AllTheseThings

Great Pick

John McCain has captured the media's attention on a day, even a long weekend, that was scheduled to be "All Obama, All the Time."  Following last night's speech--which now seems like it happened a week ago--McCain announced his V.P. choice--Gov. Sarah Palin, of Alaska.

This is a bold and seemingly brilliant pick.  She has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket.  She is very strong on both social and fiscal issues.  From the L.A. Times this morning on both her fiscal and social views:

she, like McCain, is known as a reformer who believes in curbing government spending. In her first year in office, she introduced ethics legislation and a budget with a $124-million reduction in spending...

Palin, 44, was talked about in conservative circles -- a fiscal conservative who is also a staunch opponent of abortion...

"At a time when many Republicans are still clinging to pork-barrel politics, Gov. Palin has quickly become a leader on this issue," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "She is a principled reformer who understands how badly wasteful spending has marred the Republican brand."

While I don't know her and only know about her policy positions from what I'm reading, everything seems to point in the right direction.  She's a mom from a middle-class family, with a husband who works in the oil fields.  She's played H.S. basketball and loves to hunt and fish.  Seems like someone most people can relate to.  Plus, she's no patrician.  This will also shore up the right for McCain (Rush just called it a "terrific, terrific, choice), will certainly be attractive to undecided-post-Hillary voters, and allows the ticket a unified theme of cutting government waste, corruption, and spending.  As Toomey notes, it is crucial for the GOP to restore its image by cutting spending.  She has a passion for, and a history of, doing just that.

And from a political-timing standpoint, brilliant.  While everyone was supposed to talk about the "Greatest speech since Gettysburg" at the Obamopolis last night, the NYT, LAT, and Drudge all have Palin as THE story.  Obama is on page 2 the day after his convention, and will likely stay there through the RNC's convention.

Yes, there are unknowns:  how will she debate, campaign nationally, and does she know foreign policy?  We'll see.  But from what we do know, it looks good.  She's won tough primaries in Alaska, understands oil/energy policy, and McCain's foreign-policy experience ought to be enough to reassure doubters on that front.  Plus, how much foreign-policy experience does the TOP of the Dem ticket have?  ("Well, I made a speech in Germany once, and it seemed liked they really, really liked me...")

All in all, it definitely looks like a nice move.

Thomas More[email protected]

Star Power

Well, I had a few things to say about the DNC, but I have to preface everything with the profound comment of the morning……..”WOW”. As I mentioned in a previous post, I saw very few billboards on my recent trip to Alaska. But of the few I saw, I think at least 80% of them had Sarah Palin’s face on them. She is obviously hugely popular, so I assume doing something right in her current sphere of influence. Let’s see how she can handle the national and even the world stage, but what a bold choice for McCain! Let the real games begin!!

But not to let the Dems off the hook so quickly….I only kept half an eye on the National Convention, maybe because I wasn’t expecting too many surprises. What I did see was huge crowds, loud cheering, flags, balloons, bright lights and lots of enthusiasm. There were also the big, big speeches from the major players in the game: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and even Michelle Obama, But I have to confess I’m a little shocked that they still wheeled Bill Clinton out there. Really? Yes, he’s a very charismatic speaker, but in his more recent, relaxed, post-Presidential phase he’s been a lot more blunt and a lot less diplomatic, especially on Hillary’s campaign trail. Can anyone really believe he is a whole-hearted Obama supporter with words to inspire the nation? It seems I’m not the only one who is a little surprised at Clinton’s longevity at the podium.

Thankfully I had it all explained to me, by the astrologer on the radio yesterday. Now, as a Christian I feel pressure to denounce astrology in no uncertain terms. But I can’t. There is something to it that’s freakishly accurate and at the very least, mildly entertaining. But God is indeed a jealous God, and thankfully I forget most astrological predictions within 5 minutes of hearing them. Nevertheless, those 5 minutes do often make me laugh with embarrassment.

Yesterday I laughed at Bill Clinton as the astrologer informed me that his star sign is Leo. Leos (so I’m told) are charismatic, inspirational speakers and will love the spotlight for as long as it’s shining on them. Ah, so, THAT’S why he’s still going strong. Barak Obama is also a Leo. Hmmm……..”Charismatic and positive-thinking they attract not only an abundance of friends and opportunities, but manage to survive life's stormy times with style and good humour” says one website. Myself and Joe Biden are Scorpios, as the astrologer said, adept at staying in the background while offering stinging criticisms. Ahem, guilty as charged.

