Remembering 9/11/2001

It's been seven years since the planes were aimed at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet even while we were in shock from the tragedies and filling the church pews, some clergy were already counseling us to seek inside ourselves to change that which provoked the attacks.

In other words, they told us to blame the victims for the crime.

I reject that interpretation. After all, the radical jihadists have made it quite clear that they have no desire to share the planet with us infidels.

Four years later, 9/11 fell on a Sunday and my pastor opted to use a memorial litany that made my blood boil. So I wrote a letter to my pastor in protest, "Why I didn't go to Church today", dissecting the litany and proposing a new one. Herewith is my Litany for Liberal Christians:

We have focused on our own short-comings as individuals and as a nation with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but failed to move forward and seek constructive ways to build a better world.

We have been fearful of change, clinging to failed policies and ideologies, unwilling to face realities that don't fit neatly into how we understand the world works.

We have learned the wrong lessons from history, focused on our mistakes and ignored our victories.

We have cheered when cartoon heroes fight evil doers, but declined to call evil by name in the real world. We have apologized to our enemies for our very existence while rebuking our leaders for fighting that evil.

We have been hypocrites, piously intoning our commitment to freedom and self-determination for all people, freedom of religion, economic justice, and women's rights, while castigating those who are working to achieve those lofty ideals in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere.

We have been timid in our Christianity, instead making sacrifices at the altars of "multi-culturalism" and "political correctness" that have sapped our strength and undermined the Great Commission to proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Great God, forgive us.

Related posts:
Why I didn't go to Church today
Litany for Liberal Christians
Overcoming Evil with Good
Stuck on Stupid
Creating Positive Change

The more things change...

When I visited Leningrad in 1984, our tour group visited the Museum of Ethnography. We had an unusual group: 37 women engineers, three husbands, and 1 male tour guide. Our city Intourist guide was thus inspired to share a feminist joke while we viewed a life-size scene of two Russian men sitting at a small table in a home's parlor with a wife(?) standing behind them circa 1900. It went something like this:

A husband and wife went out to dinner at a restaurant where there was a band and dance floor. After a while, the manager came up to the table and addressed the husband.

"Oh sir, your wife is a vision of loveliness. I would be most honored if I could have a dance with her."

"Thank you, but we're just here to eat dinner," the husband replied.

After a while, the manager came back. "Oh sir, I implore you to let me dance with your wife this evening. She lights up the room. She is a beautiful flower. I will pine away if I can't dance with her."

"Thank you, but we're just here to eat dinner," the husband repeated.

A third time, the manager came over to plead his case. This time, however, the wife responded, "Thank you, but we're just here to eat dinner. Please leave us be."

The manager flew into a rage, and turning to the woman, spat out, "Shut up bitch! Can't you see that two gentlemen are conversing?"

Creating Positive Change

In September 1984, I visited the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union with a People-to-People tour organized by the Society of Women Engineers. We traveled to Shanghai, Bejing, Moscow and Leningrad over the course of two weeks. China was just beginning to open up to Western visitors. In Beijing, we were housed at the Diaoyutai State Guest House, in the same quarters that Henry Kissinger used while opening diplomatic relations during the Nixon administration. We were in the USSR just after Andropov had died, Chernenko was in power, and Gorbachev would take over in a few months.

I was struck by how different the attitudes and outlooks were between the two cultures. In China, where they were getting ready to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the PRC's founding, the attitude was "yes, there were grave mistakes made in the past, but together we are building the future!" The people were optimists, proud of their accomplishments, forward-looking, and very curious about us Americans.

In Russia, where almost 40 years after the end of WWII sugar was still rationed, the propaganda line amounted to, "If you only knew how much we suffered under the National Socialists (Nazis), you'd understand why we haven't gotten anywhere." The people tended to be morose, passive, and seemingly proudest about the glory days of the Czars! (The post-war restoration of Petrodvorets, the Summer Palace, is an amazing story in its own right. The Nazis had razed it during the seige of Leningrad, leaving only the foundation and one wall standing.)

I tell you this tale because I see a similar attitudinal divide between the Democrats and Republicans. And attitudes matter. I wrote after the 2006 elections:

The stories we tell ourselves say a lot about what we want to do, and what we think of ourselves. Stories help us tether abstract ideas to the real world, providing concrete examples of the principles the leader wants us to consider. The language we use is important, for it can inspire us or depress us, encourage us to find new answers or chastise us for trying to change the system. We can imagine the best of all possible worlds, or worry ourselves into a pit of despair.

The Democrats denigrate this country, lecture her people, and belittle our accomplishments: change for them is couched as being against what is wrong.

The Republicans celebrate this country, encourage her people to greatness, and build on our accomplishments to make America greater and stronger ethically, economically, and spiritually. Fred Thompson said to the RNC:

[W]hat we're doing at this convention is also important to our country, because we're going to nominate the next president and vice president of the United States of America.

We do so while taking a different view of our country than that of the other party. Listening to them, you'd think that we were in the middle of a Great Depression that we're down, disrespected, incapable of prevailing against challenges that face us. Now, we know that we have challenges. Always have, always will. But we also know that we live in the freest, strongest, most generous and prosperous nation in the history of the world and we're thankful for that. [Emphasis added]

I still remember President Reagan and his ability to inspire me with his vision for our country. He was an aspirational leader, preaching hope and high ideals:

And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for the young people here -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

President Reagan delivered this speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.

Related posts:
Inflection Point
Changing the Conversation

Update: Check out Dr Sanity's post, "GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION"

...McCain, with a little help from Palin, in a short time has suddenly made most of the non-committed Americans realize the kind of change they really want:
-They want to be proud of America again and not be constantly told how 'evil' it is;
-They want America to get on with winning its wars without all the PC posturing and military bashing;
-They want government to help the less fortunate, but not to tax those who work hard to the extreme; while financially rewarding those with poor judgment and a grand sense of entitlement. Americans want to help out "the little guy"--probably more than any culture (and we are the most giving culture in the world); but we help them so they can get back on their feet; not so they can constantly put their hands out for more. As a culture we still believe there are consequences for bad judgment and behavior (though sadly, that attitude is becoming more politically incorrect every year as more and more "victims" vie for cash handounts and special treatment).
-They want government not to stand in the way of the their life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness.

