Over at the other STAND, you'll find an article on the call to discipleship, and Cecile's thoughts on the Ted Haggard situation.  At Arien's Corner you'll see a delightful piece on country music and what makes it great, as well as a story of a young life that came to an end much too soon. 

At both STANDS, watch for some discussions about going back to basics - civics here and theology there.  Think for a few minutes about what you want out of government; I'll be looking for your ideas and contributions.  Be ready for a surprise or two...

- Keith

Tomorrow will be Veterans' Day, a day set aside for the rememberance of those who have served this nation in its military services - and to each of you who have served, I thank you for it; it is my hope that each person who lives free in this land will remember that their freedom is owed to the many who have been willing to take arms against enemies.

Today, however, is a day I remember for an only slightly different reason; for today, November 10, marks the 231st anniversary of the creation of the United States Marine Corps.  Of all the branches - and no, there will be none of the usual jokes comparing the various branches in this commentary - the Corps has the greatest sense of mission and duty, and the richest traditions.  The mere mention of the word "Marine" conjures up thoughts of far-flung places with names like Mount Suribachi, Chosin Reservoir, and Belleau Wood, where men earned renown that will never end through valor, in the face of hardships and enemies most of us could never imagine.

I never served.  To my dying day, one of the greatest regrets I will ever have is that I allowed myself to be persuaded to go directly from high school to college instead of serving in the military, and perhaps my remorse is a reason I hold America's servicemen in just a bit higher regard.

But I know many who have served, and I thank you all.  Thank you for my freedom, which you earned on my behalf.  Thank you for protecting me and those around me.  And especially the Marines - thank you.

I want to highlight one Marine in particular - my father.  My father served in the Marines for well over twenty years, in the Corps, achieving the rank of Master Gunnery Sergeant, and I believe deep in my heart that he would have become the Sergeant Major of the Corps if the man holding that office would have retired.  My father went off into combat, and was one of the thousands of good men about whom John Kerry lied and smeared in the 1970s, making a public name for himself at the expense of all those men who served honorably.  My father gave two decades of his life and a good part of a third to the service of our nation and its ideals.

My father, like most Marines I have known, is also a good and gentle man, living a quiet life.  He and others like him make a lie out of the stereotype we are fed in the movies.

Through no fault of his own, I and my brothers didn't have the advantage of growing up with my father, much to my loss.  I was never able to really get to know him until I had gone off to college, and I am glad I did.  Without idealizing him, my father came to be one of the best examples of a good man I have had the privilege of knowing.

Dad, I didn't get to learn from you how to change a spark plug or go to my right for a hot grounder as a kid, and that wasn't your choice.  But I and millions of kids like me had you and a Corps of men like to to stand between us and those who would do us harm, and I hope all of us realize what a gift that is.

Dad, and to all the men who have earned the title of United States Marines, thank you for your service.  Tomorrow, this thank you extends to all the branches, but today, this day and my thanks belong to the Marines.  No matter how far this country drifts away from its moorings, somewhere in this country, there will be a metal box on a wall with a sign that says "IN CASE OF EMERGENCY BREAK GLASS."  On the other side of that glass, there will be a Marine, ready to stand in harm's way for this nation.  God bless you and reward you, and may the Corps have many, many more birthdays.

- Keith

Well, it's been an exciting week.  I've managed to navigate yet another birthday (my 49th) while avoiding the usual requisite public humiliation that goes with it.  A pleasant celebration with Sylvia's Small Group, dinner out on the day with my lovely wife Cecile and her brother, and discreet good wishes from a handful of good friends who indulge my pathological desires for what passes for modesty in me.

Another hard week at work, trying to keep up with the unmanageable mountain of tasks.

Final preparations for next week's elections, and my laughter at the bug-eyed surprise at my predictions, including my boss' boss; he is a good guy and a student of both history and politics, but he believes I'm being overly optimistic when I predict Republican wins nationally and in the state.  For your benefit, I'm predicting minor losses in the House, loss of one seat in the Senate, the GOP retains majority control of both houses, and vindication of the party of the right, as well as Republican wins of statewide offices here in California.  When - not if - these predictions come true, I will be feeling lucky enough to buy lottery tickets AND bet on Cal to beat both UCLA and USC.  On that last one, remember you heard it first at STAND.

Before the big announcement to follow, here's a wrap-up of STAND's recommendations:

California and Federal offices:

Governor: Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER
Lt. Governor: Tom McCLINTOCK.  Wish Garamendi a happy retirement from politics while you send the very talented McClintock to the number 2 office, and I want to see him promoted to #1 the next time there's an opening in the Governor's office.
Secretary of State: Bruce McPHERSON
Controller: Tony STRICKLAND
Treasurer: Claude PARRISH.  After what Lockyer has done meddling with Workers' Compensation in the legislature, he's another one that should be enjoying a retirement.
Attorney General: Chuck POOCHIGIAN.  This one is no contest; expecting Brown to enforce laws in which he's proved over and over he doesn't believe is wishful thinking.  Of all the state jobs there are, Attorney General is probably the one for which Brown is least qualified.  Poochigian's performance in the legislature have proved he's up for to job.
Insurance Commisioner: Steve POIZNER.  This race is near and dear to my heart, being in the trade.  The reforms of Workers' Compensation in recent years are an absolutely essential to the economic survival not of my business, but of the State.  The current occupant of that office has done nothing but use it for personal grandstanding, as he did this past week.  Poizner has actually running a business in the private sector, something his opponent, longtime political laughingstock Cruz Bustamante, wouldn't understand.  To regulate business, you need to know how it works.
4th District, Board of Equalization: Glen FORSCH
U.S. Senator: Richard MOUNTJOY.  I once lived in the district in which Mountjoy was a legislator, and he was a great one.  Mountjoy understands the needs of national security, border control, tort reform, fiscal restraint, and was always very much in touch with the citizens he represented.  What a breath of fresh air he'd be replacing Di Fi - and for the record, Barbara Boxer is an embarrassment and needs to be the next to go away.
U.S. Representative: William BODELL.  No disrespect intended to incumbent Adam Schiff, who can actually be one of the most reasonable members of his party (which, at least in this state, is damning with faint praise).  I do wish Schiff well; I simply like Bodell better of the issues.
State Senate, 22nd District: Mike TEN
State Assembly, 49th District: Esthela SIEGRIST.  Readers of STAND already know about Siegrist, and her election to the legislature will be a much-needed change.  MUCH needed.