So, let’s see what the near future holds. I won’t be looking in the back of the newspaper to find out, but I will be fascinated to watch who triumphs in the stormy and exciting months ahead.

Philomena

[email protected]

Reducing Abortion Reductions

Here is an interesting post about Tony Campolo's effort to soften the pro-abortion plank in the Democrats platform.  I couldn't find a permalink, so you'll have to scroll down to find the entry.  The highlights about the inner-workings at the DNC meeting, and a pro-life, evangelical Christian Democrat follow:

Tony Campolo is a rare bird indeed--an evangelical Protestant who’s also a Democrat and pro-life. He was on the platform committee and worked on the plank dealing with abortion. At yesterday’s meeting of pro-life Democrats, Campolo was introduced as the committee member responsible for the new language endorsing the goal of “reducing abortion.” He said that he’d first proposed the term “abortion reduction,” but there was objection from the pro-abortion rights types who dominated the committee. So he countered with “reducing abortion.” Campolo said he didn’t know why abortion reduction was a problem for the pro-choicers since “reducing abortion” means the same thing. Campolo also talked about what he failed to get in the abortion plank, among other things a statement that abortion involves serious moral issues...

So, it was too controversial to say having an abortion involves serious moral issues--not, mind you, to say that it is 'morally wrong', just that it involves moral issues, which might be serious.  Fascinating inside look on how the DNC's platform committee thinks.

With serious blogging issues,

Thomas More

[email protected]

Provide For the Common Defense

There has been a lot of chatter about why the President-in-waiting-as-selected-by-People-Magazine has found himself tied in the national polls.  He's even lost ground in key battleground states.  Usually the announcement of a V.P. pick gives a bounce up in the polls.  Not so for Obama, the Gallup poll even shows him losing ground following the announcement.  So what is going on with the chosen one?  Is Biden that bad a choice?

I don't think so.  I thought Biden was the best choice Obama had--that's not to say a good choice--with the finalist that were being mentioned.  I think the real problem is that the Democrats have yet to fix their problem with national security.  I'd say it was an image problem, but the reality is that they don't "look weak" on national security--as if it's a big, national misunderstanding about their hawkish ways--in fact, they are weak on national security.  Huge portions of the Democratic constituency--and a vocal portion of it at that--long for a weak America.  They will not say it that way, but to follow their suggestions to their logical conclusions, that's what would result.  Therefore, they are nominating a man who made much of his primary-election headway saying his opponent was too hawkish and he was the only dove.

In dangerous times, however, the general population doesn't look for a dovish president.  Even though Iraq--more so during the primary and pre-primary seasons than now--was unpopular, it doesn't mean most Americans simply want us to run and hide from the world.  And they certainly don't want us chatting it up with tyrants with a false notion that "if we could all simply sit down and talk, we'd have world peace."  Most people understand that talking about problems works for fair-minded people with a common goal, disagreeing on policies.  But that is not who we are dealing with when talking about Al Qaeda, Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea.  Their leaders are, simply, bad.  They want our end and their expansion.  There is no middle ground when Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map."  What exactly would President Obama have to talk about on that point?  Where's the compromise?  "Maybe we could just wipe half of Israel off the map."?!?! 

Given the fundamental misunderstanding of human nature at the core of much of Democrats' leaderships' beliefs, the average American simply will not trust them to lead.  Of course, national security is not the only issue in a race, so Obama could certainly still win.  It is, however, a very important factor.  And that factor, and the lack of trust Americans have in the Democrats on this issue, will be a huge weight around their necks.  There is hardly any other way to explain why Obama and McCain are tied, instead of Obama enjoying a 20 point lead--given his 'newness', cash, charisma, and speaking ability compared to McCain.

This poll, in fact, confirms my hunch on people's thinking on this point.  Here's some key portions:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Wednesday indicates that the American public considers presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain better than Obama on terrorism and Iraq, and voters consider McCain a stronger leader who would have better judgment in an international crisis.

Fifty-eight percent of those questioned think Obama can handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief, but that pales in comparison to the 78 percent who feel that way about McCain.

By a 51 percent to 41 percent margin, voters regard the senator from Arizona as the stronger leader, and they think he would have better judgment than Obama in an international crisis by a 52 percent to 43 percent spread.

