Cha-Ching

Alright, enough with the syrupy sweet, touchy-feely sentimentality about Thanksgiving specifically and the Holidays in general. When you're about to get visited by your adult kids, and a wild man retriever puppy, it's about...work, and lots of it!

First, all the linens in their old bedrooms have to be washed. Then while doing that you're reminded that the mattress in Kaitlin's old room really is shot and needs to be replaced. Cha-Ching*

Then there's the grave concern about just how much of the fall-themed decorations should remain out and just how much of the Christmas knickknackery should be brought out for the kids. Now, to many of you, this may seem like a silly, pseudo-problem, but in my house, this is dreadfully serious business. See, while they are home we must decorate the tree. Our kids must be allowed to fight over who's turn it is to put the angle on the top. Well, it just wouldn't be proper to do this with nothing but cornucopias all over the place, would it? Oh, and our 15 year old tree up in the attic has finally bitten the dust so we had to buy a new nine footer to replace it. Cha-Ching.

With such a fabulously handsome new faux tree with even more handsome faux pine cones, new lights must be purchased. Cha-Ching.

 Pam..."Honey, listen....hear that?

Me..."Hear what?

Pam: "That whooshing sound! Sounds like the air conditioner filters need to be replaced."

I open up the grate and see the words...Replace October 10, 2015. I SAY..."You're right, a couple of days old, these are..." My wife possesses bionic ears capable of hearing the elevated heart beats of squirrels trapped in the attic of neighbors three houses down! Cha-Ching.

Grass needs to be cut. Leaves must be gotten up, after paying a guy $300 bucks to get up the first deluge a couple of weeks ago. Department 56 houses must be hauled out and set up.

Good thing I've got some Percocet left over from my shoulder surgery. I have a feeling I'm gonna need it.

* it has occurred to me that my use of the phrase "Cha-Ching" might be potentially triggering to any Asian readers. Please note that the phrase was used to denote the sound that a cash register makes, NOT as a derogatory reference to people of Chinese extraction.

What Do We REALLY Care About?

Some of my blogs lately have been about very heavy concerns, from the slaughter in Paris to the geo-political and ethical minefield which is the Syrian refugee crisis. From the looks of my Facebook feed, these issues have had a powerful and divisive effect on my readers. Well, it's Friday, and pass time for a blog that I believe has the potential to bring us all together. After all, like President Obama, I want to be a uniter, not a divider. 

So, a couple of days ago, in the midst of the dreadfully serious refugee crisis, with the blood of the innocents barely dry, I passed through my den at 7:30 in the morning, glanced at the television and saw a frame full of Matt Lauer with a gravely earnest expression on his face. He was interviewing someone and looked to be in the midst of asking a profoundly serious question. I paused. Perhaps he had scored a sit-down with the President and was grilling him on his ill-timed "ISIS is contained" line. Or maybe somehow Lauer had managed to win an interview with the reclusive leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Babhdadi. But then my television screen was filled with the cocky face of Charlie Sheen announcing to the world that he has the HIV virus. Moreover, he had had sexual relations with upwards of 500 woman over the past four years without sharing with them this cogent fact. Now he was being blackmailed by a bevy of porn stars and other B-list actresses none too happy about his medical condition. The world is in flames and the suits at NBC thought it wise to air this interview. 

Where to begin? First, let it be known that I wouldn't wish the HIV virus on my worst enemy. On the other hand, who among us is surprised by the news that Charlie Sheen has it? 500 different sexual partners in the last four years? Let that sink in for a moment. That's a new conquest every three days! If it is true that one does, in fact, reap what one sows then Charlie has reaped the whirlwind. But what bothers me is...why does anyone care???? Listen, if it were Tom Hanks, maybe you've got a story. Or if it were discovered that Sylvester Stallone was gay, maybe you've got a story. But...Charlie Sheen?