State Ballot measures (see my post on these for the reasoning):
1A - YES
1B - NO
1C - NO
1D - NO
1E - still no opinion.  Help me out here, friends.
83 - YES
84 - NO
85 - YES
86 - NO
87 - NO
88 - NO
89 - NO
90 - YES

Alhambra City Council (see my recent write-up for the details):

First District: Stephen SHAM
Second District: Barbara MESSINA
Fifth District: Adele ANDRADE-STADLER

You know, to save you all the effort in the voting process, they should really let you just print this post and bring it with you to give to the poll worker.  You could just say "I read STAND, and I agree with his votes."  If you really want to make my day, print a hundred copies of this post and give them to all your friends to help them do the right thing on Election Day.  It's just so well reasoned, there should be a law that would let you press one button that just says "I vote for everything in STAND."  Wouldn't that make voting a much better experience for you?

I'll work on that.

And hey, won't you be glad in just a couple of days, when you get control of your mailbox back, and the calls from the robodialers stop, and the election cycle is over? 

Unless, of course, you count post-election gloating, month-long tirades from sore losers about exit polls, and the unavoidable post-mortem analysis of what happened.  If you all ask really nicely, I'll do one, and then you can just ignore all the others.

Now for the big announcement for which you've all been waiting (note, grammarians, the proper placement of the preposition in that construction):

If you're going to STAND, then you need to have two feet to do it effectively, and STAND now has two feet.  This one, here at Townhall, is going to continue to focus primarily on culture, politics, and the important issues of the day.  A second STAND has been inaugurated over at Blogspot, and it will focus more on issues directly related to faith and philosophy.  Obviously, there's going to be a lot of overlap between the two: they are both subsets of the same worldview.  STAND's central theme is that if you are living consistently, then everything in your life should be a subject to your core beliefs.  Come on over and see what I mean. 

The faith-based STAND is co-hosted by my wife Cecile, and some of you will like her more than you like me, and that's fine with me, because you know, I like her a lot too.  You'll also like a lot of the people you'll get to meet there.  And as always, let us know what you think - that's why we let people comment.  We want to hear from you -

- Keith

At a rally in Pasadena, California - which is to say, closer from where I'm sitting as I write this than he ever got to the Cambodian border while in the service - John Kerry continued his lifelong avocation of slandering and trash-talking the brave members of America's military.

Appearing at Pasadena City in a rally for gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, Kerry said this: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."  For the full details, and tons of great documentation, visit Michelle Malkin's excellent roundup of the event.

The statement is a slap at the military, and a slap I heard repeatedly in my youth.  I'm sure there are still people who believe, as one once so eloquently put it, that serving in the military is what you do when you're no good at anything else.  But the truth is that our military is the best educated in the world, and has a higher percentage of high-school graduates than the country's general public - and a higher percentage of college diplomas as well.

For my money, I consider Kerry a career-level liar, and he made his career trashing the nation's military.  Though he professed knowledge of numerous atrocities, the best documentation I've seen is that the only one he genuinely can support is the one he committed himself.

Outside of politics, the only thing he has done successfully in this life is marry into money.  He's done it twice.

His comments on behalf of Angelides are an outrage.  Mr Angelides, I call upon you to repudiate Kerry's comments and denounce them for what they are.

Mr. Villaraigosa, you were there on stage and in the pictures with him.  I call upon you to do the honest thing and also repudiate Kerry and his comments.

I was born in Massachusetts.  I call upon the good citizens of my birth state to explain why they send us people like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.  Surely somewhere within your borders there are two better men than a military-bashing, lying elitist wannabe jet-setter and a bloated, drunken public voluptuary.  If nothing else, follow the lead of nearby New York, and recruit a carpetbagger who can at least put on an effective pretense of decency.

This event will be forever seared, seared into my memory as a defining watershed example of the character of these people.

- Keith

Stay tuned for a new development at STAND!  Within the next few days, loyal readers of the blog will see the first of several enhancements that will add to and enrich your experience at STAND, and at no extra charge to you.

Interested?  Curious?  You know I do it all for you.

- Keith

California has a variety of measures on this November's ballot.  But first, a word about one type of them: bond issues.

Bonds are, for some of you who do not already know, a mechanism by which California's government can raise money it does not yet have for various projects.  For example, imagine California wants to build a dam, but can't afford to do so.  The state has three choices: raise taxes to pay for the dam, borrow the money, or do without the dam.  If the government really wants the dam but isn't willing to raise taxes, that only leaves borrowing.  It can do this by selling a billion dollars' worth of bonds.  People may buy the bonds, but people are entitled to a return on their investment - after all, if I lend the state money, and the state promises to pay me back in fifteen years, I don't want back what I loaned the state; I want it back with some interest.  That's only fair.  If you disagree, and you think expecting interest is wrong and people should only get back what they invest, then I want to borrow money from you for some home improvements, and I'll pay you back in fifteen years.

So, let's continue to imagine that the state sells a billion dollars in bonds (that is, borrows a billion dollars from people willing to lend it), and spends that billion to build the dam.  Let's get really imaginative and pretend there are no cost overruns.  Now the state has a dam and owes a billion dollars, plus interest on that billion.  How will the state ever pay back its debt?  The state has only one method to get the money: through taxes.  

A bond, then, is a gamble by the citizens of a state that, although we don't have enough to pay for a project now because of our financial condition, we'll be in better financial condition fifteen years from now when the debt must be paid.  Not only that, its a gamble that by that time, our financial condition will be so much better that it justifies going into debt now and paying the added money we'll have to tack on in the form of interest.

It is precisely this thinking that has gotten families trapped in unmanageable credit card debt, or enslaved to borrowing against the value of their homes to get things now that they are unwilling to wait for and save for.  It is why so many people are in economic bondage.  It is why so many families wind up choosing between being crushed by their amassed debt and welching on their creditors through bankruptcy.

It is also precisely this thinking that has allowed our legislators to spend our taxes stupidly, with all the restraint of drunken sailors in a foreign port on payday.  When our elected officials piddle away the money we entrust to them because they think to themselves "it's okay, we can always issue bonds and borrow against the taxes on the next generation," then we the taxpayers are in trouble, and we suddenly understand why the Boston Tea Party was such a great idea.  Our legislature is profligate, and I frankly wouldn't lend our government lunch money or cabfare.