10 to 20 point leads in categories affecting security-related leadership.  And hence, the race is tied.  Tonight the DNC convention is about "Securing America's Future"--and the above numbers are why they've chosen that theme.  We'll see how they do, but my hunch is that it'll be like putting lipstick on a pig.  The fundamental problem is their one-world-kumbaya approach, even if wrapped in hawkish language tonight, will not make most Americans feel safe.  And that feeling is almost always reflected in how people vote.  If we are blown up, it doesn't really matter how the economy is doing or how much free health care has been given out by the federal government.

Americans have consistently recognized this fact when going to the polls.  Other than Bill Clinton, we've never elected someone seen as "weak"on security compared to his opponent.  Keep in mind, before the late 60's, the Democrats were seen as strong on national security, so the debates focused more on domestic policy.  Everyone thought a strong America was good.  Truman dropped bombs and fought Communists, Kennedy went toe to toe with the Soviets and Cubans, Johnson waged war, and Carter was a USNA graduate and served on a nuclear submarine.  Plus, Carter was coming in post-Watergate when national security took back seat to domestic issues.  The same is true when Clinton was elected.  The Cold War was over, and America was not yet focused on Muslim extremism and terrorism--or China.  Hence, we took our "break from history" and have since learned our lesson--history never stops.

Now, in a time of war, I very much doubt we elect the weaker of two candidates on national security, even though that candidate is so charismatic.  We'll see tonight if the DNC can convince America otherwise.

Man your battle stations,

Thomas More

[email protected]

Faith In the Public Square

Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Denver, has written a new book titled: Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.  I've seen Hugh Hewitt blog about it, and now there is a very interesting interview posted at NRO.  You can read the entire interview here.  This is particularly important for Catholics--who the book was written for--as well as other believers like me, especially in an election year.

Here are a few of my favorite take-aways from the interview:

On citizenship and morality:

Archbishop Chaput:  "Politics is the exercise of power. Citizenship implicates us in the morality of how that power is used. So citizenship is serious business."

On war and abortion:

Lopez: Whenever I write about Catholics and abortion, I am immediately asked, “What about war? What about the death penalty?” What about them? Can a Catholic vote for Senator “Surge”? We have killed people in Iraq, after all.

Archbishop Chaput: I’ve written and spoken against the death penalty for more than 30 years. And along with most other American bishops, I opposed our intervention in Iraq. But these issues are different in kind, not merely degree, from the violence involved in abortion. Anyone rooted in Scripture and Catholic tradition will understand the distinction if he or she reasons honestly. Genocide, euthanasia, abortion, and deliberately targeting civilians in war — these things are always grievously wrong. But in Catholic thought, war and capital punishment can be morally legitimate under certain carefully defined circumstances. Abortion is never morally justified.

And last, but not least, and probably most importantly:

Lopez: How relevant is Thomas More today in answering the previous question?

Archbishop Chaput: Like Chesterton said many decades ago, Thomas More is always relevant. He’s never been more relevant than he is right now.

Well, thank you very much--I didn't know All These Things was getting that much air time!

Still relevant,

Thomas More

[email protected]

The Elusive Moose

10 days driving around the south of Alaska, and not a Prius in sight. Bliss! Other blissful things included:

-very, very few cars on the road
-very, very few billboards at the side of the road. The most frequent (meaning every 10 miles) warned drivers to “Give Moose a Brake”.
-very warm, welcoming locals.
-good beer.
-stunning scenery.

I could go on, but I won’t. Except to tell you about the most exciting and unexpected part of my trip…..

To put this in context, this was my fourth trip to Alaska but, despite the locals swearing up and down that moose were wandering about everywhere, I had yet to set eyes on one. Arriving for trip number 4, I was now obsessed with seeing the elusive moose.

My friends (locals) were confident I would be successful. They told me the moose come out at the end of the day and stand by the sides of the road, chewing on trees and shrubs. They then will probably try to cross the road, apparently not too concerned about the trucks going 60 miles/hr in both directions. Let’s just say that no-one goes home unscathed after a collision with a moose the size of a horse.

My friends let me sit in the front seat of the car on every journey, so I could scour the trees either side of the road. Up and down the highway we went, for hours on end, but no moose. This was getting personal. Maybe I needed to go driving later at night, through the forest, or hiking into the back country? I was determined to do whatever was needed.

