shall see.

However, science is first. We shall start with an open letter the Austin American Statesman on the their published article on this Sunday's Insight section titled “Evolution of Evidence” by the Washington Post and then we shall then begin to address some of the pressing problems with Darwinism.

Hurricane Rita

I live in Smithville Texas, a small town an hour and a half north of Houston. As I see everyone quietly preparing for Hurricane Rita, I have noticed some general differences between our State Governments response and Louisiana's officials response. Now first of all, let me say no disrespect to the great people of Louisiania. My Church in Austin has worked with thousands of victims and we have nothing but respect for the people of Louisiana and their resilience in the face of a terrible tragedy. However, I feel strongly you will not see a repeat of the follicles you saw in our neighbor state. Why? Let me list the reasons:

 

1. We would like assistance from the Federal Government, but we don't need it. We were once our own government, and a majority of us believe that we still are.

2. We had a terrible Category 5 hurricane that struck in 1900 that killed over 8,000 people on and around Galveston which has led us to firmly believe that a Category 4 or higher storm means GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THE STORM.

3. We are raised to respect our elders, our elderly and to help the poor (which means we were raised in Church) and since we are just a bunch of ignorant rednecks we actually do this instead of relying on the Federal Government which causes great problems for the blame game Media because things actually get done. Since we are such ignorant rednecks and will be closing schools down during the storm we figure we ought to do something with those buses just lying around, so being ignorant rednecks we will use those buses to get the people out of Galveston that cannot help themselves (which is happening now). You know, that crazy church Golden Rule stuff.

4. Since we are just dumb country folk we still keep track of relatives so people in Galveston and the flooding areas of Houston have places to go. Since we do not sit around waiting on the Federal Government to save us we pick up the phones and call our friends and relatives to make sure they have a place to stay.

5. We are Texans and it is not in our nature to panic so we do not foresee the breakdown of civilization in case of (God forbid) massive damage in Galveston and Houston. This may be also due to the fact that we are armed to the teeth so if you are one of those nut jobs who recently moved here from the East or West coast and start acting crazy and running around crying “FEMA, FEMA OH MY GOD WHERE IS FEMA!!!?” then we can pistol whip you back to your senses.

6. We understand the forces of nature so we will not be blaming any Government officials for the Hurricane or for the tragic deaths that will (God forbid) probably occur. The only reason that we will let FEMA in the state is because we have a Republican President. If Al Gore was President we wouldn't blame him for the Hurricane, we would just politely ask him and FEMA to stay the hell away.

7. Galveston does not elect Mayors that will move to a different state after the Hurricane strikes.

8. Even our liberals in Texas are respected and have backbone. If the honorable Ann Richards were still Governor she would have graciously accepted the victims of Hurricane Katrina and then flown over to Louisiana and pistol whipped Kathleen Blanco until she regained her senses. (Due to Texas etiquette Governor Perry, being a man, was not allowed to do this. We do have manners here in Texas, thank you).

9. If Governor Perry cries after the Hurricane he will be hunted down and shot.

10. Governor Perry will lose twenty points in the polls if he does not issue a “shoot on sight” order for looters and MSM reporters.

The True Legacy of 911

Despite what seems to be an open commentary on 911, no one wants to talk about the very things that we all should be discussing, concerning this shocking event. Why? The topics we are avoiding are the very things in our culture that we never wish to discuss in the first place. We live in complete denial of the first and spend billions of dollars in a vain attempt to prevent the second. In one absolutely, horrifying moment, the collapse of those two towers exposed two ugly truths that exists in all of our lives and forced us to face them in a very uncomfortable way.

What made 911 so shocking? Yes, it was very unexpected. Yes, it was the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Yes, those two towers were a representation of America's economic might. They displayed America's unequaled ability to construct magnificent man-made structures. They were proof that we were the world's economic center. To our enemies, they signified our greed and lust for power, and, in their own view, everything that was wrong with our culture. What made this shocking was that our enemies attacked us in a way that none of us could have imagined.

Honestly, what has changed since 911? Our society is still the economic center of the world. We are still the largest economy in the world (Ebay alone has a larger GNP than most countries in the world). And we possess the strongest military force ever known in the history of mankind. If our enemies thought that our economy would fold and our military resolve would weaken, they paid for that mistake with their lives.