Most of the time I feel blessed beyond measure to be an American. But honestly, there are other times when I think that we are a wholly unserious people, mired in celebrity worship and too easily attracted to decadence. Thanks a lot Today Show. Thanks for reminding me that no matter that western civilization is crumbling under our feet, you guys never take your eye off of what we really care about.

Syrian Refugees. What To Do?

As of this writing, 31 Governors have notified the President that their states will not accept any new refugees from Syria, in light of the recent attacks in Paris. These Governors have been hailed by some for trying to insure the safety of their citizens, and vilified by others for giving in to fear and xenophobia.

The issue of what to do with the millions of refugees fleeing the years old civil war in Syria is a complex problem with humanitarian as well as geo-political ramifications. However many may want to reduce it to a simple case of fear vs. compassion, the facts of this issue are much more intricate and include more mundane concerns like politics and...money.

Also as of this writing, in all the years of the bloody Syrian civil war, so far the countries in the region who share a common heritage, faith and language with most of the refugees...countries like the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, have taken in approximately...ZERO of their Muslim bothers and sisters in the hour of their greatest need. This, despite the fact that each of these countries has plenty of money and the expertise required to resettle them. Although this unfortunate fact certainly doesn't absolve the rest of the world from an obligation to do something to help, it surely should raise a few eyebrows as to...why?

So, the question then becomes, what should be the proper response of the United States government with regards to the humanitarian disaster which is the Syrian refuge? Yesterday, social media was awash in comparisons between this crisis and the Jewish refugees during WWII. For many reasons, I believe this to be a specious argument. First, there weren't any Jews running around machine gunning innocent civilians in restaurants and concert halls in the 1930's, no Jewish state proclaiming a caliphate over the lands of other countries, slaughtering anyone in their path either. Although the vast majority of the Syrians fleeing the war zone are not a party to this ideology, to pretend that amoung them aren't many who are is to be foolishly naive.

We are assured by our government that it can and will fully vet every Syrian it brings into the country. But I don't believe it is either giving in to fear, or displaying paranoia to question their optimism on this score. When they call the Syrian government to follow up on a refugee's background, who is it that actually picks up the phone? An employee of Bashir Assad, the man who's vile administration is responsible for the stream of refugees to begin with??

But, for sake of my argument, let's assume that I am right and that the vetting process is inadequate. Consequently, for every 10,000 Syrian refugees we allow into the country, there are 10 jihadists, a failure rate of only .001%. Is that an acceptable level of risk? According to many of my Christian friends the answer is yes. Scripture is chocked full of commands to treat the foreigner among us with love and compassion. Sure, there is risk involved, but there is risk in practically any noble endeavor. If the failure rate in my example were to rise to 5%, inviting in 500 jihadists, would that level of risk change the equation? I'm speaking theoretically here, since I truly don't know the answer.

Getting back to these Governors. I suppose it's easy to accuse them of pandering to the fear of their constituents, or even trying to embarrass the President with a cynical display of politics. But, regardless of your view on this issue, the number one job of any government is to protect it's citizenry. If a Governor were to agree to take in a couple thousand refugees and just one of them walked into a busy shopping mall and gunned down a couple hundred people, that Governor would go to his political and actual grave with the blood of innocents on his hand. 

Then there's the subject of money. It is estimated by experts that it will cost the United States government approximately $64,000 to care for each refugee it accepts for the first year they are here. This figure includes the cost of health care, resettlement costs, food stamps and other welfare payments, etc.. This, compared to the annual cost of roughly $5400 to provide for them in a neighboring state refugee center in Jordan or Kuwait. (You would think that Kuwait might show a little gratitude in this regard by helping facilitate such a center. We did free them from Sadaam's occupation, after all). Some might say that this more cost effective approach effectively skirts our responsibility by farming it out, in much the same way as Christians farm out our missions responsibility by writing checks instead of going ourselves. Perhaps. But others might suggest that piling on ever more debt by spending money we have to print is neither compassionate or effective.