Reforming Congress

In his acceptance speech last Thursday, Senator McCain said:

We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington.

The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.

Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as President. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not.

Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it. This amazing country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability.

We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit.

The harsh reality, however, is that intransigent majority leaders in Congress such as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Senator Reid, can and will oppose every good idea from a Republican President unless it is to the obvious benefit of the Democrats. Consider today's editorial from the Wall Street Journal, "Quicksand for Judges":

Since the beginning of the year, the Senate has confirmed a total of four nominees to the federal circuit courts -- including Democrat Helene White, whose appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was part of a compromise with Bush nominee Raymond Kethledge. The confirmation of Judge Steven Agee on the Fourth Circuit was likewise the product of a deal between Virginia Senators Jim Webb and John Warner, displacing the nomination of highly respected nominee Duncan Getchell, who withdrew in frustration at the interminable wait.

And who can blame Mr. Getchell? According to the Committee for Justice, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation for circuit court nominees has risen to 348 days during the Bush Administration from an average of 238 days under President Clinton. Nominations by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan made it through in an average of 69 days each.

That sorry record has been overlooked in the media, which is good for Majority Leader Harry Reid because it belies his multiple promises. In a letter to us in June, Mr. Reid said Senate Democrats would "treat President Bush's judicial nominees with more respect than President Clinton's received from a Republican Senate."

Today that looks like a whopper. In President Clinton's final two years of office, a Republican Senate confirmed 15 circuit court judges and 57 district court judges. Merely to match that record, Senate Democrats will need to confirm five more circuit court nominees and nine more district court nominees when they return for a session that will only last a few weeks.

Even White House capitulation hasn't earned any Senate concessions. In recent months, the White House has repeatedly dumped "controversial" (read: conservative) nominees in favor of candidates who either came off the lists of home-state Senators or had otherwise garnered the blessing of liberals on the Judiciary Committee. Yet even "moderate" nominees like Glen Conrad on the Fourth Circuit haven't been spared last-ditch obstruction tactics. When Mr. Conrad was nominated in May, Mr. Leahy suggested the nomination may have come too late.

This doesn't bode well for Mr. McCain when he becomes President. His efforts with the so-called Gang-of-14 to get President Bush's judicial nominations through the Senate did little to improve the process overall, and were irrelevant once Democrats took control of the Senate again under Harry Reid. After the 2006 elections, Hugh Hewitt wrote:

From June of 2001 through April of 2005, the Senate's Democrats radicalized the nomination process, further dismembering a process already disfigured by their disgusting attacks on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, and which had not recovered despite the GOP's rejection of such tactics during the confirmation hearings of Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer.

Finally, in April of 2005, the GOP's 55 member majority had identified at least 50 from among its numbers to confirm a ruling from the Senate's Chair that would have delivered on the promise of "up or down votes on the floor of the Senate for all judicial nominees," by declaring that it was not acceptable under Senate rules to filibuster judicial nominees.

Had such a vote occurred, a crucial part of the constitutional order would have been restored. There would have been political aftershocks, but the vast majority of GOP senators and, crucially, the voters and donors who had elected the 55, were ready to fight for this key principle.

And then Senator McCain threw the principle --and many fine nominees-- under the bus. The window dressing for this surrender was the confirmation of some fine judges. But, and this is a key "but." they would have been confirmed anyway after the vote on the "constitutional option."

The Gang of 14 did not even work in the term now ending. Many fine nominees who ought to have received votes under the "deal," didn't. They may never get them.

It is commendable that Senator McCain and Governor Palin are well-versed in bipartisan efforts. However, in order for McCain to fulfill his campaign promises most effectively for lower taxes, judges that won't legislate from the bench, and less government intrusion in our lives, he needs Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

Vote Republican this fall! Contribute to the GOP! Get active!

I'm supporting Mark Ellmore for Congress representing Virginia's 8th District and Jim Gilmore for Senate.

The Downside of Acquisition Reform

Recently, I attended a "Hot Topics" Forum at the Defense Acquisition University. The topic was the Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Developmental Test & Evaluation. The speaker (non-attributed) discussed the findings and recommendations from the report, substantially covering the Executive Summary of the report.

The Task Force was "asked to recommend changes that may contribute to increasing the number of programs undergoing Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) being evaluated as Operationally Effective and Operationally Suitable." The Task Force examined practices for Army, Navy, and Air Force. The main findings include:

• The high suitability failure rates were caused by the lack of a disciplined systems engineering process, including a robust reliability growth program, during system development
• Sequential workforce cuts in the last ten years had a significant adverse impact on the DoD acquisition capability
• Acquisition personnel reductions combined with loss of guidance documents and retirement of experience senior industry and government personnel have exacerbated the adverse impact
• Strong OSD and Service leadership commitment is vital to solving the major acquisition problems which include widespread suitability deficiencies
• The implementation of Acquisition Reform provided flexibility but, when combined with an eroding workforce, sometimes resulted in less discipline in program formation and execution
• DT&E needs improvement but changes in test processes will not remedy systemic program formulation and execution deficiencies
• Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) shortfalls are frequently identified during DT, but program constraints (schedule and funding) often preclude incorporating fixes and delaying IOT&E
• Additional emphasis on integrated testing will improve T&E process efficiency as well as allow for program cost reductions

The cover letter states: "The single most important step necessary to correct high suitability failure rates is to ensure programs are formulated to execute a viable systems engineering strategy from the beginning, including a robust RAM program, which includes reliability growth, as an integral part of design and development. No amount of testing will compensate for deficiencies in RAM program formulation."

To put it another way: you can't test in quality.