With absolutely no disrespect to the dead, let's examine the numbers. The last official death count of 911 hovered around three thousand—by all means, three thousand tragic deaths. What is also tragic are the 40,000 plus deaths that occur each year from car accidents (many from drunk drivers). If there are thousands of tragic deaths occurring all around us, then why did this event strike home in such a powerful way?  In other words,  what makes it worse than any other tragedy that have taken lives so unexpectedly from us?  One possible reason is that it destroyed our illusion of safety from Death.

Let us go back to the example of automobile accidents. It is a well-known, statistical fact that airline travel is the safest form of transportation. However, when a 747 goes down, it takes 200 plus poor souls down with it. The mother of three who is killed by a drunk driver never even makes the back section of the newspaper. This causes famous celebrities to travel by bus even though flying is actually safer. We all feel secure driving our cars in spite of the fact it is far more dangerous to travel by highway than by air.

The 911 tragedy was horrific because it invaded one of our strongest illusions of safety, our workplace. We all feel safe going to work, and right before our eyes, in one of the most terrible moments ever witnessed, we saw that illusion stripped away. Death, that unwanted visitor, has always been kept to his nice confines at the hospices, hospitals and deathbeds. We never thought he would escape and visit us at work (the same could be said of the highway). We were forced to look Death squarely in the face, and it has made us extremely uncomfortable.

What makes 911 much more than a terrible accident? It was caused by a human condition that was never supposed to have existed (like God). This condition is described by a word that is never discussed (even in some Churches).  It’s called Sin. The tragedy of 911 has brought sin to the forefront the way historic events do from time to time.  It warned us that if we fly too high, the sun would melt our wings. Mankind has recorded six thousand years of trying to redeem himself, but he has not been able rid himself of Sin and Death, the deadly cousins. The 911 tragedy is a powerful indictment that he has brought them with him into the 21^st century.

It was sin that trained the pilots to fly those jets. It was sin that provided them with their false identities. It was sin that gave them the money to live in this country to complete their pilot training. It was sin that smuggled the box cutters in.  And it was sin that flew those planes into those buildings.

Because of sin, daughters are without fathers, sons are without mothers, and husbands are without wives. It was and always has been sin. It has always been here. It has brought us divorce, murder, abuse and all those other things we don't want to talk about. As with death, we are forced to take an unflinching look at sin.  It’s a reflection that is hard to look at.

You may not believe in evil. Whether you believe it exists or not, it certainly didn’t stop those towers from collapsing. But in the midst of that darkness and despair, something else also happened on that fateful day…something that displayed a glimmering light. There was a fourth plane and a Godly, righteous man who decided that sin must be defeated—even if it meant sacrificing his own life. He and many others on that flight gave their own lives so that others might live.

There was another man who, two thousand years ago, walked the Earth.  He was “the” Light. Whether you believe He was God in the flesh or not, it doesn’t matter.  It didn’t stop Him from carrying out God’s plan. He gave His life so that Mankind may have eternal life. Jesus also died a horrible, painful death so that someday he could stop the two towers of Sin and Death from forever destroying the human race.

Whether you agree or not, there is no denying that 911 has once again brought back the need for us to search for the Truth. Science and reasoning cannot explain why men would fly 747's loaded with fuel into buildings. Science and reasoning cannot explain the heroic acts of selflessness performed by fireman and police officers who willingly laid down their lives that day (and every day, for that matter). Science and reasoning cannot explain why a group of airline passengers decided it was better that they pay the ultimate price for the sake of others. The Truth cannot be found in science or by the intellect.  It only can be found through revelation of God’s Word in your heart. The legacy of 911 is that Sin and Death are still with us, but so are those who still believe in a righteous God.

Hopefully, this lesson is one that our generation will never forget.

Say What?

A specialists magazine NeuroImage has reported that researchers at Sheffield university in northern England have made a startling discovery. It appears that when male minds process a female voice, they do so with the auditory part of the brain much the same way as when you listen to music. This occurs due to the fact that a female voices are much more complex than males. Males voices are much simpler and the brain picks it out much more quickly. This explains how my deep male voice can quiet a room full of kids in our Sunday School much quicker than any of the women.

In other words ladies, he is not ignoring you. He really can't hear you.

The Bible, if truly written by holy men inspired by God, should be giving us advice that is timeless in accuracy and content. We now know, through science, that men have trouble hearing women. Any advice in the Bible that aligns with this discovery?