I find myself stuck in a classic bind. I am held fast between two strong emotions. My heart goes out to innocent people, and the vast majority of those risking life and limb to get the hell out of a war zone are just that...innocent. But my head knows that we have an enemy out there who is hell bent on killing us, and will not hesitate to take advantage of our openness and compassion to do just that...kill us. 

At the moment if I could ask Jesus anything... I would ask him what he meant when he told us to be, "as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

A Million Questions

As is often the case in life, when it comes to the War on Terror, I have many more questions than answers. The events of the past three or four days have left me with even more questions. Perhaps the reason I don't know the answers is that I don't know all the facts, and the reason I don't know all the facts is because they are being withheld from me by our military planners and intellengence organizations. Be that as it may, here are a few of them...

When the French government, responding to the barbaric attack on its citizens decided to launch a bombing raid on ISIS targets, it is reported that they hit a "well known jihadist training camp and ammunition dump"

1.Why was ISIS allowed to operate a jihadist training camp and ammunition dump in broad daylight? 

2. If this location was so well known, how come it wasn't taken out months ago?

3. Have we not enjoyed total air superiority in this fight since its earliest days?

4. If so, what has been preventing us from taking a well known training center and ammunition dump out?

For the first time since the war with ISIS began, allied air forces finally attacked a nearly 3 mile long convoy of oil trucks transporting petroleum products from ISIS controlled Syria. This, despite the knowledge that the sale of black market oil is the number one source of financing for the ISIS organization.

5. What, in God's name, have we been waiting for? An engraved invitation?? 

In an attempt to answer question #5 above, a Pentagon spokesman said that we had been worried about collateral damage that might have been visited upon non-combatants, so much so that even this attack was preceeded with the dropping of warning leaflets.

6. Umm...WHAT? 

7. You mean like the ones the terrorists dropped before the Paris massacre?

I'm thinking that if you've got a three mile long convoy of tanker trucks carrying oil purchased directly from ISIS, the drivers of these trucks know exactly what they are doing and are no more non-combatants than were civilian Nazi sympathizers in Paris who ratted out members of the French Resistance in WWII. So, while we are busy losing sleep over collateral damage, ISIS is allowed to rake in 50 million a day in revenue, with which they can train jihadists (in the open) and send them to the streets of Paris to murder French citizens. This is the strangest war...EVER.

Oh,and whoever it was at the Pentagon who made the decision to wait to go after these convoys until after the Paris attacks....thanks. Thanks a lot for managing to make Donald Trump look smart, since he's been publicly calling for us to attack their oil supplies and choke off that income stream for months now. Thanks. That was really helpful.

Universal Values??

"Once again we've seen an outrageous attempt to terrorize innocent civilians. This is an attack not just on Paris, it's an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share."

As the atrocity in Paris was still ongoing, President Obama took to the podium in the west wing of the White House to make a statement. He looked exhausted and besieged. The quote above was the key takeaway from his remarks. It is a sentiment that one hears often after these types of terrorist attacks from politicians from both sides of the aisle. It is also blatantly false.

I am old school enough to think it unwise and unpatriotic to use the event of a terrorist attack to score points against your political opponents, so let me emphasize here that this has nothing to do with our President. Rather, it is a what I see as a deadly flaw in our collective political thinking when it comes to the very nature of the existential conflict in which we find ourselves. To the President and anyone else who agrees with the sentiments above I ask this simple question...

Please list for me exactly the universal values which you believe that all of humanity shares?

More specifically, which universal values do we share with ISIS?

Western civilization is in the midst of a death struggle with radical Islamic jihadists for the precise reason that we do not share the same values. Nothing could be more self-evidently true. When your enemy can throw a seemingly unending supply of volunteers into the fight who eagerly await their chance to martyr themselves, we can't even rely on the universal value of the desire for self preservation. And yet, after every Paris, a tide of self-loathing Western elitists scramble to the nearest microphone to contextualize the evil, eager to place their own free countries into the dock along with the terrorists. It is maddening and utterly predictable.