For that reason, it is the policy of STAND to oppose bond measures as a general rule.  First, there would need to be an extremely good reason to go into debt, and second, I think we the people are entitled to see some serious financial restraint - that is, to see the legislature demonstrate they are responsible enough in their spending habits to justify an increase in their allowance - before allowing them to borrow against our future.

Finally, voters seem to have a short memory.  Over the last twenty years, how many bond issues have we approved for clean water? For school building repair?  For a variety of other noble causes?  Where did all that money go?  If we've already paid for clean water and fixed up schools, then why don't we have them, and why are we being asked to pay for it again?

Now, to the issues:

Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection.  YES.  Years ago, we agreed to increased taxes on gasoline to be specifically spent on transportation issues - new and repaired roads, for example.  The government, flouting the will of the people, raided these funds for other unintended spending.  We agreed to the taxes for specific purposes, and we're entitled to the government keeping its end of the deal.  A YES vote forces the government to do so.

Proposition 1B: Transportation Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.

Proposition 1C: Housing and Shelter Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.  It's not the job of the government to house the public at the expense of those of us who work and pay taxes to pay for our own housing.

Proposition 1D: Education Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.  And we've paid for this, many times over.  Government does a lousy job of educating, and I for one am tired of pouring money into this varacious black hole.

Proposition 1E: Disaster and Flood Bond.  NO OPINION.  I don't know enough about how bad the condition of the levees really is.  The results of a flood could be catastrophic.  This may be one of those rare situations which justify the indebtedness.  If the roof of your house leaks and the storms are coming, it probably is cost effective to borrow against your house now to put on a new roof.  Let's talk about this.

Proposition 83: Restrictions on Sex Offenders.  YES.  We have an epidemic of perverts who prey on our children.  If they think this is too harsh a punishment, then they need to think twice before diddling your eight-year-old daughter, or go do it somewhere else.

Proposition 84: Water Quality Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.

Proposition 85: Teen Abortions.  YES.  Not just YES, but HELL, YES.  Opponents of this one have raised lots of straw-man arguments against it.  I would love to debate this one with anyone who disagrees with me.  I dare you.  This proposition acknowledges the right of parents to parental authority in their families.  It's really no more difficult than that.

Proposition 86: Cigarette Tax.  NO.  When the tax on a product is more than the price of the product itself, that's a clear sign of government greed.  Second, taxing a product to support and subsidize a particular industry or to conduct social engineering is simply wrong.

Proposition 87: Energy Tax.  NO.  This will produce no results other than to fund a very expensive and unaccountable bureaucracy, and shows a plain wrong-headed notion than flies in the face of the simplest principles of economics.

Proposition 88: Education Property Tax.  NO.  More money down the rathole of a failed education system.  Period.

Proposition 89: Public Campaign Financing.  NO.  Campaign funding - the voluntary donation of money to conduct a political campaign - is the role of citizens who support a candidacy.  Collectivization of assets and redistribution of them by the government to accomplish this is not where this belongs.  Wait for my discussion of the First Amendment; we'll go into detail on what I mean.

Proposition 90: Eminent Domain.  YES.  Kelo is a blantant abuse of the law of eminent domain.  This measure prohibits the government from more such takings.

The election is just days away.  Read the issues and decide for yourselves.  If you disagree with any position, tell me why - this is the forum to discuss it.  Whichever way you decide, whether you agree with me or not, vote. 

- Keith

The night before last, I had the pleasure of sitting in on a gathering of candidates for the Alhambra City Council, the governing body for our fair city.  At the level of local politics, unless there is a special issue near and dear to the hearts of the citizens, running for a spot on the city council is something of a popularity contest.  Alhambra is no different.

We have a pet issue here, of course - the completion of the 710 Freeway.  The 710, you see, comes north out of Long Beach, crosses the San Bernardino Freeway, and travels briefly along the border between Alhambra and Los Angeles - and ends abruptly, dumping thousands of cars daily onto city streets.  Without belaboring the history of the noncompletion of the 710 through to the Foothill Freeway, suffice it to say that anyone seeking a seat on the City Council must call for the completion of the 710 as frequently as Cato advised the Roman Senate that Carthage must be destroyed.  And moreover, I also advise that the 710 be completed, so I am in agreement.

We also have the issue of the ongoing progress of the city's renovation plans for its business district.  Overall, the problem that no one wants to address is that people want a revitalized business district AND more parking AND less congestion AND more upscale housing AND more "affordable" housing AND preservation of historic architecture AND new buildings AND a new library complex, and no one wants to say the simple fact that unless someone invents a way to create more acreage, we're not going to be able to have it all.  So at the gathering of candidates, the essential bullet points are:

• Be sure to say you want the 710 freeway completed;
• Be in favor of all the things that people want, but never say there will have to be compromises; instead, profess to be a proponent of "smart growth;"
• Offend no one; since we're all pretty much agreed on the issues, you're not going to gain any votes by breaking away from the herd and taking a contrary stand, but you can lose votes by stepping on a land mine.

That being said, most of the candidates' statements about their qualifications amounted to: they've lived here for so many years, they've been married for so many years, their lovely children have done this and that, and Lee Baca has endorsed them (okay, that was unnecessary of me; it only seems like Sheriff Lee Baca endorses everybody).

Understand that I've been bothered at home by robodialers in call centers four times in this campaign season (note for candidates in the future: I do take offense at robodialers), where I get connected to some kid who greets me on a first-name basis as if I knew him, then the kid muddles through the canned script in his hands, and asks me to vote for his candidate.  I always interrupt the canned script and ask three questions: what does your candidate believe are the issues, where does he stand on the issues, and how is he different from his opponents?  Not one of these boiler-room spokeskids has been able to answer these questions.  My figuring is that if you as a candidate have to have people call me who don't know where you stand and what you believe in, you're probably not worth voting for.  One of these kids answered with "Issues?  They don't got no issues; they're cool with everybody."  That made it easy for me; he was calling for a slate of three candidates, and I simply eliminated all three on the strength of that phone call alone.  I gave the kid failing marks on both grammar and comprehension, too.  Oddly enough, two of the candidates fell short at the evening gathering as well, so I didn't feel so badly.

