All posts by poreilly

Social Issues

In Case Anybody Asks, Biology Matters

Several Oregon families’ names are synonymous with excellence in cross country and track, including the Bennions of St. Mary’s in Medford, the Baldovinos of Lakeview and the Martins of Adrian. Our family has not attained the status of these folks, but we do, I suspect, hold an unusual record. We set the standard for most siblings to have competed in the 3,000-meter race at the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) State Track Championships: 10. Our middle daughter, Katriel, won both the 1,500 and 3,000 meters twice at the 2A level; she also came in second at the 1A-2A-3A cross country championships three times and won the race her junior year. I say this not to brag but to establish my track record, as it were, in high school running. I have been involved as a parent, spectator and coach for two decades.

In terms of accomplishments and accolades, Katriel was a standout, good enough to run at an NCAA Division I university. Her brothers, on the other hand, were good runners but never achieved Katriel’s success. That said, Katriel was under no illusion that she could outrace her brothers. They all were faster than she, and she accepted that as biological fact. This was a moot point, however, because on tracks and cross country courses, Katriel competed against other young ladies. And she thrived in that environment.  

Regrettably, what Katriel’s common sense revealed to her escapes the grasp of many officials in charge of organizing high school sporting events today. Specifically, OSAA officials ignore this reality: In 2024, OSAA officials allowed a biological male to compete in the women’s division of the Portland Interscholastic District Meet and then at the 6A State Track Championships. 

The biological male, Ada Gallagher, competed in the women’s divisions of the 200 and 400 meters. The results surprised many. Although the sophomore from McDaniel High School in Portland won the 200, as expected, he – I use “he” because that is the pronoun used for males since William Shakespeare and the translators of the King James Bible codified the English language in the early 1600s – placed second in the 400. Also surprising to many was spectators’ reaction. They booed when Gallagher took the awards stand. National media voiced outrage over fans’ insensitivity to Mr. Gallagher’s “success.” 

But should the fans’ response have elicited the ire of the media? After all, the OSAA subjected the young ladies competing in 6A track to a gross injustice. To wit, Gallagher’s participation in the 200 and 400 at the district meet deprived two young ladies of the joy of competing at Oregon’s Hayward Field, the premier track venue in the world. Further, his participation at the state meet kept two female runners off the awards stand. These injuries to female athletes were bad enough but were arguably not the worst slights. Allowing Mr. Gallaher to compete in the ladies’ races introduced animosity and tension into the events that generally foster joy and camaraderie. 

Do not misunderstand: In competitions at this level, tension always exists. However, it is a tension spawned by a spirit among athletes who have often developed a bond from competing over the years. One of the great joys for coaches and spectators is to watch athletes laugh and joke before a race, transform into archrivals on the starting line and then resume their joking at the race’s end. The tension OSAA introduced was not resolved amicably. Rather, it was a tension generated by the knowledge that the organization had chosen sides and violated the rules of fair play by allowing a male into the females’ race. 

There is another reason the media should have been neither surprised nor angered by the fans. The fans understood what Katriel realized at a young age. Society has men’s and women’s divisions in every sport at every level after elementary school for a reason: because biology matters. 

Source: https://www.athletic.net/CrossCountry/meet/226732/info

For anyone who thinks that last statement is simply the ravings of some patriarchal dinosaur, consider the nearby graph. The graph compares the performance of men and ladies at the OSAA 6A Cross Country Championships in 2023. This classification was not chosen arbitrarily. Even casual observers notice that at the 5A and 6A classification, runners, particularly female runners, are a much more homogenous group. The ladies, generally speaking, fit the stereotype of runners: gazelle-like. If boys and girls are equals in running anywhere, that should be on display at the 6A level. But we do not see equality in outcomes. In fact, quite the opposite. For context, 148 female and 158 male runners competed with average times of 21 minutes flat and 17:21, respectively. To put this disparity in average times into perspective, Jane Average would have been a half-mile back when Joe Average finished. But what about runners who were not average? The top female runner threw down an impressive time of 18:00.02. However, had she been competing with the men, she would have finished behind 129 or 80% of the “XY” competitors. Even the last male finisher, with a relatively slow time, finished faster than one-third of the females. Whatever term one employs to describe these results, parity is not an accurate one. These results do not diminish the ladies’ accomplishments but demonstrate again that biology matters.