Many program managers, both in the government and private industry, consider a thorough development test program too expensive, so it's often short-changed in funding and/or schedule from the start. The fact that test & evaluation (T&E) is typically the last phase in the development process means that T&E gets squeezed further if the product development exceeds budget or is late because it's the last opportunity to try and bring the overall program in on time and on budget.

Unfortunately, without a comprehensive strategy to build in quality -- both in product development and program management -- the program manager often has to pay even more for testing than originally estimated due to rework/redesign and subsequent retest to deal with the inevitable problems. There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over.

There is a political point to be made here. Both Presidential candidates promise "change", but the intent and implementation of the change can be worse than maintaining the status quo.

One of the maxims I learned long ago is that HOW change is implemented goes a long way toward its ultimate success. The Congress' approach to acquisition reform needs to be rethought: their mandating personnel cuts without regard for the side effects have created worse waste and overruns than when they started.

Related posts:
Airbus Discovers Integration Matters
Not the way to roll out software!

Mistakes and Redemption

A caller to Hugh Hewitt this evening mentioned how redemptive the Palin's approach to their daughter's pregnancy is.

It brought to mind one of the most prominent out-of-wedlock pregnancies in history: Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph of Nazareth. The child she bore would change the world. Joseph wasn't really happy about the situation, since the baby wasn't his and the opportunity for scandal was large. But he had a dream and it changed his mind. As Matthew's Gospel records (KJV):

1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Joseph accepted Mary and loved her and the child she bore. What a wonderful example for the rest of us.

Political Calculus

My two cents on the political reasons for canceling the evening events for the Republican National Convention today.

1. Hurricane Gustav, aside from being a reminder of the devastation wrought in New Orleans by the levee breaks after Katrina, will pre-empt media attention from anything going on in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The fact that the media are pushing the Katrina comparisons to hype the drama of a natural disaster-in-the-making doesn't help.
2. Why give talking points to the Democrats? Katrina tarnished the Bush administration, the Dems like to say that McCain is another Bush, and even if he isn't, the Dems would hound the Republicans for "partying" and not feeling the pain of the victims.
   

I think this is another example of McCain's OODA loop being inside the opposition's. He pre-empted their entire line of attack by changing the ground rules again.

Astute Blogger has more.

Related Katrina posts: "Angels in Disguise", "After the Storm", "The Great Trailer Debate"

The Feminist Angle on Sarah Palin

You might have noticed in my last post that I didn't mention Governor Palin's gender as a reason I'm happy Senator McCain chose her as his running mate. But I do find the feminist angle interesting.

At City Journal, Lisa Schiffren writes:

Now about that woman thing: some commentators object that Palin was chosen primarily as a sop to female voters, especially disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Well, of course the McCain campaign wants to entice those women to vote for the Republican ticket. Putting together coalitions is how elections are won. Women happen to be 52 percent of the electorate. Ignoring them, let alone insulting them as Barack Obama is perceived to have done, is politically foolish. Some worried that McCain would pick a token woman, such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas—she of the long Washington tenure, liberal Republican views, and few accomplishments (though she does look the part). Instead, he surprised many by picking Palin.

Hugh Hewitt linked to a wonderful essay today by John Mark Reynolds. In it he writes:

Women like Palin do not ask for respect, they earn it. They may not like it when their previous work is denigrated, but they move on. That is wise.

That does not mean that the rest of us have to put up with narrow-minded foolishness that thinks only paid work gives valuable experience, that writing your own autobiography twice is always more interesting than helping run the family business and educating your kids, or that chattering as a guest on Sunday talk shows gives a better education than doing hard physical labor.

A wise culture would look at the sum of Sarah Palin’s life and her experience and be thrilled to say:

“Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.” [Proverbs 31:31]

Over at PoliPundit.com, W.C. Varone linked to the YouTube video ad put out by the die-hard Hillary supporters known as PUMAs (as in Party Unity My A**!). The ad is "PUMAs for Palin", and it closes:

Country First
Come and be a part of history
Help us forever shatter the glass ceiling
OUR time
OUR hope
OUR change
OUR moment
OUR year
Right now
And for forever

Geraldine Ferraro wrote, "There are a lot of women who are disaffected by how Hillary was treated by the media, by how she was treated by the Obama campaign, by how she was treated by the Democratic National Committee — [Democratic party chairman] Howard Dean not speaking up when sexism raised its ugly head in the media. They’ll be looking to see what happens now." And the McCain campaign quotes Ms. Ferraro saying, "The other thing I must say this is the first time that anybody who is in a national position, has publicly thanked me in 24 years." (FOX's "Fox & Friends," 8/30/08)"

That generosity of spirit, to echo The Anchoress, is already paying dividends.

Over at National Review's Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty shared some of his email from Hillary supporters. For example,

At the outset, let me note that I am THRILLED that McCain picked Palin. But, I'm extremely disappointed in the media coverage and the assertions that feminists won't support her. Such statements show a total misunderstanding of what a feminist truly is.

In the mid 1990s, Christine Hoff Sommers (a Democrat) wrote Who Stole Feminism? She opines, and I believe correctly so, that there are two types of feminists—equity feminists, who want women treated equally, and gender feminists, who basically dislike the other gender and always claim victim status. I am one of the former—I want to be treated equally and judged on merit, not on my gender. I am also pro-choice (not pro-abortion, but pro-choice). And, I have always been a Republican. I think Palin was a perfect choice. She had made it on her own—not because she is a woman and not by claiming victim status. She was judged on her merits and has basically lived the American dream. I am also greatly impressed by her decision to remain pro-life in light of the information that her fetus had Down syndrome. She was allowed to make her choice and she stood by her principles.

There are going to be lots of electrons dedicated to divining how the "feminist" vote will play out this November, with various categories applied. Over at Capitalist View, Jill Fields posits "[t]here are three types of female voters who play into the outcome of this selection (sic)": Party and policy loyalists, the feminist and women’s opportunity advocates, and glass-ceiling smashers.