So on to the candidates:

District One: Chavez, Rosas and Sham.  This is the one district in which a clear winner emerged.  Stephen Sham was simply the class act of the entire gathering.  He was the only one who mentioned that balancing the different forces in the renovation plan meant that there would be trade-offs, and he did it without saying how obvious it was if we'd all just think it through.  He also corrected one of his opponents who had made statements that simply were not true, and did it without calling his opponent a liar.  The other candidate had made statements that the police and fire in our city had no benefits, and that the city had no emergency preparedness plan.  Stephen Sham, when his turn came up, simply asserted the truth, without rancor.  This is a man who will be able to work well with other people.  STAND's highest endorsement of the night goes to Stephen Sham.

District Two: Messina, Arguello and Kinman.  Daniel Arguello is the only incumbent in the entire race, and I hate not being able to support a veteran, but this is the second campaign I've seen him in, and the first left a bad taste in my mouth.  He's an excellent speaker, to his credit, but the issues are what matter to me more than speaking talent.  Gay Kinman made a good presentation, but STAND endorses Barbara Messina in this race.  Her experience in civic government gave her the added bump, and Ms. Messina also did her homework - regarding a question posed concerning the infrastructure of education and whether our schools were prepared for growth, she knew at which levels we were actually experiencing declining enrollment.  On the issue of public transportation, she had to remind the audience that the city has no say in the regional bus line routing, and only had direct control over the local city transit bus.

District Five: Beetz, Moreno, McIntosh, Andrade-Stadler, and Ayala.  After eliminating two candidates - Beetz and McIntosh, neither of whom attended, and neither of whom have provided any information on their stances to the public outside the sample ballot (you can't win if you don't campaign); also, Ms. McIntosh's statement provided to the gathering borders on conspiracy theory - this race was reduced to the same number of candidates as the other two districts.  The most memorable of the candidates was Frank Moreno - because of a bombastic, populist style of delivery that is great in sound bites but the kiss of death after about sixty seconds.  He actually stunned me regarding a question about eminent domain what he flatly stated "eminent domain is a bad thing."  Eminent domain has been part of American law since the country's inception, and someone with his experience can't possibly not know that.  Had he said "Kelo is a bad thing," I would have been right there with him, because Kelo is a horrible abuse of eminent domain.  Remind me sometime to write about Dodger Stadium and how it got built, by the way, but that's for another time.  By the time he demanded a moratorium on all building development and proposed creation of new layers of bureaucracy, he'd already long since been eliminated from the running with me.

Adele Andrade-Stadler gets the nod from STAND, in what I'm calling a close one with Luis Ayala.  Both present well and have good ideas, and have some striking similarities.  Oddly, both gave clumsy answers on the issue of diversity: Ms. Andrade-Stadler mentioned that people of all flavors gather at Starbucks, while Mr. Ayala could only cite restaurants and the need for a good mix of a variety of ethnic restaurants.  Ms. Andrade-Stadler wins STAND's endorsement because her experience is more closely tied with the city (Mr. Ayala's is not as local), and because Ms. Andrade-Stadler already has the ties and the working relationships within city government and with other council members, which will benefit the workings of the council.  Besides, if Mr. Ayala wants to be on the city council, he should already know that the Main Street area has one of the best French restaurants around, a great Italian place, a rib restaurant, a sushi joint, some down-home, a great hamburger place, a 50's-style diner, and even Hawaiian, all in close proximity.  Mr. Ayala strikes me as a good guy, as well as a smart one, and my feelings certainly wouldn't be hurt to see him win, but I make him a good second choice.

I took pretty good notes of the night's proceedings, and if you have any questions or another point of view, comment and we can talk about it - the best results of the election will come from an informed electorate discussing and debating the candidates and the issues.

By the way, my delight of the evening was after the event, getting a chance to meet and talk to Gary Yamauchi, a city councilman whose seat isn't up for re-election this time around.  Mr. Yamauchi is doing a great job, and I hope he gets re-elected every time he runs.  If you get a chance to meet him, do so and tell him he's doing a great job.  

Next post: the long-awaited ballot initiatives, and a wrap-up of statewide offices.  If you don't vote, then you've lost all rights to complain if you don't like the results, so take part and vote, and especially make sure to vote for Esthela Siegrist in the 49th Assembly District (box 76 in the sample ballot).  Vote for Stephen Sham (box 238), Barbara Messina (box 239), and Adele Andrada-Stadler (box 245) for Alhambra City Council.

And moreover, the 710 freeway must be completed.

- Keith

I've mentioned several of my friends at this site, hoping that you'll get to know them like I do.  In my debut offering, I made mention of Pastor Steve, who has commented here, and who will be one of the subjects of a future post (shh! It's a secret!).  I've also called your attention to Alex and Amanda (proprietors of The Yepiz Zone and Amanda's Blogsess, respectively, blogrolled on this page), who have just celebrated three years of a great marriage.  Finally, you can't forget Pablo, over at Pableezy's Sheezy (also blogrolled, though I'm not precisely certain what a "sheezy" is).  I'm not sure how I managed to be blessed with friends all of whom are so vastly different from each other, and all of whom I love, but I'm not complaining.

Now I want to introduce you to three more, to whom the invitation to comment at the STAND has been extended, and I hope they'll feel free to comment any time they'd like - sort of a standing invitation, if you'll pardon the pun.

First, I've made the recent acquaintance of Dr. Fayyaz Khan, who publishes the blog Islamic Renaissance.  Dr. Khan, who blogs under the name Renaissance Scientist, is a remarkable individual: a doctor treating HIV patients in Lahore, Pakistan, and a talented writer.  We've exchanged comments over at his site, where he and I have made something of a pact, and hopefully, a friendship.  We both know we are likely to disagree, perhaps as often as we agree, but we're going to treat each other with the respect and civility that will promote understanding.  Dr. Khan has had the courage to denounce terrorism; I can imagine that courage like that can offend countrymen of his who feel differently.  We both are striving for personal devotion, integrity and goodwill within our respective faiths - he within the Islamic world, and I within the Christian world.  Perhaps if he and I can demonstrate respect and understanding toward each other, readers of both our site will watch, and in our own way, perhaps the two of us can make a small part of the world a better place.  