So why in the face of evidence from its own events and in contradiction to old-fashioned common sense would the OSAA allow a biological male to compete in the girls’ divisions? One can only speculate, but it may stem from a misguided desire to treat athletes like Ada Gallagher “fairly.” That is, OSAA officials may have compassion for this athlete and therefore desired to do what was best for him. But one cannot jettison well-established and well-reasoned rules simply to accommodate one person without negatively impacting all to whom the established rules applied. As my lawyer friends say, “Hard cases make bad law.” 

A better solution for this athlete would have been for his parents, coaches and the school administrators to have said: “We do not know the source of your struggles with gender identity, but you are a biological male. For the purposes of athletics, this is where you compete.” We adults communicate the wrong lesson when we imply young people who find themselves in the middle of the pack – which Mr. Gallagher did – should quit and find a less competitive pack. If one thinks my suggestion insensitive, there may be a better approach. However, whatever tack one thinks appropriate with Ada Gallagher and the ones who will follow in his footsteps, the approach the OSAA has adopted is wrongheaded. Under the existing regime, the hundreds of hours young ladies devote to achieving athletic excellence are evaporating before their eyes. To add insult to the ladies’ injury, the individuals responsible for this travesty of justice are the very ones charged with creating a level playing field. 

So what are those who love high school sports and those whose daughters are competing supposed to do? How do we change this – what else can one call it? – madness? I offer several suggestions, starting with a general one and moving to more specifics. Even in offering these, people must understand the solution is going to be multifaceted and the battle is going to be hard fought. 

First, advocates for fair play in women’s sports should quit ceding the language to those who advocate allowing biological males to compete against girls. Whatever the roots of so-called gender dysphoria, no one benefits from contorting the English language to accommodate people who are so afflicted. Definitions exist for a reason; they allow us to communicate clearly and effectively about the realities around us. A biological male may feel he is female, or a female may think she is male. Thankfully, no human can alter reality through mental or emotional vacillations; otherwise, chaos would ensue. All are better off when everyone yields to reality and moves forward making the best of it.

Second, coaches, athletic directors and administrators can take a stand on behalf of their female athletes. We need to be communicating to OSAA officials both before and, if necessary, at events that formal protests will be filed any time a biological male competes in the ladies’ division. If the OSAA refuses to budge on this issue, school boards should break with the Association and form a new association. 

The last suggestion is the most difficult. I fear the brunt of this battle must be fought by female athletes. These ladies are best situated to respectfully protest the fundamental unfairness being foisted upon them. In cross country and track, tell the starter: “You are starting this race in violation of the rules. I will not compete until that young man steps off the line.” This will, of course, get the athlete disqualified. Depending upon how assertive the athlete is, it might even get her arrested, but if half the ladies employ this strategy it will send a clear message. This asks much of young female athletes who simply want to compete in a fair race; yet, I know some are up for the challenge. Their courage will probably inspire others to follow the example. 

Female runners have displayed outstanding athleticism and fortitude in the 20 years I have been watching Oregon high school track and cross country. The 3,000-meter race in 2010 between Mary Bennion and Ashley Baldovino is one of the best examples of bravery and fortitude I have witnessed. Let us not allow the battles between the future Marys and Ashleys of Oregon to be overshadowed and denigrated by misguided policies of the OSAA. 

Social Issues

COVID and the Cost of Dehumanization

Masks and Objectifying Women
“Look me in the eyes.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/farewell-high-waisted-skinny-jeans-the-low-rise-returns-11634135595?mod=trending_now_news_1

A strategy which I (Providentially) “stumbled” upon years ago for combating lustful passions was to look scantly clad ladies in the eyes we passed. This simple action transformed the woman from an object of desire into a living, breathing, and, yes, beautiful creature made in the image of God. The lesson: dehumanizing a person is easier when you refuse to look into their soul. 