Ultimately, I agree with Jim Geraghty:

The thing is, McCain doesn't need all the Hillary voters and PUMAs. He just needs... enough.

Update: The indispensable Betsy's Page has more - "Palin and the women's vote"

Count me in!

Wow! Senator McCain surprised me by picking Governor Palin as his running mate. But, oh my, am I delighted with the choice. Let me count the ways:

1. Senator McCain picked someone with street cred to reinforce his message about reforming the moribund Republican party, and the open-wallet Capitol Hill ethos. [The challenge will be electing a working Republican majority in either the House or the Senate that shares the same goals.]
2. Governor Palin is articulate and seems to have her priorities well-ordered. She's passionate about governing well, "with a servant's heart", and has acted on that principle as Governor.
3. Governor Palin is willing to stand up to the the politically-correct environmental lobby, having sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne recently on the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species (polar bear populations are increasing, by the way).
   
4. She's a breath of fresh air in a race that's been all inside-the-Beltway and Senate-centric. If nothing else, her being on the ticket is getting people talking – like a couple of 70-something European-immigrant(?) women I overheard at lunch today.
   
5. Like other state governors, she commands the Alaska National Guard "while it is not in active federal service." She has visited them in Kuwait and at the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.
   

All in all, a class act.

Some scorn her experience level, but she's running for Vice-President, not President. I'm sure she'll have more opportunities as understudy to Mr. McCain if he wins in November than Truman had under FDR. She'll have the benefit of the team of advisors he assembles, plus the countless years of combined experience and institutional memory provided by the military and Civil Service bureaucracies.

Update: Check out Greta van Susteren's interview with Major General Campbell for the scoop on Governor Palin's involvement with the Alaska National Guard. (h/t Hotair)

Airbus Discovers Integration Matters

Monday's Wall Street Journal front page featured a back-story on the delivery of the first A380 to Singapore Airlines, "Airbus, Amid Turmoil, Revives Troubled Plane" (subscription required).

Today, as its A380 superjumbos move down the assembly line, Airbus is clawing back. Such turnaround stories often star a company's top brass. But at Airbus, much of the credit rests with a few midlevel executives who found a way to fuse the company's balkanized units while the boardroom was in disarray.

One of them is Rüdiger Fuchs, a 41-year-old German engineer who forced designers, engineers and assembly line workers at Airbus's Hamburg factory to start cooperating. With the help of Alain Carcasses, a French engineering manager, Mr. Fuchs also coaxed French electrical specialists into helping their German counterparts at an engineering office in Toulouse, France. [...]

Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders says the company recognizes what went wrong. "The underlying problem was the lack of integration," he says. "We're taking voluminous lessons from that."

The story goes on to look at the steps Mr. Fuchs took to address the technical, programmatic, and cultural problems that delayed delivery of the first plane by almost two years and overran the budget by $6.8 billion.

Unfortunately, expensive problems with complex systems seem to be more and more common. Airbus, Boeing, Microsoft, NASA, Lockheed, SAP, and Northrop Grumman are just a few of the companies and organizations that have suffered from poor systems integration and program management in the past few years.

We need a better approach to system integration (SI) for complex systems that are unique or first-of-class. Systems integration theory is non-existent: instead the standard definition of SI limits it to configuration management of system interfaces during development, and then melds it into end-product assembly, verification, and validation, aka "System Integration & Test."

Mr. Fuchs came to understand that his integration problems extended beyond the complex technical challenges of the A380 superjumbo. He had to address cultural issues that impeded communications between the engineering teams in Germany and France, and between the engineers and the assembly workers:

There was no single manager to force integration and spot problems.

"Nobody had a high-level view or the power to rule the game," he says.

Good system integration practices are good system engineering practices, but it seems few systems engineers and program managers really understand the "magic" that leads to successful integration. Effective SI requires good design, good communications, good management, and a supportive corporate culture.

Airbus has learned that lesson the hard way.

Not the way to roll out software!

Today's WSJ carries an article about how Arizona State University decided to introduce its new enterprise-resource planning software:

The Tempe, Ariz., school has installed its new software using an unconventional -- if painful -- approach: Admit from the start that there will be mistakes; then work through the glitches with users' help. Most companies take their time and don't start using a new computer system until they are convinced almost everything works right; then they are caught off guard when mistakes inevitably happen. Often, the delays allow them to expand the project's scope, which adds cost and can further compound problems.

The information-technology department at Arizona State decided it would be more effective to stick to rigid deadlines, releasing the software on schedule even if all the kinks hadn't been worked out -- and try to fix problems on the fly.

Ouch! The fact that payroll was one of the applications that didn't work well did not help morale among employees -- or HR which had to deal with the fallout from the new system's errors.

The ASU IT department claims success: "The final price tag for Arizona State's project is $15 million to deploy the software and another $15 million to support it over the next five years." Sure the rollout was below budget and on schedule, but I wonder what the real support costs will be? IT is guilty of pushing implementation costs off on other segments of the organization, where the reduced efficiencies are hidden in non-IT budgets.

One of the maxims I learned long ago is that HOW change is implemented goes a long way toward its ultimate success. I doubt that future large-scale software implementations will be greeted warmly by the faculty and staff.

Absolute Clarity

I was catching up on my reading today, and browsing through Don Surber's blog, where he posted a quote from British Prime Minister Tony Blair that displays his absolute clarity and resolve about the situation in Iraq:

We are not walking away from Iraq. We will stay for as long as the government needs us to stay. And the reason for that is that what is happening in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, as elsewhere in parts of the Middle East, is a struggle between the decent majority of people, who want to live in peace together, and those who have an extreme and perverted and warped view of Islam, who want to create war. In those circumstances, our task has got to be to stand up for the moderates and the democrats against the extremists and the sectarians. They are testing our will at the moment, and our will has not to be found wanting.