I know that the things I write at Islamic Renaissance will be viewed by his readers, and will reflect on Christianity and the West; just as what he might write here will be seen by my readers, and will reflect on Islam and Central Asia.  I hope you'll welcome him if he participates here, and treat him with the respect he deserves.  In a way, Dr. Khan and I are going to be ambassadors into each other's worlds, and I hope we can both be successful at it.

Second, let me introduce you to Mike, known also as Klassic Katz, author of the blog Sword of Gideon.  Mike and I had dinner together last week, and we probably could have talked for hours more than we did.  Mike comes from a Jewish upbringing and is a passionate Christian.  If you read his blog, you already know him from his writing.  He has a real sense of history in his writing.

Mike has also started renewing my interest in Pac-10 football (I went pro a long time ago, and of course, being a graduate of the only school in the Pac-10 that, until recently, had no hope of ever seeing the inside of the Rose Bowl* again without buying tickets might have had something to so with it).  We're talking about a road trip next year together for the Cal-USC game.  No, I'm not taking bets, and don't even ask me about the point spread.

Finally, I've only today extended the invitation to a young lady I'll only refer to for now as "S," because she hasn't yet given me permission to mention her name.  "S" used to work together with me in the insurance industry before she left to go to law school; she took my recommendation and went to Chapman, and if I recall correctly, she is taking Professor Hugh Hewitt's Constitutional Law class this term (I pushed her to specialize in Con Law, but that's not where her heart was).  We're political opposites, and since I'm planning to do a series on the first ten amendments to the Constitution (that would be the Bill of Rights, for the uninformed) and another on the upcoming elections, I'm figuring her point of view will balance mine quite nicely.  If she does take part in this discussion and you all ask her nicely, I could she "S" becoming a regular contributor here to the STAND.  I could also ask Prof. Hewitt to make this a homework assignment for her, maybe in lieu of a midterm or something.  

Welcome, friends.  I cannot imagine a more diverse or a more fascinating group of people to have the privilege of knowing.  Won't you join us?  

- Keith

* Rose Bowl: the greatest of all college football games which, prior to the current dark ages marked by the creation of the BCS, annually hosted the matchup of the winners of the Pac-10 and Big 10 conferences.  The BCS, according to legend, was created by Sauron during the Second Age, and when the One Ring is destroyed by being thrown into the Fires of Orodruin, the BCS will be undone along with Sauron's other artifices, ushering in a Golden Age.

Here at STAND, we cover a broad range of topics, as you've seen so far - culture, faith, politics, and yes, even a little humor.  One of the great joys of this is to be able to participate in politics and how they affect us.  

Toward that end, one important function to serve here is to endorse good candidates, as I've already endorsed three: Arnold Schwarzenegger to California governor, Tom McClintock for lieutenant governor, and Chuck Poochigian for Attorney General.  We turn our attention now to an important local race: the California 49th Assembly District, in which STAND is honored to endorse a fresh new candidate who you need to know: Esthela Siegrist.  

Esthela Siegrist's candidacy reflects a great opportunity here in the area.  With Schwarzenegger almost certain to overwhelm long-time political hack Phil Angelides for the governorship, the task becomes to decide what kind of a legislature we're going to send him.  It's absolutely essential that he be provided with a legislature that will work with him to accomplish the goals he has in rebuilding California - a broad pro-business, low-tax agenda to foster economic growth and create good jobs very much needed, especially in our area.  Sending him a legislature that will continue to fight with him for solely political reasons - at the expense of growth and jobs - has only slowed down the economic recovery.  The last thing the 49th District needs to do is send another career politician who's more concerned with career survival than fixing the state.

Esthela Siegrist is clearly the best choice for these times.  I think she has all the right characteristics to work with Schwarzenegger to rebuild California, while also being a voice to keep the Governator in bounds on important social issues.  She deserves your consideration, and most importantly, your vote.

Stay tuned - over the next several posts, I'm going to be bringing you some more depth on Esthela Siegrist, as well as some other critical races, and a look at California's ballot initiatives.  If you haven't signed on to comment, this is the time to do it; elections are part of your participation in free democracy, and there are a lot of things we are going to want to talk about.  Keep it in good taste (remember to read the Ground Rules, if you haven't already); I think we're going to enjoy this topic.

- Keith

Well, it's been a busy week.  We've been working on a "special project" at the office which has just been finished.  Now on to the next.

Progress on the kitchen!  Our new cabinets have been delivered, and demolition of the old kitchen is well underway.  So far, I've managed to not fill the kitchen with gas and blow the entire house straight to Mars, and also to not cut through the 220 line feeding the old electric oven.  And by the way, who in their right mind would install an electric oven right next to a perfectly good gas supply line?  Well, okay, probably the same people who painted over beautifully grained wood cabinets (had Moses known about people who paint over exposed wood, there would have been an eleventh commandment), and installed a peninsula counter with a cooktop through the middle of a narrow kitchen, rendering fully half the floor space inaccessable.  But that's for another post.

And, of course, I miss Cecile, who is overseas right now.  She's only been gone for two days and I feel completely lost without her.  I have another two weeks to go without her.

I am proud to admit what a wonderful wife I am blessed with.  Cecile is my equal partner in every way, and if you'll all indulge me, let me share a little bit from my favorite passage about the ideal wife - Proverbs 31:

10  An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.
11  The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.
    I trust Cecile with an awful lot of things, and she's never let me down; she is as responsible as I am for the good life we share together.
12  She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13  She looks for wool and flax and works with her hands in delight.
14  She is like merchant ships; she brings her food from afar.
    Literally - Cecile can cook up Filipino, Asian, Continental, and down-home with equal grace.
15  She rises also while it is still night and gives food to her household and portions to her maidens.
    When she ran an escrow office, Cecile showered her subordinates with gifts and treats; it's like she can't give enough.
16  She considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.
    Without her income, we would not have a house today; and when we were house-shopping, she scrutinized every home we looked as right along with me.
17  She girds herself with strength and makes her arms strong.
18  She senses that her gain is good; her lamp does not go out at night.
19  She stretches out her hands to the distaff, and her hands grasp the spindle.
20  She extends her hand to the poor, and she stretches out her hands to the needy.
    Cecile has become a benefactor for a homeless man named John whom God has put in her path of her way to work, and has given charity to people here and abroad.  She and her graduating class have recently started working on ways to give charitably back in the Philippines, as well.
21  She is not afraid of the snow for her household, for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22  She makes coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23  Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.
24  She makes linen garments and sells {them,} and supplies belts to the tradesmen.
    Last year, Cecile took up jewelrymaking, and contributed her work for a fair in which some friends of hers were participating.  Her pieces were quite popular, as a matter of fact.
25  Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she smiles at the future.
26  She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27  She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness.
    Although her parents would not move in with us as we had originally planned when we were house-hunting, Cecile went out of her way to help them find a place much closer to us so we could be there for them in their advancing age and declining health.  She has promised that her parents will never have to see the insides of a retirement home, and we will take care of them.
28  Her children rise up and bless her; her husband {also,} and he praises her, {saying:}
29  "Many daughters have done nobly, but you excel them all."
30  Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, {but} a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
31  Give her the product of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.
    No offense intended, men, and I know many of you have great wives - but I got the best of the lot when Cecile married me.
Proverbs 31:10-31, NASB

And I'm counting the days until she comes back home - I miss her more than you can imagine.