The inverse is also true as I was reminded when the nearby headline popped up on my WSJ news feed. I am largely unconcerned with women’s fashions, but the photo accompanying the article drove home how difficult humanizing women has become in the era of COVID. A beautiful masked woman wearing dark sunglasses is easily “objectified” since to humanize her now requires considerable more discipline and effort. Since those features which would humanize her – her smile, her eyes, her disposition – are invisible, a man’s eyes are naturally drawn to those characteristics which are more obvious. Indeed, features which are intentionally obvious.

I recognized this feature of masks in two different contexts when the so-called pandemic first started. We travelled back to Ohio shortly after the death of George Floyd. When we hit Iowa and the number of black Americans we encountered increased exponentially, I realized that neither they nor I could discern our dispositions toward one another. All were friendly when we spoke but there was a timidity in initiating conversations for fear of rejection or hostility. 

On the return trip, we stopped by our old stomping in Boulder County, Colorado. The affluent, liberal, masked citizens of the county refused, without exception, to look me – the unmasked intruder – in the eye despite the fact that we were on a nature trail in bright sunlight and superb ventilation. I think some were angry toward my “cavalier” attitude, but others were embarrassed because my “mask-less-ness” pulled the veil from their cowardice. Many had exchanged existence for life, and the results were not pretty.

These are but three examples of the many problems with our fixation on masks. Even if masks have some impact upon transmissions of COVID-19, that impact is marginal and the costs of the mask mandate far outweigh these benefits.  Masks instill fear in many, but they also breed suspicion and hostility in mask-wearer and mandate resistor alike. The masks… well… mask the distinctly emotional and spiritual aspects of those passing us on the sidewalk or in aisles. That is, these hideous cloth aberrations conceal the very characteristics that make us human. 

All of which brings me to the point of this post. The time has come. Throw off your mask. Vanquish your fear of COVID. Look people in the eye and rejoice in the uniqueness of each person passes by. 

Uncategorized

Assuaging Christian Guilt or Helping the Black Community?

Leave a comment
BlackLivesMatter

The killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin has spawned soul searching as well as a quest for solutions to avoid such crimes in the future. Chief among the recommendations for the latter is a call to end the “systemic racism” within the United States. Both secular and sectarian voices have heralded the need to eradicate racism not only from the policies employed by public institutions but also from the mindset and actions of the Caucasian majority. Citizens of the United States, the claim goes, must address the legacy of slavery and its effect upon the Black community. 

One example from a Christian perspective is an article written by Michael Rhodes titled “Should We Repent of Our Grandparents’ Racism? Scripture on Intergenerational Sin.” Mr. Rhodes prescribes a what he calls a “bitter pill” and asserts that we Christians in the U.S. must repent of our “inter-generational sin” which have created an oppressive ideology. This “racist ideology … has seeped into our individual psyches, as well as our culture, systems, and institutions. It’s an ideology responsible for much of the very real harm we’re witnessing on our television screens, in our social media feeds, and on our streets. It’s an ideology commonly referred to as white supremacy.” But before we sell the farm to buy Mr. Rhodes prescription, perhaps we should ask two questions: 1) Has the good doctor accurately diagnosed the malady plaguing  our country;  and 2) Is his prescription the right one?

Mr. Rhodes’ arguments intrigues me, because they touch on the intersection of theology, economics and public policy. Since my graduate school days, I have attempt to synthesize these topics in my teaching and research as well as, more recently, in my preaching. Mr. Rhodes hermeneutics are of questionable merit, which is bad news. The good news is his hermeneutics are at least better than his economics. Further, Mr. Rhodes appears willing to paint with a broad brush and label all manner of incidents as evidence of racism. 

Let us evaluate Mr. Rhodes’ assertion that racism in general and the residual effects of slavery in particular are responsible for the killing of George Floyd and for the many economic and sociological problems facing the black community. What evidence does he cite? Go ahead, check; I’ll wait. If you came back scratching your head, it is because he offers none. He takes it as a truism. 