Why, as a matter of a fact, it does. In 1Peter3:1, Paul has this advice for saved women with heathen husbands:

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

Two thousand years ago Paul is telling women to win their heathen husbands over to the Gospel by keeping quite and showing it in their behavior. Now the culture was different, and women weren't necessarily treated with respect. Paul was probably aware that men had the tendency to ignore their wives often excellent advice (gee, times really haven't changed that much). Doesn't matter. What counts is that the advice that Paul gave two thousand years ago turns out to be rather sound  (sorry, couldn't resist).

I actually think this advice is excellent for women with Godly husbands. Even Godly husbands can be slow or thick headed at times. In those moments, your actions can speak much louder than your words.

It's not like we can hear you anyway.

The Wonderful Inferiority Complex of The San Antonio Spurs

My wife is one of those people who puts the word 'fan' in sports 'fanatic'. She knows more about sports than ninety-nine percent of the men I know. During the winter I am a football widower. My knowledge of sports I owe completely to her obsessions. Twelve years ago she introduced me to the San Antonio Spurs. It has been a love affair ever since.

It is difficult trying to get people to understand why you like the San Antonio Spurs to the degree that your life basically stops when they are in the playoffs. They are the most eclectic team in the NBA. Tim Duncan was raised in the Virgin Islands. Manu Ginobili is from Argentina, Tony Parker from France, Beno Udrih along with Rasho Nesterovic are from Slovenia. Their coach, Gregg Popovich is a graduate of the Air Force Academy with a degree in Soviet Studies and spent many years in Europe.

They are not the prettiest team to watch. Until Manu entered the scene three years ago they could be down right boring. Their defense is stifling. They have no superstars, no egos and they do not go around beating their chests when they make a bucket. None of the Spurs seem interested in personal stats and not a peep was heard from Manu when he was put on the bench during the Seattle series despite just signing a six year 50 million dollar deal.

Yet they keep winning championships. Three out of the last seven, two out of the last three years. Gregg Popovich has the highest winning percentage of active coaches. They are consistently in the hunt for the title, and are already favored to repeat next year. How do they do it?

Hard work? You bet. It is well known that if you come to play for the Spurs you give one hundred percent or you will find yourself playing for someone else. Discipline? Correct again. Gregg Popovich yells at everyone, including his stars. No preferential treatment and everyone is expected to play defense. Everyone. In my humble opinion, there is something else going on and it has a lot to do with attitude. Gregg Popovich has created a wonderfully balanced inferiority complex in his team. Let me explain.

My wife got me to purchase the NBA ticket this year which enabled us to watch the after game interviews which were particularly interesting during the playoffs. What became apparent to me was the fact that San Antonio did not feel like that they were the better team. Ever. They always came across with respect for the opposing team, regardless of their standing in the playoffs. The opposing teams quite often came across in the beginning with an attitude that they were the Spurs superiors. This superior attitude did not seem to wane much even as San Antonio continued to send teams home for the summer.

The second attitude I noticed was that their Spurs players really believed in “One Team, One Goal”; it wasn't just babble. They acted like it on and off the court. If someone had a bad game, the other players defended him. If a Spurs player shined that night, they would down play it and deflect the praises back to the team. You can't fake this type of comradeship. Gregg Popovich refused to accept any praise for the victories, including the seventh NBA Finals game fourth quarter win over the reigning NBA Champions the Detroit Pistons headed by Pop's best friend, the venerable and legendary Larry Brown, much to the incredulous amazement of a reporter.

What Pop has modeled and trained his team to do is to assume that every team in the NBA is a better or potentially better team than they are. This creates a wonderful sense of urgency in the players to perform their best. The Spurs may have a bad night, but they never let their guard down. They are always looking to learn and to play better. They never assume, even after their third championship, that they have “arrived”.

The other effect of this carefully managed inferiority complex is that none of the Spurs players feel that they are the most important person in the universe. Tim Duncan is easily the star player but even the players and himself talk about him leading the team, not dominating it. This isn't just talk. When Tim Duncan went on the injury list the last two weeks of the season, the Spurs still managed to win a majority of their games, a feat that would not have been possible if the entire team relied exclusively on Tim Duncan.