- Keith

For all the sturm und drang over whether Islam is the religion of peace, one thing you have to admit is that it is a religion with a tremendous sense of humor.  Don't know what I'm talking about?  You haven't been reading the news.

Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a 14th-century work this week, and mentioned a statement made by a Byzantine emperor to a Persian scholar.  In the passage, the emperor stated that as the religion of Islam had been advanced by the sword, as commanded in the Koran, there were "evil and inhuman" things within it.  Now various elements within the Islamic world are reacting, accusing the Pope of stating that Islam is violent and intolerant.

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," announced Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam.  "What he has done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago." she added. "It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions."  Threats of violence in reaction to the Pope's comments have issued from Turkey, Pakistan, Gaza, Lebanon, and England.

So, let me get this straight: the head of the Catholic Church makes mention of a passage which refers to Islam as violent and intolerant, and radical segments of Islam argue against the statement by... behaving with violence and intolerance?

I can't possibly be the only person in the world seeing things this way.  Am I off my meds, or has the Islamoterrorist wing just proved the Pope's point?  This absolutely has to be a joke.  If this isn't proof positive that Islam is chock-full of humor, I just don't know what is.  This is somehow reminiscent of Lucy shaking a fist in Linus' face and saying "If you call me bad-tempered one more time, I'll slug you!"

This comes in the aftermath, by the way, of the celebrated Rosie O'Donnell stating that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam.  For my money, there just is no sin like bad timing.  In the intelligent, rational world, Ms. O'Donnell's apology and contrite retraction would be coming right about... now.

I must have missed it while I was shooting my mouth off.  I hope one of my faithful readers TiVo'ed it for me, and will be kind enough to send it along.

Getting serious for just a minute, yes, every once in a while, some deranged zealot blows an abortion clinic to matchwood and says he's doing it all for Jesus.  Or a passel of them shine up the ammo in a bivouac in Idaho or Montana, because they're just sure it's God's will to protect America's ethnic purity.  Or a celebrity with a television church and a bad comb-over will get caught with his trousers around his ankles in a motel room with a hooker, or with his fingers deep in the offering plate to support his swanky lifestyle.  And when these things happen, genuine Christians rise up and denounce the misdeeds for the sin they are.

I just don't see a heck of a lot of that in Islam.  Or was there a million-Muslim march that I missed denouncing the jihadi terrorists?  Where are all the peaceful Muslims protesting the tactics of the mullahs, the bombers in Israel and New York, the beheaders in the Middle East, or the chattel slavery which goes on throughout the Islamic world?

Or maybe there is a difference between the way of Islam and the way of Christ.

- Keith

I remember five years ago today, driving southbound on the Long Beach Freeway on my way to my office.  I was carpooling with my brother-in-law, and I turned the radio on to get traffic and news.  My brother-in-law remembers that when it was confirmed that a second jet had crashed into the second tower, my fist slammed the console between the front seats.  One could be a tragic accident; two was a deliberate attack.

In the months and years since that awful day, we have learned a great deal.  Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of politicization of the issue, but facts are stubborn things.  Today is a day of meditation and contemplation, a remembrance of that day five years ago, and I hope all of my readers are appropriately remembering that day, September 11, 2001.  But if all we do is remember and get a patriotic feeling inside, then we accomplish nothing, and the three thousand good people who were murdered that day have died for nothing.  We owe it to them, and their memory, and to the loved ones from whom they were taken, and to this nation to also know why this happened, and to act on that knowledge.

Getting past the politicization of the issue, we are dealing with an enemy who is not fighting for land or concessions.  We have been told, repeatedly, that the reason for these attacks is because of a belief that they have that we are infidels, and their goal is to establish Islamic supremacy through what is called the caliphate.  We are called upon to surrender and become Muslims, or die.  These are not people who can be dealt with by way of diplomacy or negotiations.  They are not looking for land or concessions.  They expect surrender, and it is the only option they offer.  Here and in Israel, in the form of al-Qaeda or Hesbollah, they carry out attacks on civilians and the defenseless.  The old rules of engagement are forsaken.  There is no form of attack too low or despicable for them.  They cannot be bought off or appeased.

In my neighborhood is parked a minivan, bearing a bumper sticker that says "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER."  I'm certain the owner is a pleasant, well-intentioned person, and I have no reason to cast any aspersions on his character.  But I have to ask him, if war is not the answer, then what is?  War is something not to be entered into lightly, but aside from dhimmitude, what other option is there?  Ultimately, the thinking person has to realize that when the question is terrorism, fascism, communism or genocide, and the enemy is implacable, war is in fact the only answer.

I've also seen the signs that say "Peace is patriotic" and "protest is patriotic."  Peace is always a noble goal.  Protest can be patriotic.  Hating America, however, is not patriotic.  Let me make it clear - we did not go looking for this battle.  Going back to the first attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the Cole, the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and countless other such assaults, we have repeatedly either withdrawn or otherwise not retaliated, and this has not appeased the enemy.  All it has done is emboldened them.

The thousands who died on that day, I honor today as innocent victims of a truly evil power.  Their memory must stand as a rallying point to us to never forget, never surrender, and to do everything in our power to make certain it is never allowed to happen again.