I had wondered what evidence indicated the George Floyd killing was racially motivated. Others wondered the same. Jason Riley, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, wrote, “So far, we haven’t seen a shred of evidence that George Floyd’s death in police custody last month was racially motivated.”[1] Racism may explain the episode, but Mr. Chauvin may simply be a sadistic bully who routinely exploited his position as a means to inflict harm on others. Until Mr. Rhodes can delve in to Chauvin’s mind and assess his motives, we might avoid policy changes aimed at ameliorating racism when other policies are more needed and promise greater effect. 

Mr. Rhodes does cite psychological experiments and research which, he claims, demonstrate the prevalence of racist attitudes among Americans. In asserting this, Mr. Rhodes assumes all stereotypes are racist. Stereotypes may reveal bigoted attitudes but such is not a given. Let us take an example that I hope is less emotionally charged. A number of my students at Liberty University were Christian Palestinians from Bethlehem. One guy complained that his Minnesotan girlfriend whisked right through Israeli airport security while he had been detained for two hours. I pointed out that lily white co-eds from the upper Midwest were perceived as less of a threat than Palestinians precisely because the former had no reputation for strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing up Israelis. Humans with limited time and limited cognitive resources naturally use stereotypes to improve their efficiency. Readers, if honest, can no doubt think of instances in which they do so themselves. 

Stereotypes may be accurate or inaccurate. Jesse Jackson’s infamous statement, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see someone white and feel relieved,”[2] is an example of a stereotype. It is surely not racist. Nor should we consider Apostle Paul racist when he says, “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”[3] Jackson’s attitudes were based upon the fact that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes in inner cities. Paul’s statement was based on the fact that Cretans were… well, Cretans. 

So before Mr. Rhodes can assume the stereotypes of Americans are racist he would need more information. How accurate are those stereotypes? What reason are they held? And most importantly, is a person willing to relinquish those stereotypes on a case-by-case basis?

But even if Mr. Floyd’s killing was not racially motivated, it could be true that systemic racism and the legacy of slavery impose significant suffering upon blacks. Indeed, Mr. Rhodes asserts that these are responsible for oppressing blacks today. Is this assertion supported by the evidence? No. 

Two conservative economists, Walter “EEEEEE.” Williams and Thomas Sowell, who also happen to be black and grew up during the Jim Crow era, repeatedly point out that by nearly every measure blacks were better off in the decade before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than they are today. Take out-of-wedlock births for example. Williams claims that only 14% of births by black women were out of wedlock in 1940’s.[4] By 1965, Daniel P. Moynihan reported the rate at 25%.[5] Today, it is estimated at 75%.  One can also look at marriage. In 1960, 51% of black women of childbearing age were living with their husbands, while 28% had never married. In 1994, the percentages were nearly reversed: only 25% were living with their husband and 56 had never married. [6]

Now Mr. Rhodes claims the stubborn gap between black and white earnings and wealth are attributable to the economic exploitation associated with slavery. However, the disintegration of family structure and all the accompanying social pathologies are a more contemporaneous explanation. The relationship between family and economic stability has been consistently demonstrated. [7]  Furthermore, the significant economic gains made by black families when states legislated discrimination, indicate that neither slavery nor discrimination are to blame. 

None of this is a claim that there are no bigoted people or that discrimination does not impose unfair and very grating costs upon blacks. Rather it is to point out that the primary problem facing the black community is identical to that facing the upper class liberals – and a few conservatives – in Boulder, Colorado where I attended graduate school. Namely, the problem is a spiritual one. Most reject the truth that mankind is sinful and needs the Lord Jesus. Once folks come to grips with that reality, a whole host of self-destructive pathologies begin falling away.

There are, of course, policies which could be implemented which would help the black community even if large numbers did not turn to Christ. Unfortunately, none of these bear any resemblance to Mr. Rhodes’ “costly social and economic action” which is apparently warmed over Neo-Marxism. The Federal government has spent more than $20 trillion – yes, that’s the “t” word! – on Great Society programs over the past 50 years. [8] That qualifies as costly. And still economic disparities between blacks and whites persist. So what works?  

Mr. Rhodes cites several dubious economic statistics, chief among these is this one from William Darity and Kirsten Mullen: Inheritances account for “between 26% and 50%” of American adults’ wealth.[9] Given data limitations on Americans’ asset holdings, this statement simply cannot be verified. However, what we do observe is the greatest wealth producing asset parents leave children. This asset is what economists call human capital, that combination of character, skills and education which enable a person to be a productive member of society. 

