An Open Letter to Virginia Beach Democrats

I didn't even bother to try and get an absentee ballot for this coming November's elections.

Why bother? Virginia Beach Democrats didn't even bother to field candidates in my district to run against the Republican incumbents who are now serving.

Now it probably would have been a pretty hard choice for me to decide not to vote for Bob Tata as my Representative in the Assembly. I would have been willing to consider voting against him, but the choice would not have been automatic. But voting against Senator Wagner would have been easy. That fellah is the same guy who, while serving on the Transportation Committee, seems to want to put tolls on every mile of Virginia's highways or something. Instead of increasing the fuel tax, he wants to change Virginia's freeways into tollways.

Come on Virginia Beach Democrats! You guys and gals couldn't come with somebody to run against Wagner? Yeah, you probably would have had to field a "moderate" or even a "conservative" Democrat for him (or her) to have any chance at all... but isn't a moderate Democrat preferable to Republican Wagner?

I wanted to run Wagner out of office but the Democrats didn't even bother nominating Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to run against him!

Surely it would not have been that hard to find a Democrat that was willing to run? Surely you could have given us a choice of SOMEBODY to vote for as an alternative?

But nope, my representatives in the Assembly and Senate run unopposed. I didn't even bother getting an absentee ballot to voice my frustration and opposition.

Too bad the Virginia Beach Democrats are so weak.

No New Hope for Middle East Peace

(See here) where Haaretz reports that there is little hope for George Dubyah Bush's efforts to obtain peace in the Middle East to amount to anything.

The Orthodox Jews have already drawn their line in the sand. If any of the "core issues" in the conflict are discussed, they are going to revolt. God help us if we (we being the alliance of America and Israel) actually attempt to resolve something.

My own opinion is that the Orthodox Jews (not all Jews, just the conservative Orthodox ones) seek to do is prolong the conflict. Any real attempt to resolve the conflict is anathema to them. They prosper in achieving their goals by prolonging the conflict. Their goal is a greater Israel which includes all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

They seek to prolong the conflict because only through conflict can their aims be achieved. Anything that resembles a reasonable result of negotiations is poison to them. They insist that our side, our side being the American and Israeli side, must be totally unreasonable in negotiations. Then they will point at the results of this unreasonable stance (violence from the Palestinian side) as being justification for their own inhuman actions.

Our American President, that would be George Dubyah Bush, has called for negotiations on the Israeli Palestinian conflict which are to happen in Annapolis shortly. I would hope that America judges the preordained failure of these talks fairly. Which side came to the table unwilling to negotiate? Evidence thus far is that Israel might be the culprit.

There is no point in negotiations if the "core issues" are off limits. We are looking for an end to the conflict, not for justification for bullshit. If Israel is unwilling to come to the table with the goal of resolving the issue, the failure of the talks will rest on Israel's plate.

I am in favor of negotiations. I am also in favor of holding those responsible (including Israelis) accountable for failure of negotiations to achieve anything substantial. It appears the Israeli side is unwilling to approach the table with anything that could be defined as being reasonable. Perhaps the unreasonable Israeli position should be excluded from the talks?

Military Mutiny

Recently the topic of a military mutiny has been coming up in discussing what might happen if George Dubyah Bush orders military action against Iran.

(See here) one such article that appears on the Slate website.

My thoughts? Those in uniform better think long and hard before they stage such a mutiny. Here in America, those in uniform snap to attention and salute when given orders by those civilians who are given authority over them by the Constitution.

However there is some wiggle room here. Those in uniform swear that they will "support and defend the Constitution". Action against Iran will almost certainly risk great conflict. This "great conflict" could most certainly be described as "war" and only Congress, according to the Constitution, has the ability to declare war.

So perhaps Generals would be doing the right thing to "mutiny" against the unlawful orders of a tyrant who sits in the Oval Office and thinks he is a dictator or something. However if this same member of the military service thought he had the right to refuse to obey orders for the same military action (no matter how unwise) authorized by Congress, he should resign from the military now and seek other ways to influence things.

Perhaps he (she) could run for office. Perhaps he (she) could write a book, take to the talk show circuit and become wealthy. However so long as they continue to wear the uniform, they are bound to continue to snap to attention and obey the lawful orders they are given.

I will rise to the defense of any such member of our uniformed services that refuses to obey orders because of an oath to defend the Constitution. However I will be willing to take up arms against any such member who refuses "lawful" orders with which he disagrees.

If Dubyah orders significant action against Iran without Congressional authorization, the military should stand down. If Congress authorizes it? The military should stand up even if it is a horrible mistake.

But that is just my opinion.