Farther down, Don posted a long comment from blogger Amy Proctor. Money quote:

There is no way a bunch of terrorists could ever defeat America if we were unified. The division is what is prolonging the engagment in Iraq. It's that simple. I hold Democrats personally responsible.

Her lengthy comment made me curious, so I followed the link to her blog Bottom Line Up Front and found wonderfully cogent posts on the war and related politics. Some recent headlines and ledes:

Kissinger Debunks Dem War Rhetoric

Bottom Line Up Front: In contrast with Democrats, Henry Kissinger says the conflict in Iraq cannot be won without a U.S. military presence.

Why the U.S. Cannot Timetable Iraq

Bottom Line Up Front: A timetable for withdrawal in Iraq would be a disaster.

Unlike Democrats, Romania Will Not Abandon Iraq

Bottom Line Up Front: Romania's honor is greater than the Democrats'.

I look forward to reading Amy's blog regularly! I've added her to my permanent blogroll under Military & Milblogs.

Changing the Conversation

President Bush has done a fair job of crafting a vision of hope for the Middle East. His stirring words have been a catalyst for remarkable changes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Here's a sample from his speech to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 19, 2006:

At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle, between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear, and moderate people who work for peace.

Five years ago, I stood at this podium and called on the community of nations to defend civilization and build a more hopeful future. This is still the great challenge of our time; it is the calling of our generation. This morning, I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together.

The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world." One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become President of this Assembly. Mr. Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home.

In the nearly six decades since that document was approved, we have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents. Sixty years after a terrible war, Europe is now whole, free, and at peace -- and Asia has seen freedom progress and hundreds of millions of people lifted out of desperate poverty. The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written. As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace. And we're seeing that bright future begin to take root in the broader Middle East.

Some of the changes in the Middle East have been dramatic, and we see the results in this chamber. Five years ago, Afghanistan was ruled by the brutal Taliban regime, and its seat in this body was contested. Now this seat is held by the freely elected government of Afghanistan, which is represented today by President Karzai. Five years ago, Iraq's seat in this body was held by a dictator who killed his citizens, invaded his neighbors, and showed his contempt for the world by defying more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now Iraq's seat is held by a democratic government that embodies the aspirations of the Iraq people, who's represented today by President Talabani. With these changes, more than 50 million people have been given a voice in this chamber for the first time in decades.

Some of the changes in the Middle East are happening gradually, but they are real. Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the military remained neutral. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half of the seats in its Federal National Council will be chosen by elections. Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time. Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, in parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain, and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt. These are important steps, and the governments should continue to move forward with other reforms that show they trust their people. Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions. But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world.

That rhetoric is important, but Americans seldom hear it. The media treats us to endless stories of mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, but few of the compassion and caring our troops provide nor the incredible strides made since Saddam Hussein was evicted from power. In the recent campaign season, I heard no one proclaim a positive vision for America, reminding us of who we are and what we're about. The candidates and their supporters were too busy complaining about the enemy, whether the other political party, President Bush, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Israel, the UN, or Al-Qaeda. There was mud-throwing, and scolding, and general unpleasantness. But I heard none that sought to inspire us to greatness.

President Reagan was an aspirational leader, preaching hope and high ideals:

And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for the young people here -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

President Reagan delivered this speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston.

Now that the election is behind us, it's time to change the conversation. Quit complaining and change the world!

Related posts:

• I want my country back!
• Inflection Point
• The Tale of a Teddy Bear
• Conversations

Litany for Liberal Christians

Dr. Sanity's Quote of the Day on Monday is from Tawfik Hamid. She says he "is furious at the West and their response to Islamic fundamentalism, which he also says is the dominant version (not the "minority") of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world."

Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want?

I couldn't agree more. So in light of that quote and my post below, I think it's high time to dig out my "Litany for Liberal Christians":

We have focused on our own short-comings as individuals and as a nation with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but failed to move forward and seek constructive ways to build a better world.

We have been fearful of change, clinging to failed policies and ideologies, unwilling to face realities that don't fit neatly into how we understand the world works.

We have learned the wrong lessons from history, focused on our mistakes and ignored our victories.

We have cheered when cartoon heroes fight evil doers, but declined to call evil by name in the real world. We have apologized to our enemies for our very existence while rebuking our leaders for fighting that evil.

We have been hypocrites, piously intoning our commitment to freedom and self-determination for all people, freedom of religion, economic justice, and women's rights, while castigating those who are working to achieve those lofty ideals in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and elsewhere.

We have been timid in our Christianity, instead making sacrifices at the altars of "multi-culturalism" and "political correctness" that have sapped our strength and undermined the Great Commission to proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Great God, forgive us.

Originally posted as part of Why I didn't go to Church today, 9/11/05.

Inflection Point

It seems to me that we're at an inflection point in history: the shape of the future is unsettled. Our civilization hangs on the decisions we make now. Do we move forward to win the peace? Or retreat and cower before the thugs of the world? Do we give up hope and doom millions to misery? Or should we dream large and work to achieve a bright shining future?

If we want to change the world, I say it's time to dream large. You think that's too hard? Consider the story of Alex Scott. A mortally ill little girl with a lemonade stand raised more than $1,000,000 for childhood cancer research before she died at age 8. How could a mere child accomplish so much?

A success coach would encourage you to practice visualization, being very specific about the sensory input associated with achieving a given goal, such as running a race. Then you have to add emotional overtones, imagining how you'd feel when you've achieved your goal. The third step is taking action to acheive your desires. The theory is that you are what you think about. Think depressing thoughts all day, and your life will be miserable. Think inspiring thoughts and you can achieve amazing things.

The jihadists have it all over Westerners in the visualization department. They know exactly what they are trying to achieve, and have oodles of religious fervor adding the emotional punch. They definitely believe "Where there's a will, there's a way." And they are willing to persist in their quest over decades, if not centuries.