The flag at my house flies every day.  It did before the attack, and I am not ashamed of it.  Today, it flies on behalf of 3,000 who cannot fly theirs.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California surprised the conservative wing of the state's Republican party by reversing his stance on the controversial Senate Bill 1441 recently.  This piece of legislation, among other things, requires that any program or institution receiving financial support or assistance from the state must give full and equal access to all persons it serves without regard to sexual orientation, or risk losing that financing.  Having previously promised he would veto the bill, Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law without hesitation.  Conservatives, especially conservatives of faith, are understandably outraged over the change in position.

The ultimate result of this new law will be that public schools in the state will be required to not merely be neutral on the issues of homosexuality, transvestitism, transsexuality, and other moral issues, but must in fact be supportive of them, and that private colleges and universities - read Christian and Jewish colleges - must either abandon their traditional positions on those issues or refuse to accept students who need state financial aid in order to attend.

There are two reasons for the outrage of conservatives: first, that Schwarzenegger ultimately came out on the side of the pro-homosexual lobby on this issue, and second, that he broke a promise he had made.

Allow me to step up to the plate.  I hope my readers will observe that this incident is a tremendous opportunity for a political education.  And I will start the lesson by making an endorsement of Arnold Schwarzenegger for re-election as Governor.  With, of course, reservations.  Consider:

(1) We all knew going into the game that Schwarzenegger is not a doctrinaire conservative.  It's not even accurate to say he's fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  Schwarzenegger's stances are spread, sometimes wildly, all over the map.  This is partly because he is not a career politician; having never been part of the political machine, he is not locked into a rigid political philosophy.  Politically, you could say he is a political amateur who recently went pro.  

We also knew going into the game that Schwarzenegger does not hold to a Christian mindset, and you can't expect him to have an opposition to homosexuality on rerligious or moral grounds.

All that being said, you need to understand that politics is not about getting everything you want.  It's about getting a lot of what you want when the alternative is getting none of what you want.  Anyone thinking about going and voting for Phil Angelides over this issue needs to stop and think that Angelides would have signed this into law every bit as quickly, and an awful lot more that they wouldn't like one bit better.  Angelides has a voting record available for everyone to see, and he's a known quantity, and putting Angelides in charge of the state in the company of a Democrat-controlled legislature would spell disaster.

Yes, I long for a solid, well-reasoned candidate in the hunt who agrees with me on more of the issues.  Were Tom McClintock in the race, STAND would be endorsing him right now; as it is now, STAND is pleased to endorse Mr. McClintock for Lieutenant Governor.  But the choices we have are Schwarzenegger and Angelides.  I may have to hold my nose on some issues when I put the handle for the Governator, but pull that handle I will.  There are issues on which I disagree with George W. Bush, too, but I disagreed a lot more with his opponent.

(2) For that matter, there are things that Schwarzenegger did right that no other Republican candidate could have done.  I've been in the Workers' Compensation industry in California for 25 years, and prior to the recent reforms sponsored by the governor, the system in California was thoroughly corrupt, and destroying jobs in the state.  It was by and large being used as the personal ATM machine for applicant's lawyers and a cadre of their opinion-for-hire doctors, leeching billions of dollars every year here in the state.  While reforming the industry is still unfinished, this was a better start than anyone expected or could have asked for.  This was done with the help of State Senator Chuck Poochigian, by the way, and Poochigian will make a tremendous Attorney General.  STAND officially endorses Chuck Poochigian, and without reservations.

(3) Understand the political realities here.  Running against an opponent like Angelides, Schwarzenegger has no fear of conservatives crossing party lines.  However, to win an election, one must do two things: energize the base and persuade the undecided.  Republicans offended by this action won't vote for the opponent, but they could stay home.  Without the base, he will not get enough of a vote to stay in office. 

On the other hand, Schwarzenegger also needs to understand the same political reality, because that sword has two edges.  Catering to the homosexual lobby is not going to gain any votes for Schwarzenegger, because the whole activist wing of the Democrat party* owns Angelides.  Just like few conservatives will jump ship and vote for Angelides, few liberals will cross over to vote for Schwarzenegger because of this.  They will thank him for signing the bill, and then vote left.

However, one issue - on which I will write at another time - is the increasing degree to which our elected officials have come to be our rulers and not our servants.  For those offended by Schwarzenegger's turnabout on the bill, he will not know if you do not tell him, and he cannot carry out the will of the people if you are not calling him at (916) 445-2841 and telling him.  He will understand the effect this has on the base if the base calls him and lets him know.

There are plenty of discussions we can have on the whys and wherefores of what happened here, and I encourage you to join me in discussing this in the comments.  I'd also like to talk about some of the Presidential candidates, as I have not decided which to endorse.  I'm finding things to like about Romney and Allen, as well as Giuliani (who is the most electable right now, though he is the candidate with whom I have the most differences).

Note the obvious absence of John McCain.

- Keith

* It is the stated policy of this blog to refer to this party as the Democrat party, not the Democratic party, for the reason that while its members choose to take the title "Democrat," they are not in fact a democratic party.

(WARNING: SATIRE ALERT)

In the news this week, a group of astronomers met in the Czech Republic to debate the all-important issue of whether Pluto was a planet, or, well, something less significant.  After much deliberation, deep thought, and passionate oratory, a compromise position was arrived at, declaring Pluto to be a "dwarf planet."  There was fierce outcry from supporters here on Earth of Pluto's claim to full planethood; however, it was observed that Pluto appears completely unaffected by the decision.  Its admittedly eccentric orbit appears not to have budged a single inch, and neither its orbital velocity nor its rotational speed has changed one whit.  The Plutonians themselves appear to be taking the decision in stride, and have not declared open war on Earth at the insult.  It is unclear whether the threat of military retaliation was a motivating factor for those defending Pluto's planetary status.

This matter has all the importance of a debate on whether Australia is a small continent or a large island, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  The "so what?" factor approximates that of a United Nations resolution on Iran's nuclear aspirations - not very serious, and not very threatening.  The response of the universe appears to be a cosmic yawn.  Should the Plutonians ever land here and find out what we've done, I have no doubt they will be amused that the carbon-based flyspecks on the third planet think their insignificant opinions on the subject amount to anything other than hubris - pretty much the same reaction I have to the opinions of the French on just about any subject.  Pluto is, after all, still Pluto, and unaffected.

This certainly isn't something consequential enough to belong on the front page of the Times, even below the fold.  And it's certainly not a "great moment in science."  Discovering a cure for Downs' syndrome or cancer would be a great moment in science.  This is more of a great moment in making much ado about nothing.