Funding SCHIP

Here is the text of a letter that I wrote to both of my Senators in the federal government concerning the proposed expansion of health care coverage to more Americans through the SCHIP legislation:

Dear Senator,

I have noted that you voted to over ride the President's Veto of the SCHIP legislation.

First, let me indicate that actually I am in favor of expanding health care coverage to more Americans.

However I take issue with how Congress, including you, intends to pay for this expansion.

I find it hard to understand how you can rationalize that the residents of our state should have to be penalized more heavily, or bear more of the burden if you
prefer, of paying for this expansion then the residents of most other states.

I am sure that you are aware that Virginia is a tobacco state. Numerous residents of our state depend on tobacco for their livings. This includes tobacco farmers and those employed in the tobacco industry.

By raising tobacco taxes you vote to deprive these citizens of their livelihoods.

Besides, seeking to fund this expansion through an onerous increase in tobacco taxes is financially irresponsible. With such a drastic increase, numerous smokers are going to be priced out of the market and are going to decide to quit (I am a smoker and I will be one who quits) so the anticipated revenue is not going to be realized.

I request that in any negotiations for an increase in the SCHIP program you represent ALL the citizens of your state. That you insist that if the majority of Americans want such an increase then this same majority should be willing to pony up and help pay for it. The increase should not be a case of the majority unjustly taxing the minority and most certainly you must insist that your own state's economy must not be unfairly penalized.

I pray that you remember that you represent Virginia, and that Virginia is a tobacco state.

Who Gets Into Heaven?

Who gets into heaven?

As I travel the highways of my great nation, I frequently tune into Christian radio stations and listen to preachers preach and theologians express their opinions. One topic that frequently comes up is that, in their opinion, one must be a Christian in order to be allowed into heaven once you approach the pearly gates. They can quote from many Bible verses to back up their opinion.

However there appears to be some room for disagreement on this subject. In fact, if we are to believe the Bible, it might be accurate to scream out: JESUS HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION.
To support my own opinion, I am going to examine at least one portion of the Gospels on the subject. Let us open your Bible to Luke 10:25 where we will find The Parable of the Good Samaritan. If you lack a Bible, you can find the text on the internet without too much effort. I urge you to read it for yourself as while I intend to discuss it, I am not going to post it in its entirety.

Jesus gave us this parable after being asked the following question by an "expert in the law":

Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

So how does the parable go? I am going to paraphrase for brevity. Again I encourage you to read the text for yourself. My version:

A man was traveling from one city to another. During his trip he was beset upon by robbers who stripped him of his belongings and left him lieing battered and bleeding alongside the road. When "good Jews" (described one as being a priest and the other a Levite) came upon him during their own journeys and saw him, they crossed to the far side of the road to avoid him and continued on. But then a Samaritan came down the road and encountered the man. He rushed to his side, dressed his wounds, took him up and put him up in an inn and took care of him. Before he departed the man's side, he paid the innkeeper to look after him with promises to return and cover any additional expenses that might come up.

Now it is important to point out that Jesus used a Samaritan as an example of one who's ACTIONS were worthy of entrance into heaven. You see, Jesus was a Jew. We can safely assume that the person who asked the question was a Jew. However Jesus specifically pointed to compassionate actions by a Samaritan as being especially worthy of commendation while he seemed to point an accusing finger at "good Jews". Please understand that a Samaritan is not a Jew. Samaritans worship the God of Abraham, however they are not Jewish. Samaritan communities (their communities are so small it might be more accurate to describe them as neighborhoods) exist within the Holy Land. They still stand apart from the Jews. It is my understanding that many modern Samaritans will still ostracize their daughters if the daughter marries a Jew.

So must one be a professed Christian to get into heaven? Jesus seemed to be saying that kindness and compassion... walking the walk instead of just talking the talk... were going to be more important to God when you get to the pearly gates then which religious label you paste on your forehead before you approach.

I have wondered how Jesus would tell that parable if he was faced with the modern world. Perhaps it would be titled one of the following:

The Good Buddhist.
The Good Hindu.
(Gasp) The Good Moslem.

Or perhaps, if he lived in America, he would stick closer to home. Perhaps it would be:

The Good Mormon.

One thing of which I am certain is that if Jesus lived in America today, he would use as examples of those crossing to the other side of the road so called "good Christians" who through their actions proved they were Christian in name only. If Jesus was God (personally I am not sure) one thing we could be fairly certain of is that He might withhold a certain measure of justice only for those who sought to use His name to justify evil.

I could go on preaching on this subject at some additional length, but I do not want this to become a novel. If anyone wishes to engage me in conversation, I would be happy to extrapolate.

My conclusion? One need not be a Christian to get into heaven. A good agnostic is more apt to get into heaven then is a bad Christian. Bad Christians better hope God is as forgiving as Jesus, maybe He will be willing to forgive them.