There is a word in the Christian world to describe that attitude, that beautifully managed inferiority complex; humility. In a nutshell, being humble means not being prideful. It the very thing that this world needs, and as the Spurs have shown, it is more of what the Church needs. In fact, the Church could and should take some pages straight from the Spurs play book.

The Church needs to be more eclectic. God created all in his image (Gen 1:27) and is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34) and yet sadly God's love of diversity has not always been reflected in God's Church.

The Church I have attended for the last sixteen years is not perfect, yet I was never more proud of it when a popular local news magazine in Austin labeled our Church the “one that Martin Luther King would have liked”. Our Church is one of the most racially integrated Churches I have ever seen, and that is the way the Church should be. The world does not have the answer for racism, the Church does in the love of Christ. In a nation that is still struggling with color of people's skin, the Church should be a shinning example of color blindness.

There are no superstars on the San Antonio team, and there should be none in the Church. James 2:9 warns us, “But if you show servile regard (prejudice, favoritism) for people, you commit sin and are rebuked and convicted by the Law as violators and offenders.” The Pastor and staff are to be treated with the respect that they have earned, but the Church needs to avoid showing favoritism by not confronting certain individuals in the Church because of what they contribute. The fact that Gregg Popovich chews out Tim Duncan when he messes up (in front of the team) is startling enough. The fact that Tim Duncan, one of the highest paid players of all time, takes his lumps just like the rest of the team is even more incredulous.

Paul reminds in Romans 12:4-7 that we are all a part of the body of Christ and have a role to play. In 1Cor 12:14-25 he expounds on this, ending in verse 25 with “So that there should be no division or discord or lack of adaptation [of the parts of the body to each other], but the members all alike should have a mutual interest in and care for one another.” We should emulate the Spurs off court behavior; we may have a disagreements internally but if someone picks on one of our own we will “circle the wagons” (that does not mean we tolerate sin).

“One Team, One Goal”. I cannot think of a better slogan for the Church. The Christian Church in American society needs to be the San Antonio Spurs of the NBA. Hard working, humble, integrated and with a laser like focus to win the world for Christ. In other words, the Church needs a wonderfully balanced inferiority complex.

That is the truth about the San Antonio Spurs.

Mark Yost Firestorm

Mark Yost, associated editor of the Pioneer Press editorial page, set off a firestorm on July 12, 2005 when he printed this essay. Read it in full. My favorite paragraph is the following (emphasis added):

I also get unfiltered news from Iraq through an e-mail network of military friends who aren't so blinded by their own politics that they can't see the real good we're doing there. More important, they can see beyond their own navel and see the real good we're doing to promote peace and prosperity in the world. What makes this all the more ironic is the fact that the people who are fighting and dying want to stay and the people who are merely observers want to cut and run.

 

Mark Yost may or may not have been prepared for the firestorm that has erupted from his comments but Bernard Goldberg can relate. Bernard Goldberg, a self professed liberal and a former twenty six year veteran with CBS News (winner of eight Emmy awards) wrote “BIAS” in 2002 based upon a WSJ journal editorial he wrote on February 13, 1996 titled “Network News Needs a Reality Check” (he was still with CBS when WSJ published the column). I consider his book a must read for anyone interested in the debate over the MSM or anyone considering a career in journalism.

I briefly flirted with a  career in Journalism. I was one of the journalists in our high school newspaper and won several awards. An article I did on teenage drinking was printed in our local newspaper and caused quite a stir. Later, conversations with students of Journalism and their professors made it rather obvious that my conservatism gave me a snow balls chance in hell of getting a job in the media. I decided to pursue other venues.

Bernard Goldberg had the actual gall to criticize the MSM. This did not sit well with those in power, and he suffered for it. His book goes into detailed examples of how the MSM distorts the news. Many people have always known that the MSM was biased, Bernard Goldberg supplies them with the smoking guns.

Mark Yost can expect the same treatment. He has dared to speak out against an organization that is all for uncovering dirt anywhere but its own back yard. Already, Steve Lovelady, the managing editor of Columbia Journalism Review Daily Online has gone on a rant, demanding Mark Yost's head.

My only advice for Mark is expect more. Much more.

If the MSM will turn on the likes of Bernard Goldberg, one of the most respected journalists in his field because he dares to speak the truth Mark Yost can expect maybe even worse. Having said that, let me say one other thing.

God bless you.