Western leaders, on the other hand, tend to blather platitudinous goo. They do not enlighten, or encourage, or inspire. They speak of Iraq as a problem to be solved and prefer "realism" to idealism. However, Michael Rubin writes that, "Realism promotes short-term gain, often at the expense of long-term security." He continues,

Both realism and progressivism have become misnomers. Realists deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere. While 9/11 showed the consequences of chardonnay diplomacy, deal-cutting with dictators and a band-aid approach to national security, realists continue to discount the importance of adversaries' ideologies and the need for long-term strategies. And by embracing such realism, progressives sacrifice their core liberalism. Both may celebrate Mr. Rumsfeld's departure and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.

The Christian church is not immune to fuzzy thinking about its identity and mission. When the newly ordained Episcopal presiding bishop is loathe to proclaim her own faith as the route to salvation, we have a problem. When Europeans wonder if the Catholic Church is committing slow suicide by enabling those that would destroy it, we have a problem. In their quest to avoid being judgmental, PC Christians forget the need for discernment. Discernment requires making distinctions, to recognize the difference between good and evil, truth and error. Discernment leads to clarity of thought and action.

Westerners need to create a clear and compelling vision of the future world we want to inhabit, one that we can fervently and enthusiastically join together to make a reality. Setting the agenda, not just reacting to world events, requires a well-developed sense of how we want to improve ourselves, our cities, our states, our nation, and our world. Presidents Reagan and Clinton both understood the need for aspirational leadership, conveying their visions with consummate story-telling.

The stories we tell ourselves say a lot about what we want to do, and what we think of ourselves. Stories help us tether abstract ideas to the real world, providing concrete examples of the principles the leader wants us to consider. The language we use is important, for it can inspire us or depress us, encourage us to find new answers or chastise us for trying to change the system. We can imagine the best of all possible worlds, or worry ourselves into a pit of despair.

Fortunately, we don't have to wait on our politicians or prelates to tell us what to aspire to. If a little girl with a lemonade stand can change the world, imagine what each of us can accomplish!

Food for thought:

• Bedford Falls or Pottersville? Paul Mirengoff, Weekly Standard
• Vision regeneration in Dallas, Paul Mirengoff, Power Line
• Alex's Lemonade Stand
• As a Man Thinketh
• Mother Teresa (Nobel Peace Prize bio) (Vatican bio)
• Elias Chacour bio at Answers.com, books
  
• Overcoming Evil with Good
• T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics

[Update 11/17/06] Follow-up post: Changing the Conversation

Encouraging the Enemy

Elections have consequences. The headlines at Lucianne.com this noon show just how quickly the Democrat victory in the congressional elections, coupled with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, has Al-Qaeda cheering:

• 'Iraq al-Qaeda' welcomes US poll
• Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran
• Al Qaeda crows over Rumsfeld
• Iran, Syria Relieved That Democrats Won
• An Iraqi congressional election?

I'm not encouraged by the news. There's more at Drudge:

• AL QAEDA IN IRAQ MOCKS 'LAME DUCK' BUSH
• VOWS TO 'BLOW UP WHITE HOUSE'...
• Claims It's Winning War...
• Internet audio clip boasts of 12,000 terror 'troops' in Iraq...

Amok Time

Now that the election is over, and the electorate has put the Congress in the hands of the Democrats, I think a quote from Star Trek is appropriate:

After a time you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting.
It is not logical, but it is often true.

(Spock to Stonn, T'Pring's preferred mate, after T'Pring tells Spock to pound sand.)

The Only Issue This Election Day

Orson Scott Card has an extraordinary article today at Real Clear Politics:

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

Go read the whole thing and Vote!

H/t Lucianne.com

Win the War! Vote Republican!

On the way home from church yesterday, I saw a man holding a large campaign sign that said: "Elect Menendez. Stop Bush." Nancy Pelosi said on '60 Minutes' that she'd be happy to make President Bush a lame duck for the next two years.

I'm sorry, "stopping Bush" is not a constructive agenda. That approach doesn't promote dialog. It does not encourage people across the political spectrum to figure out a good way forward together nor provide bright ideas that may not have been considered before.

Pulling out and declaring defeat álà Vietnam won't make the world a safer place. We know that ignoring Osama bin Laden and his ilk actually encouraged more terrorist attacks. They considered the US weak-willed and decadent. (If you need a reminder of the carnage, see the Army's Timeline of Terror).

Confronting the jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq has definitely helped drain the swamp, and brought hope to millions. General Casey notes that Iraq isn’t “awash in sectarian violence.” Most sectarian violence in Iraq is concentrated across a 30-mile radius around Baghdad, and, 90 percent of all violence in Iraq is taking place in five of the country’s 18 provinces.

In today's Washington Post, there's a story about what the troops in Iraq think about their situation. Ed Morrissey comments:

The mission has had its failures, but it has had tremendous successes as well. If the US turns its back on the Iraqis now, Somalia will pale into insignificance in comparison to the disaster, both militarily and strategically, we will have brought upon ourselves. Native populations will never -- never -- trust us to stand by and protect them after risking everything to assist us. Tyrants and terrorists will laugh at our threats, knowing they can outlast us, especially if they can create enough propaganda to distract American voters.

The soldiers and Marines understand that victory cannot be replaced by "phased redeployment". If the tactics need changing or adjustment, then bring in better ideas -- but we cannot allow retreat and capitulation become the only other option for Iraq.

We can't afford an obstructionist Congress. Vote Republican!

*******************
For more perspective, historian Victor Davis Hanson has written several articles recently to remind people about what we've accomplished, e.g. "The Wonders of Hindsight," and "Before Iraq."

And The Anchoress has an excellent post tonight, "Believe the troops who are there or the pols who are not?"

My Related posts:

• T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics
• T-7 Days and Counting: History Lessons
• T-15 Days and Counting: The Propaganda War
• T-20 Days and Counting: Naming the Enemy
• T-21 Days and Counting: Rick Santorum

T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics

My sister sent me the following column by Jim Wallis at Sojourners, discussing the need for Christians to vote their values and priorities. While the premise is honorable, the specifics got my dander up!