Later that night, when thoughts of moose hunting had been put to bed, my friends were playing guitar and fiddle in a local coffeehouse. I went to listen to them and after the show was over, I helped them get all their guitars, violins, microphones, music stands etc back out to the car. The coffeehouse was in a strip mall in the center of town, next to a busy highway. We staggered out of the door, into the bright light of an Alaskan evening. We had taken no more than two steps across the (almost empty) parking lot before something caught our eye.

There, about 10 feet away, was a huge, gangly moose trotting across the parking lot!! My friends, who have seen this before, just laughed. “Well, there’s your moose!” they said. My mouth was hanging open. What kind of crazy place is this?!! We all stopped laughing and held our breath as the moose made a bee-line for the busy highway, only stepping back onto the sidewalk as the cars in it’s path started honking. It paused for a couple of seconds and then headed right back across the road. They have a death wish, apparently. Now it all makes sense. “Give moose a brake”……because they are very large and not very bright. If they see a car or a truck, they like to run in front of it.

I hope to see another moose on my next trip, maybe in a habitat a little more natural than the parking lot of a strip mall. But, I thoroughly enjoyed my first, unexpected encounter with this very strange beast!

Philomena

[email protected]

Scenes From the Road

As I've already posted, I'm a huge fan of California's new 'hands-free device' cell-phone law.  The law still allows you to dial and text with your hands on the phone.  You just cannot hold the phone to your ear--that would be wrong.  I've already seen people using their cell's speaker phone function.  So, basically, they are holding the phone with their hand--and shouting--but the phone is not touching their ear.  Constitutional law scholars, I'm sure, will be hashing out for decades whether the speaker-talkers are legal.  What fun.

Today, I was behind a car in a 45 m.p.h. zone, and he was doing about 30 m.p.h.  Everyone started passing him, but he didn't have his hazards on.  As I passed, I looked over and there was speaker-phone guy.  I couldn't tell if he was texting or dialing, of course, but his hand was not to his ear--good law abiding citizen that he was.  The fact that traffic was slamming on the breaks and swerving to get around him had little to do with the safe-feeling I had, knowing he was not putting his hand to his ear.  Safety on the roads at last.

Over sights I've enjoyed this summer are on the bumper-sticker front.  I was behind a huge pick-up truck today, and guess who he's voting for:  John McCain.  On the other side, I've seen plenty of Obama stickers.  But I'm noticing that they are disproportionately found on Toyota Priuses (or is that Priui?)  I have yet to see a Prius driver for McCain. 

Here's my theory on why that is.  There are now plenty of hybrid car options.  Only one of those options screams to the world:  "I'm driving a hybrid, I don't care that my car is boxy and has no style, I'm saving planet and am significantly better than you!!!"  That car is the Prius.  If you want to save the world, you buy a hybrid, fine.  If you want to save the world and let others know about it (and you're likely angry they aren't saving the world with you--and quite frankly, you think they lie awake at night and think of new ways to destroy the world) then you only have one option.  The Prius.  I actually don't mind the Prius or its lack of style.  I have found--by a very scientific study of the bumper stickers on the average Prius compared to the rest of the cars on the road--that Prius owners are a bit more "environmentally angry."

And few environmentally angry voters, are voting for McCain.  This, despite the fact that McCain has jumped on the anti-global warming team.  If you are environmentally angry, there are probably a bunch of other issues that would prevent you from ever voting for a Republican.  Hence, the "Prius Owners for McCain" meetings can fit inside, well, a Prius.

No trees were killed in the posting of this blog,

Thomas More

[email protected]

War, Because the West fears War

Sorry for the absence, work, family, and the Olympics have greatly intruded on my posting life!  Since we last blogged, the small country in the Caucus Mountains--Georgia--has been invaded by Russia.  As of yesterday's reports, Russian tanks and jets had completely overrun the country.

Georgia is a pro-Western democracy, and is a former Soviet republic.  The Russian rationale for the invasion has to do with a region bordering Russia--Ossetia.  The Russians are now demanding the duly elected president of Georgia step down as part of a peace deal.  That's a neat 'diplomtic' trick:  an autocratic power will invade a democracy, and will leave if they get to pick the ruler.  And the beauty for Russia is no one in the West will do anything; nor could they if they wanted to, unless NATO mobilized.  Can anyone imagine that?  European troops going into the field to fight--or at least deter--Russian aggression?