Most visibly shaken by this announcement are the astrologers, always a laughable lot to begin with.  They are, according to at least one major newspaper article, in deadly earnest over the impact this will have on people born under the sign of Scorpio.  I can't tell you how troubled I am to learn that the ruling planet of my birthsign, which exercises awesome control over my character, my personhood, and my ultimate destiny, really isn't a planet at all.  But, your Honor, it wasn't my fault!  I had a diminished capacity, because I'm a Scorpio, and the downgrading of Pluto set my karma into a tailspin!

Puh-leeze.

This beautiful, well-engineered solar system we call home is littered with planets, satellites, rings, comets, solar discharges, a lot more dust than you'll find under my Aunt Tillie's living room rugs, and asteroids that resulted from a little oopsie a few years back when the former fifth and sixth planets traded paint.  How we Earthlings choose to categorize Pluto really has no impact on anything.

And won't we be surprised when some engineer on Saturn turns in an environmental impact report deciding Earth is just too small and insignificant to be considered a real planet, and they obliterate us just after breakfast to make room for an intergalactic offramp.

Those of you still holding on to encyclopedias printed prior to 1930 will be happy to know that your list of planets is accurate again.

- Keith

A few days ago, a front-page article in the Los Angeles Times caught my eye while I was in the office break room.  The article, "Faithful to God, Science," told of a scientist named Dr. Francis Collins who had discovered Christian faith while remaining convinced of the theory of evolution, and wrote a book about that issue.  A debate has been started over the tension between the two philosophies, with supporters of both sides raining criticism down on Dr. Collins' position: believing Christians denounced his position as heretical, and evolutionists proclaimed his belief naive and anti-intellectual.

Some, on the other hand, have had a "can't-we-all-just-get-along" moment, and have posed the question why the two can't be harmonized.  One man I know personally, a former youth pastor, posted a reply to a blog I read regularly, asking "why does everything have to be a fight?"

Why, indeed.

It's an article you should read.  There are dozens of points in it worthy of discussion.

There are two vastly different worldviews at work here: evolution, which posits that the world in which we live is the result of time, matter, energy and chance, and that natural processes explain the way the world is today, and creation, which posits an intelligent, creative force willed this world into existence.  These two stances are diametrically opposed, and result in outcomes a world apart.  (There are two compromise positions, both unsatisfying, which I'll deal with later.)

Science - true science - is not threatened by faith in God (witness the many early modern scientists who were deep believers in God), but false science is; God is not threatened by true science, as it reveals Him and His created world, but if God is a God of truth, then He would be opposed to false science.  The question here is to what degree the content of genuine Christian faith is dependent on creation as opposed to evolution.  Trying to reconcile the two requires belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are myth, allegory, and tales that grew around the campfire.  Consider just a few concepts:

(1) The necessity of the Fall.  If, as evolution requires, we have untold billions of years since the beginning of the universe, then you have to have nearly endless generations of life, human and animal, living and dying over the course of millennia.  But the content of the Christian faith insists that death and decay entered into the world in the Fall as a result of man's disobedience.  With evolution, you don't have a Fall, and without a Fall, there is no need of a redeemer.  There would be no need for Jesus Christ to live and sacrifice His life.

(2) The special place of man.  Christian teaching says that man is created in the image of God, in a unique way that makes a vast, uncrossable gulf between us and the animals.  Evolution says we are nothing more than animals that outgrew most of our hair and developed opposable thumbs.  Those two are irreconcilable views; man has value in the Christian faith because he is made completely differently than the animal world, and there is no basis for the value of man if you do away with creation.

(3) The high view of marriage.  In the evolutionary scheme of things, marriage is just an outgrowth of the mating habits of the animals from which we came.  But in discussing divorce, Jesus goes back prior to Moses and insists marriage is a special relationship given by God.  If you surrender creation, you have to surrender the basis for marriage, and that relationship is nothing more than an outlet for sex and a sharing of domestic duties.  Furthermore, you have to also say that Jesus was wrong about marriage and divorce.

This is just a small sampling; space doesn't permit me to go as far as this could be taken.

Make no mistake: without creation, there is no Christianity.  Just as Paul writes in defending the resurrection, if there is no creation, then we Christians are of all men most to be pitied.  If all this life is is the product of time, chance, matter and energy oxidizing over the course of seventy years, then there is no moral structure to life and there is nothing after this.  The chasm between evolution and creation is as wide and uncrossable as the one between the rich man and Lazarus in the afterlife.

What other doctrines should we compromise away?  How about Jesus' death and resurrection being the only way to God?  How about the existence of Heaven?

Let me make a bold statement: if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not true, if God does not have the ability to tell me true things about the origins of the world, if He can only tell me "religious" truth and not true, factual truth about the universe, then I do not have a right to the Christian faith.  I do not hold to a carefully constructed faith so divorced from reason that it survive without the foundations of creation, revelation, the resurrection, and other propositional truth.  If creation were to be disproved and evolution proved true, I would have to renounce my Christian faith; it would be the only intellectually honest thing to do.  Consistency and personal integrity would demand it.

There are two compromise philosophies: progressive creation (the theory that God did create the world through creation, with the various stages of creation either taking place billions of years apart in which evolution could have occurred, or each phase spanning billions of years) and theistic evolution (the theory that evolution is the force of the development of the world, but God guided it and used it as His chosen mechanism for creation).  Neither one holds any water; nothing in evolutionism evidences or allows for these theories, and nothing in the Christian faith of creation reveals them.  They are nothing more than compromises concocted by men who desire the comforts of religious faith while avoiding the embarrassment of appearing uneducated and unscientific.

For the record, I believe in the special creation of the universe ex nihilo by God, recent and literally recorded in Genesis.  There is a tremendous amount of genuine scientific evidence discrediting the unproven and unproveable theory of evolution; let me know if you want it.  This is an essential doctrine of faith.  Here I... STAND.

UPDATE 8/22/2006 - Everyone: the conversation over at Pableezy's Sheezy (http://pableezy.blogspot.com/) on this subject are developing into quite a stimulating exchange.  Rather than cross-post, check it out there.  It's the 8/17/2006 thread called "Interesting Read."  You can comment back here if you'd like.  Pablo's a good guy and a good friend, and please respect him as you would me; he's hosted more than a few great discussions.  Thanks -