Friday, November 03, 2006

Jim Wallis: Voting God's Politics

For years, we have watched the proliferation of voter'’s guides from the Religious Right that did all but actually endorse only right-wing Republican candidates. Before the 2004 election, their narrow list of "“non-negotiables"” included abortion, stem-cell harvesting, homosexual marriage, human cloning, and euthanasia. All the wider issues that the scriptures speak to were simply ignored. Never have we seen such a partisan use, abuse, and manipulation of religion. Well, those days are over, as many Christians, including a new generation of evangelicals, are demanding a broader and more biblical agenda - one that could challenge candidates on both sides of the aisle.

Oh, where to start! As I posted previously, politics is about a hierachy of values, and it behooves us to identify which candidate and party best represent us. If the Religious Right considered that Republican candidates were more representative of their beliefs, values, and concerns, I would certainly expect that those candidates would be endorsed.

He complains that the Religious Right had a narrow agenda. Maybe it was narrow because it was a list of their highest priorities, where they were most concerned with the direction our society was heading. To have a short list to focus people's energies and resources upon increases leverage and improves the chances for real change. A too-long list of "priorities" means that none are, and little is likely to be accomplished because efforts become diluted. When was the last time you were truly inspired by an over-long legislative laundry list included in, say, the President's State of the Union Address?

Please note, that for Conservatives, the narrow list of "“non-negotiables"” includ[ing] abortion, stem-cell harvesting, homosexual marriage, human cloning, and euthanasia falls into two categories of major concern: the sanctity of life and values that support strong families. Rev. Willis claims below that he cares about these issues too.

We have insisted that God is not a Republican or a Democrat, but we do believe there are principles and guidelines that should inform how we vote. This year, we have distributed more than 300,000 "“Issues Guides,"” which cover a broad range of Christian ethics and values that should inform our political decisions. You can still get a copy of the "Voting God's Politics Issues Guide."

We have highlighted the following principles and policies as a critical framework to shape our perspective on public policy and political leadership, and the questions by which all candidates should be evaluated.

Good. Rather than just complaining about the influence of the "Religious Right", he's entering the public debate. The down sides are that a) he implies that good Christians must necessarily agree with his interpretation of the Bible, b) that we must worry about everything rather than focusing our energies, and c) his framing of the issues is at times contrary to the way I and many others interpret the world around us.

Compassion and Economic Justice

They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands (Isaiah 65:21-23).

God shows a special concern for those in poverty and acts in history to lift them up. The Bible teaches that societies should organize so that all members have genuine access to the resources needed to live a decent life and provide for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Does the candidate support measures that provide for family economic success and security by "“making work work",” that promote fair and decent wages, that show a serious commitment to lifting children out of poverty, and support policies on aid, debt, and trade that would bring extreme global poverty to an end?

That passage from Isaiah can also be read as a rebuke of wealth redistribution through taxation, government subversion of property rights (Kelo, for instance), windfall profits taxes, or other policies that separate productive citizens from the fruits of their labors. Is it economic justice when the "top one percent of tax filers paid 34.27 percent of federal personal income taxes in 2003, while the top ten percent accounted for 65.84 percent of these taxes"? (Source: Joint Economic Committee, "FEDERAL INCOME TAX SYSTEM IS HIGHLY PROGRESSIVE AFTER RECENT TAX CUTS". H/t TaxProf Blog)

The policies that Rev. Wallis thinks candidates should endorse sound good, because they show how much we care for those less fortunate. But the real test is whether the policies work in the real world. To take sub-Saharan Africa as an example, billions of dollars in public and private aid have been sent there over decades with little to show for it. One critic states, "Aid has destroyed the concept of civil society in Africa."

The term "fair and decent wages" sounds like code words for raising the Federal minimum wage, which is arguably part of the Democrat's non-agenda if they win control of Congress this election. But raising the minimum wage isn't necessary (and may be counter-productive, reducing availability of entry-level jobs). Real inflation-adjusted after-tax wages are rising because labor markets are tightening as the economy keeps adding jobs. The national unemployment rate just dropped again to 4.4%.

Peace and Restraint of Violence

They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isaiah 2:4). Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9).

We face a major challenge of how to resolve conflicts, reduce violence, and defeat terrorism without endless war. War has become a first resort instead of the last resort. In a world full of terrorists, terrorist states, unilateralist superpowers, and weapons of mass destruction, we need practical alternatives to an endless cycle of violence.

Is the candidate committed to a serious plan for ending the war in Iraq, to joining a real national debate on how to remove American forces while seeking both security and peace for Iraq, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to supporting security and freedom in the Middle East, and to strengthening international law to fight terrorism?

Claiming that "[w]ar has become a first resort instead of the last resort" is a serious distortion of the Administration's policies. Iraq was invaded after 12 years of diplomacy and sanctions failed to induce Saddam Hussein to abide by numerous UN Security Council resolutions and prove that he had destroyed his WMD. The President has been criticized for the "rush to war" in Iraq, and for "unilateralism", yet the same critics complain that he insists on multi-party talks with North Korea and letting European nations lead on diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran.

The recent decision by North Korea to return to the six-party talks has been attributed, not to US saber-rattling, but to consistent pressure to cut off Kim Jong Il's cash flow and access to the international banking system. Additionally, the US has spear-headed a coalition effort called the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), to interdict shipments of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) . (Info on 2006 exercises in Baltic, Persian Gulf, and Australia.) The Administration appears committed to finding practical alternatives to all-out war.

I totally disagree with Rev. Wallis' candidate checklist on this issue. What's wrong with winning the war in Iraq? Why is absenting ourselves from Iraq considered more important than promoting justice (especially for women!) and helping the oppressed? Removing American forces before the job is done will only reinforce the enemy's impression that Americans have no stomach for long conflicts.

President Bush was absolutely correct when he said, "They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." He also reminds us that "We're in an ideological struggle between people who hate and people who have hope. We've been through ideological struggles before. Freedom wins every time if we -- if we don't lose our nerve." (See my posts here and here.)