The best analysis of our predicament--we're reduced to little more than 'threats' (non-military, of course)--comes from Victor Davis Hanson.  Read his entire article titled "Moscow's Sinister Brilliance" here, which asks the question:  "who wants to die for Tbilisi?"  In an earlier era, it might have been:  "who wants to die for the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Austria...Warsaw."  Ultimately, the English and French signed on to die for Warsaw, but by then it was too late.

Hanson points out Russia's brilliant timing--the world is captivated by the Olympics and America is locked up in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He also notes the frustrating, and sad, reality that Russia is banking on the moral vacuity of the West:

The Russians have sized up the moral bankruptcy of the Western Left. They know that half-a-million Europeans would turn out to damn their patron the United States for removing a dictator and fostering democracy, but not more than a half-dozen would do the same to criticize their long-time enemy from bombing a constitutional state. The Russians rightly expect Westerners to turn on themselves, rather than Moscow — and they won’t be disappointed. Imagine the morally equivalent fodder for liberal lament: We were unilateral in Iraq, so we can’t say Russia can’t do the same to Georgia. (As if removing a genocidal dictator is the same as attacking a democracy). We accepted Kosovo’s independence, so why not Ossetia’s? (As if the recent history of Serbia is analogous to Georgia’s.) We are still captive to neo-con fantasies about democracy, and so encouraged Georgia’s efforts that provoked the otherwise reasonable Russians (As if the problem in Ossetia is our principled support for democracy rather than appeasement of Russian dictatorship).

What will this Western weakness signal to other potential freedom-loving allies?  "Sign on for Western democracy and freedom of speech, and we'll send foreign aid--and hopefully sign an oil deal with you!  But if you are attacked by an aggressor, good luck, you're on your own."  Doesn't that incentivize a population to seek a military strong man?  Doesn't it destroy the hope for self-governance for weaker countries?

I don't think Americans would answer Hanson's question with:  "We'll die for Tbilisi" at this stage in our history.  Nor do I think we actually could, or should, engage the Russian military in their back yard.  But the fact that we've allowed our diplomatic and military position to deteriorate--and I don't mean in the halls of Paris or the Hague, I mean in places that matter, like Moscow and Beijing, which respond to strength only--allows these things to happen.  Tyrants can smell weakness, and can enhance their internal position by exploiting a neighbor--remember Iraq and Kuwait?  Our Western weakness comes from Hanson's 500,000 protesters not understanding that war will not simply disappear from this world because of a peace rally in downtown San Francisco.  Our willingness, as a people, to signal that their are things we will fight, and die, for will reduce the necessity of fighting and dying, both for us and our freedom-loving allies.

But it's too late for Georgia.

Thomas More

[email protected]

Tower of Babel, Part II

It seems that major political campaigns, of late, we don't get a real good sense of the candidate's foreign policy views.  Sen. Obama's recent, highly publicized, speech in Germany shed some light on his views--though it probably raises more questions than answers.  As he flies the thousands of miles back home, he will probably leave most of the detailed foreign policy issues behind, and return to encourage "change" or "hope" or "apple pie."  In essence, give the Europeans the substance--mixed with a healthy dose of 'we Americans certainly haven't done it right'--and bring the sound bites home.

The speech was reviewed by former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, who I got to talk to just before it was published.  We discussed the stark foreign policy differences between the two candidates, particularly with respect to the Middle East and China.  His comments to me were sobering.  I hope Americans do the hard work--the press team's certainly won't make it easy on voters to find out on their own--of discovering what Sen. Obama's--or for that matter McCain's--world view is.

In short, I would say that you can say the problem with the world is that there are too many walls separating good people.  Or you can say there are some bad people out there, thus good people build walls to protect themselves.  I think Sen. Obama's speech points to the notion that we (Americans in particular) have been wall builders, and now need to 'tear down these walls' and realize the whole world (you know, us 'global citizens') are all on the same team.

You can read all of Amb. Bolton's article here, but I wanted to note a few highlights for you.

Bolton's summary: 

Although well received in the Tiergarten, the Obama speech actually reveals an even more naive view of the world than we had previously been treated to in the United States. In addition, although most of the speech was substantively as content-free as his other campaign pronouncements, when substance did slip in, it was truly radical, from an American perspective.

On the razing of the Berlin wall being caused by a world united, or a two enemies locked in an ideological life-or-death struggle:

Obama explained that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Europe proved "that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because "the world stood as one." The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator's own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik -- "eastern politics," a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance -- continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative.