What way forward? I have no idea. Confronting and defeating a belief system like radical Islamist jihad has no simple solution, no painless remedy. But a good place to start would be to rid ourself of the dangerous and naive notion that all of humanity shares universal values. To use such imprecise language may make us feel better by creating safe spaces in our minds, but in the real world it is a dangerous delusion.

First Thoughts on Paris

I sat down on the sofa with my iPad on the coffee table in front of me, my cell phone in my hand and the television turned on, switching between Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper. The news was coming fast and furious from Paris, a multi-pronged attack on soft civilian targets in one of the world's greatest cities. I sat there for two hours trying to make sense of the senseless. Here are my initial reactions and observations.

My first Facebook post was a bit too snarky, a quip about it being unlikely that the perpetrators would turn out to be a band of "terrorizing Episcopalians." But seriously, what honest, thinking person didn't think it was an attack by radical Islamists?

It's amazing how a cowardly attack on the free people of Paris can transform you into a French patriot in about five minutes.

Every time something like this happens, there is always someone who jumps up and screams, "Yeah, but just two days ago 150 Hulu tribesmen were killed by Tutzi tribesmen in Mozambique and nobody cares! That proves the west is RACIST!!" No, it proves that you are a blithering idiot. 

In general, whenever I hear a talking head reacting to the massacre of defenseless free citizens with the phrase, "Yes, but..." I stop listening. When the blood of innocents is still flowing, it's not time to trot out your moral equivalence talking points.

On the other hand, the very second that confirmation comes that ISIS is behind the attack, you can practically feel the heat being generated by hands gleefully being rubbed together over at the Weekly Standard. The answer to every terrorist atrocity isn't, "Let's send American soldiers to the Middle East again!"

Remember when some of our sillier politicians were telling us how the biggest threat to our National Security was....climate change?

Hearing a French President declare that France is about to wage a war that will be "pitiless" is a very un-French sounding phrase. I truly wonder what that will look like.

I find myself fighting...hard...against my first and perhaps most human instinct...revenge. I've grown very weary of seeing free citizens slaughtered in the streets of good and great cities by remorseless killers yelling Arabic phrases. Part of me says, "Ok Abdul...you want to see paradise, game on!"

Pam asked me this morning, "If this sort of thing should happen in one of our cities, which of the Presidential candidates would you most want in the Oval Office?" Great question. After giving it some thought, I whittled it down to four that I would be Ok with, although, being "Ok" with someone is not the same thing as "enthusiastic." My four were, in no particular order, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, and Hillary Clinton...for what that's worth.

Godspeed to the people of France and free people everywhere.

A New Vocabulary

 Since the racial grievance business seems to be booming of late, especially on college campuses, it's becoming harder and harder to keep up with all the latest developments in the genre. Indeed, an entire vocabulary has sprung up, seemingly overnight, to describe a whole host of new forms of racism. While the overt racism of the past like lynchings and cross burnings and whatnot have largely faded, they have been replaced with more subtle forms of racism. As a service to my readers, I will attempt to identify some of these new words and offer definitions for those not up to speed on the cutting edge of grievance industry:

1. Micro aggression...a snub or slight, often unintentional, sometimes not, directed at a person of color by a white person.

2. Nano aggression...a snub or slight, that hasn't actually been levied yet, but one which a person of color fears may be unleashed sometime in the future.

3. Crypto aggression...a snub or slight that a person of color fears is percolating in the mind of a white person, even if it is actually never levied.

4. Trigger warnings...a warning, usually in writing, that what follows may contain words or images that might cause post-traumatic stress disorder reactions in the reader, especially if the reader is a person of color.

5. Trigger happy...a student who is a person of color who is given a passing grade on an exam he got out of having to take because of an abundance of trigger warnings.

6. Privilege...the unfair advantages bestowed at birth upon people of pallor, the able-bodied, the physically attractive, the athletic, those born into stable families, those who never have broken the law, and the large-breasted.

7. Safe spaces...a cordoned off area or room, dorm, or entire section of campus where no one of privilege is allowed to speak, or exist.

8. Racially segregated housing...the bad kind of safe space.