Consistent Ethic of Life

Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (Genesis 2:7).

We believe that all life is a sacred gift from God, and that public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life - and address all the places where human life is threatened. We believe abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances?

Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment, and stop genocide, especially in Darfur?

I can't fathom why Rev. Wallis maligns the "Religious Right" when the issues list he ascribes to them is primarily concerned with promoting a "culture of life" instead of a culture of death. In March 2005, Brendan Miniter of OpinionJournal.com wrote :

A flashpoint has long been abortion, but it's wrong to think this battle is entirely about "a woman's right to choose" or about protecting only unborn life. A large segment of the population feels that there has been a coarsening of our culture, that as a society we no longer view life as precious and valuable in all its forms. Abortion on demand is a sign of that coarsening, but so is euthanasia and the push to use stem cells from frozen embryos and tissue from aborted babies. Like Terri Schiavo's family, many Americans have decided they aren't going to remain silent as lives are discarded as "worthless."

As for Darfur, no one has figured out what to do. Even the UN can't make headway: its chief envoy was recently kicked out of Sudan for suggesting UN peacekeepers be employed.

Racial Justice

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Full humanity and dignity are denied when people are discriminated against for ethnic or racial reasons, whether intentionally or due to systemic structures. Racism is a sin and undermines the integrity of a society.

Is the candidate committed to reversing and ending racial discrimination in all aspects of our society, especially in the criminal justice and education systems?

Is Rev. Wallis willing to consider promoting a color-blind society by abandoning Affirmative Action in all its insidious guises? Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson writes:

The great victory of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of moral persuasion: King persuaded Americans that it was wrong and deeply unAmerican to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. That victory of moral persuasion was translated into the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex in employment, public accommodations, and federally funded programs (including colleges and universities).

As Professor Edward Erler has commented, "No more powerful expression of a commitment to equal opportunity can be found in the annals of modern legislation anywhere in the world."

Despite the legal mandate of equal treatment, for the past 30 years many of America's educational institutions have blatantly violated the law in the name of "affirmative action" and "diversity." In reality these terms are extremely misleading euphemisms for the practice of gross racial discrimination.

Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law are important precepts in American government. However, many confuse equal opportunity with equal outcomes and presume that unequal outcomes are always the result of illegal discrimination. But Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that "Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law."

Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).

We recognize each human being as created in God'’s image. We urge policies that both protect life and promote human dignity. On the issue of torture, for example, it really isn'’t the terrorists and what they stand for; it is about us, and what we stand for. On immigration, how do we welcome the stranger, respect the law, and insure national security? And how do we combat the growing epidemic of sexual trafficking and virtual slavery?

Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform? Do they insist on policies that end torture, stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, and protect women?

The US Department of Justice hosted the second National Conference on Human Trafficking in New Orleans, LA from October 3-5, 2006. Numerous articles are available on the conference Resources page. More information on US efforts are at the USINFO Human Trafficking website.

Immigration policy is an absolute mess. 'Nuff said.

Strengthen Families and Renew Culture

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God (Romans 12:2).

Strong families are the essential foundation of a good society. A culture that promotes healthy families is necessary to raise our children with strong values. And parenting has become a countercultural activity in America. How do we find real solutions, and not just scapegoats?

Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society - especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children.

Many argue that social policies of the past 40+ years have undermined marriage and families, especially welfare policies. Thomas Sowell enumerated the failures of the War on Poverty. Rick Santorum pointed out that violence comes from neighborhoods where common denominators are lots of violence, broken homes, and absentee dads. He sees promoting marriage and reconnecting fathers with their kids as part of the solution.

Societal norms play a large role. Bill Cosby and Juan Williams argue that blacks embrace victimhood rather than empowerment. Says Williams, "I think it's a terrible signal to our young people about who black people are to have us constantly wrapped in the cloak of victimhood, and to have black leadership that in a knee-jerk fashion defends negative, dysfunctional behavior."

Good Stewardship of God'’s Creation

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good (Genesis 1:31). The earth is the Lord'’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1).

The earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God'’s good creation for the sustenance and enjoyment of all things. We support policies that protect creation from interests and activities that damage it. We believe global warming is a religious issue.

Does a candidate support protections to clean air and water, to reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming, to shift from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels to cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy sources? Do they support the transformation to conservation and new energy sources that could provide jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help solve the Middle East crisis, and even reduce the threats of terrorism?

Two of the most memorable images I remember from the Apollo program were the "Big Blue Marble" and "Earthrise at Christmas." They drove home the concept of our planet being unique in the universe. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, we've made tremendous strides in cleaning up pollution. Even the once heavily-polluted Cuyahoga River has fish in it!

And yet, it's prudent to ask if spending large sums of money for small marginal improvements is necessarily the best use of resources. In a recent Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, Bjorn Lomborg wrote:

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

He makes the case more authoritatively than I: we have more pressing problems than trying to counteract the presumed human contributions to global warming. If nothing else, the fact that the Stern report he dissects is full of errors and exagerations should encourage caution in making costly decisions based on questionable science. (Related post here.)

Next Tuesday, we will not establish the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not on the ballot. But you can vote to strengthen the common good. There are important things at stake in this election, including many lives in the ongoing war in Iraq. This is an important election for our country, and I urge all Christians to take time this weekend to think and pray about their choices, evaluate candidates on all these issues, then go to the polls on Tuesday and vote.

And after we vote, no matter who wins, we must be at the doorstep of politicians the next day to hold them accountable to the issues that arise from a broad biblical agenda.

As individuals, we need to identify our priorities and pick our battles accordingly. Politicians aren't the only ones who need to be held accountable. Our community and religious leaders need to be held accountable too, Reverend Wallis.

[Update: 11/5, 8:35 pm] Welcome Beliefnet readers! Sacred Frenzy tracked back and rectifies "The Great Omission". I also cleaned up some typos and formatting.