On the differences (and the existence, in my opinion, of good and evil) that exist in the world:

[Obama said:}  "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

This is a confused, nearly incoherent compilation, to say the least, amalgamating tensions in the Atlantic Alliance with ancient historical conflicts. One hopes even Obama, inexperienced as he is, doesn't see all these "walls" as essentially the same in size and scope. But beyond the incoherence, there is a deeper problem, namely that "walls" exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

On why the speech was given in Europe--and whether Europe really wants a weakened America:

That he picked a foreign audience is perhaps not surprising, because they could be expected to welcome a less-assertive American view of its role in the world, at least at first glance. Even anti-American Europeans, however, are likely to regret a United States that sees itself as just one more nation in a "united" world.

As we hit the final 100 days of this campaign, I hope 'undecideds' think long and hard about the serious issues of foreign policy.  It is one thing to say Pres. Bush screwed up our prestige in the world, shouldn't have invaded Iraq, should have had a better exit policy, etc.  But it is another thing to therefore vote for someone as woefully naive--or possibly worse, someone who deliberately hides a 'weak America' foreign policy belief--as Sen. Obama at a time when foreign policy is critically important.

Wishing away our enemies, pandering to tyrants, and offering American mea culpas will not keep us safe, and without a safe America, the entire world is less safe.

Thomas More

[email protected]

The Whole Hole: Wearing or Carrying

I was golfing the other day and got into a difficult situation.  Playing very poorly, I needed to put together a very good hole to redeem myself.  The pressure was on.  Fortunately I was wearing my WWTD bracelet - "What Would Tiger Do?"  What a relief...if it wasn't for the bracelet I would have totally messed up the whole hole!!!  But because I was reminded by the bracelet - I ripped a 350 yard drive right down the gut of the fairway, stuck a 4-iron to the heart of the green and snaked in a 20 foot putt for Eagle.  Do you know why?  That is what Tiger would do!  WWTD baby!!!

Ha, ha!  If only it was this simple.  Of course my problem in golf is NOT that I FORGET what to do, it is that I CAN'T do it!  Why?  I'm not Tiger!  What makes Tiger a miraculous player in difficult situations is not what he does at that moment - it is what he had been doing in nearly every moment before that, PRACTICING GOLF!  Tiger lives in total surrender and submission to golf, and it shows, it makes a difference when the chips are down - it is not magic, Tiger has been transformed by what he was willing to suffer (the grueling practices, forfeiting other activities etc...).

The "What Would Jesus Do" bracelets have all but disappeared, and for the few of you who took this sincere idea to the ultimate limit in the form of a tatoo, I ask for your forgiveness in advance.  But as I have been thinking about spiritual formation of late I have been struck by a flaw in the WWJD approach to the life of faith.   See, my problem isn't forgetfulness - certainly, I am forgetful, but, it is only the beginning or a symptom of my larger problem which is, I'm FALLEN, I'm not as "good" as I need to be, as life requires.  I'm fallen and I can't get up!

Believe it or not, there are times when I remember what Jesus did and know what he would do in a given situation, and it is CLEAR to me what I should do - but I don't do it. Why?  I'm not Jesus!  And I need much more than a reminder to become like Jesus, I need to be transformed.  Tiger puts himself in a place to be transformed, I must do the same.  Of course the comparison breaks down because Tiger is achieving in high pressure situations based on his talent and sweat, I, on the other hand, can do what Jesus did ONLY through God's grace.  However, I still need to do something to be transformed, live in submission and surrender to God - I need to put myself in the place of grace...prayer, study, worship, community, service etc... also known as the spiritual disciplines.  I can't do what Jesus did when the chips are down ("just do it"), without doing what Jesus did BEFORE the chips are down.  As a Christian I am called to the "obedience that comes from faith" (Rm. 1:5) and if Jesus had to "learn" obedience (Heb. 5:8) through suffering then it wasn't magic, and maybe I will have to as well. 

Islam holds that mankind's problem is forgetfulness, that's our hole. Christianity disagrees - we are fallen, as in broken, shattered - WAY beyond reminding.  If Islam is right, wearing the right bracelet could save the world, we can redeem ourselves!! Abracadabra!  If Christianity is right, wearing a bracelet won't make a difference if we're not carrying a cross - His Cross...OUR Cross, willing to suffer in order to obey. 

We have to put together our whole hole because it is going to take more than a magical reminder to save par.

Fore!!!!

Didymus