It takes courage to take a stand. Especially when it is for the truth and  your career and reputation is on the line. As for the MSM, I am not going to enter into the debate of whether or not they are unfairly covering Iraq. Mark Yost makes his points clearly. What the MSM can learn from Mark Yost and from Bernard Goldberg is “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. [Proverbs 27:6]”. The MSM has two great friends in Mark Yost and Bernard Goldberg, and until they can see this truth they will continue their slide into oblivion.

The Truth About Mark Felt

The Wall Street Journal Online has an excellent column from the venerable Peggy Noonan on why the revelation that Mark Felt was “Deep Throat” has caused a great disturbance across the political spectrum. Read it first and completely. I particularly like her comments on Chuck Colson, who is probably the only hero to come out of the Watergate fiasco.

Peggy Noonan's most important revelation comes in the next to the last paragraph. We will get to that momentarily. I do have a shallow prick at her. She states:

Maybe the big lesson on Felt and Watergate is as simple as the law of unintended consequences. You do something and things happen and you don't mean them to, and if you could take it back you would, but it's too late. The repercussions have already repercussed. Mark Felt cannot have intended to encourage such epic destruction. He must have thought he was doing the right thing, protecting his agency and maybe getting some forgivable glee out of making Nixon look bad. But oh the implications. Literally: the horror.

Did Mark Felt intend to bring down the Nixon Presidency? It appears not. Did he out himself for money? If what is read is true he appears to have said as much. Should he have done what he did anonymously? Many will argue for and against; and easily I might add as none have stood in his shoes. These arguments do not matter. Mark Felt did the nation a great service by what he did, motives aside.

Richard Nixon was a great President by any measure. He was born and raised in California with inauspicious beginnings and through grit and determination was elected President in 1968. He was able to perform brilliantly under extraordinary circumstances. His diplomacy skills have yet and may never have had a peer. He ended the Vietnam war and when up for re-election in 1972 he won by one of the largest margins in recorded history.

Unbeknownst to the American people and if not for Mark Felt, Nixon's determination and grit had turned into a troublesome hunger for power and the beginnings of slight paranoia, a most dangerous combination. Well ahead in the polls, he still allowed the break in of the offices of the National Democratic Committee in 1972 and worse used the office of the Presidency to try to cover their illegal acts.

Some conservatives will claim that his acts were inconsequential; as Christians we must resist that temptation. Nixon left a stain on the Presidency that has yet to fully leave. He is forgiven; he is flawed like everyone of us. But we must not allow the brilliance of the man to overshadow the terrible deed. Is this not what conservatives say about Bill Clinton? He was most definitely an above average President and most assuredly a brilliant politician, but his horrendous moral lapse and outright lie under oath stains him. Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Neither can the media. Peggy Noonan deftly uncovers this in her next to last paragraph:

Is the Deep Throat story over? Yes, in the sense that it will no longer be treated as a mystery. In spite of the million questions we'll be hearing--and there are and will be many serious questions--the MSM will stick with the heroic narrative. Mr. Felt was Deep Throat. Deep Throat was a great man who helped a great newspaper put the stop to the lies and abuses of an out-of-control White House. End of story. Why? Because in celebrating this story in a certain way journalists of a certain age celebrate themselves. Because to bring unwelcome and unwanted skepticism to the narrative would be to deny 20th-century journalism--and 21st-century journalists--their great claim to glory. Because the MSM is still liberal, and the great Satan of all liberals, still, is Richard Nixon.

The MSM (MainStream Media for the uninitiated) has, according to the cover of the latest National Review, flushed its integrity down the toilet. Watergate is still celebrated by the MSM because it is their real last claim to glory. The sadness of this fact belies the dangers.

Our founding fathers instituted a government with three branches each with their own distinct powers to keep each other in check. They apparently did not think this was paranoid enough and instituted a fourth power, the free press to be the voice of the people and to help prevent any collusion of the branches that could erode or destroy the peoples rights. What they failed to see was the potential of the free press becoming a propaganda arm of one of political parties of the legislative branch.

Therein lies the danger. In the last forty years we have one confirmed story of political corruption from the MSM where they broke the story. They are apparently too busy trying forge fake National Guard documents to make sure a Republican President does not get elected than to find out why a former employee of the Clinton administration takes it upon himself to steal secret documents out of the National Archives

The MSM has an obligation, nay, a duty to protect us from corruption of the government. Having tanked their integrity and reputation to the point that no one believes them anymore, the MSM is now being monitored by the bloggers of the web who are holding their feet to the fire on accuracy and truth.

The Washington Post showed that by collaborating the testimony of an anonymous source (hint, hint Newsweek) two relatively unknown reporters could stop a branch of the government that was out of control (hint, hint MSM, when is the last time anyone checked on the finances of federal circuit court judges, or their lifestyles?). If the MSM has become so slanted that the bloggers are watching them, then who is watching our government?

In 1753 George Washington said;

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.

Mark Felt, working with the MSM, curbed the abused liberty of Richard Nixon. Will the MSM be there for us now or in the future? I am afraid to answer that question.

 

Memorial Day

Originally called Decoration Day, in May, 1966 President Lyndon B. Johnson officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day as Waterloo, N.Y. However, with over two dozen cities and towns claiming to be the starting point, it is nearly impossible to prove where it actually began. It is now celebrated by almost every State in the Union on the last weekend of May after Congress passed it into law in 1971. I use the word celebrate loosely. Parades and ceremonies have been slowly replaced with cook-outs and barbecues as we have turned this day of remembrance into a three day weekend.

The last three years Memorial Day has taken on a whole new meaning for the families of 1,820 fallen heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their families have paid the ultimate price for freedom; they have lost a mother, father, sister or brother. Families throughout our Nation's history have experienced this pain. In thirty six days on the Island of Iowa Jima during WWII, the U.S. Marines suffered over 26,000 casualties which included 6,800 KIA (killed in action). Nearly a third of the KIA numbers occurred on the first day.

Living in relative peace and financial stability for the last sixty years until 911, we had forgotten how rotten is the world that we live in. Terrorists have failed to launch another successful attack in the United States in the last three years and we are in danger of forgetting again. Today is the day to remember.

We must remember that historically, freedom is not the natural state of man. Throughout the six thousand years of human history it has been the desire of men to  lord over other men. Moses makes it perfectly clear that this is not God's will. God desires for men to be free, to follow their God and their convictions. This freedom must be purchased and maintained with blood. God required the life of every first born Egyptian child to purchase the freedom of the Hebrews.

Our own nation, the grandest experiment in democracy and human freedom, was purchased with blood of our forefathers. Since its inception over two hundred years ago, nearly every generation has been called upon to sacrifice some of its best and brightest to fight against whatever form of evil had risen to take away the freedoms of ourselves and this world. Our military men and women have done so willingly and brilliantly, most of them volunteering to shorten their lives so that others may live in this precious freedom.

I have no words that can offer consolation to the families who have lost love ones fighting our war on terror. I do not fully understand you pain, for I have never experienced that loss (I served in the military and my brother fought in Kuwait). I can, however, point you to one who does.

God is fully aware of the evils of this world. He too is in a war for the minds and souls of people and he was prepared to offer the best he had, his son, to win the war. His son Jesus voluntarily went to the Cross to die for our sins and to set us free from the law of sin and death. Billions since then have followed Christ and been set free from their sins.

This freedom is not without its price. Jesus suffered a horrific death. The critics of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ know nothing of history. The Romans were professional killers and torturers; everything portrayed in the movie the Romans were historically well known for. The followers of Jesus throughout history have taken our leaders example and have voluntarily let themselves become martyrs to pay in blood the price that this freedom demands.

So what can we do, those of us too young or too old to serve our country? We  can start by taking this day a little more seriously. We can pause a moment or two and talk about the sacrifices that were made so that we can play video games and buy the hundred dollar tennis shoes and go to the Church of our choice (or not go) and say what we want about the President without going to jail or vote against them in the election or start a web blog where can say pretty much whatever we want and large men in jack boots are not going to be knocking down our doors or the million other little things that we can choose to or not to do while cemeteries with impeccable green lawns and rows upon rows of startling white crosses all over the world are filled with the bodies of those died and can no longer enjoy that which we take totally for granted.

Jesus said in John 15:13 “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Jesus led by example. So have the hundreds of thousands of men and women in our nations history. We have an obligation, nay, a duty to live our lives worthy of the sacrifice that was given by our Lord Jesus Christ for our soul and by these brave men and women for our lives.

Their blood demands it.