Practical steps could be implemented to enhance parents’ efforts to improve their children’s socioeconomic prospects. School choice is one. Charter schools have proven a boon for poor, inner-city kids and are widely supported by parents in those poor neighborhoods. Also, eliminating the Obama Administration’s policies which prevent public schools from expelling troublesome students would benefit poor kids. This strikes some as harsh, but “students” who refuse to learn and who disrupt classrooms make learning herculean. This robs inner-city kids of their best opportunity to move up the economic ladder. 

Another benefit we can bestow upon minorities is by enforcing laws in poor neighbor­hoods. Mr. Rhodes laments the lack of wealth accumulation among blacks but fails to understand that wealth is accumulated over time in stable environments. When rioters burn down entire business districts in Ferguson, Missouri or Minneapolis while police stand idly by, the investment of decades – what Mr. Rhodes might call wealth – literally goes up in smoke. Whom does Mr. Rhodes supposes is harmed most by this lawlessness? 

Yes, there are problems stemming from prejudice in our country. However, the evidence indicates it is not the most serious problem. Yes, Derek Chauvin acted criminally in killing George Floyd, and should be punished. But data on police use of force indicate this incident was an aberration, and it pales in comparison to the black-on-black crime now rampant in Chicago. If we want to help the black community advance economically and more importantly spiritually, we must honestly and accurately identify the problems which they can address. Engaging in cost-free repentance, as Mr. Rhodes does, appeals to our egos and makes a person appear compassionate but accomplishes nothing for the black community.

[1] WSJ, June 23, 2020 https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-police-racism-isnt-an-epidemic-11592952420

[2] Mike Royko, Jesse Jackson’s Message is Too Advanced for Most, The Baltimore Sun, December 3, 1993. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1993-12-03-1993337169-story.html

[3] Titus 1:12 – 13 (NASV)

[4] Walter E. Williams, The True Black Tragedy, May 29, 2016. https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/05/29/the-true-black-tragedy-illegitimacy-rate-of-nearly-75/

[5] Daniel P. Moynihan, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/webid-moynihan/moynchapter2

[6] Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, 1997. p 34. 

[7] The Census Bureau’s vaunted HINC-01 analysis which segments households by income is revealing in this matter. The latest data I have on my computer is for 2013, and in that year female headed households accounted for 57% of those households in the lowest quintile for earnings. If you want practice in using Excel you can update my results using this data: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/hinc-01/2019/hinc01_1.xls.

[8] Edwin J. Fuelner, Assessing the Great Society, The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/commentary/assessing-the-great-society

[9] William Darity and Kirsten Mullen, Here to Equality, p 36, quoted in Rhodes.

Uncategorized

Blood on her Hands: A response to Carolyn Yoder

Little guy praying for pro-life politicians!
Blood on her hands…

Carolyn Yoder, a self-proclaimed “international trauma and resilience trainer” and “Christian from the Anabaptist stream” has written a blog post titled “Blood on Our Hands: 7 Reasons Why I’m a Christian against Abortion Who Doesn’t Vote Pro-life”. Miss Yoder, I thought, was laying the groundwork for her argument with this introductory statement: 

“Because the Anabaptist ideal, as I understand it, is that as followers of Jesus, we are to be as pro-life as possible in our complex world. …

“This means no killing. By abortion. Or the death penalty. Or of enemies, even in war.“

I was wrong. Her seven “head-and-heart reasons” for not voting for candidates who oppose abortion demonstrates little concern for Anabaptist tradition but a solid commitment to intrusive government. Consequently a reasonable response to Yoder’s claims is more challenging than anticipated, not because of her stellar logic but precisely because her arguments are rambling, incoherent. 

Miss Yoder’s reason for voting for pro-abortion candidates boils down to this: she has never seen a problem which government, through the generous application of other people’s money, cannot solve.  Funny thing though, each problem she identifies as requiring more tax-payer funding has been made worse by government interference. 

Still, I will reply to each of her seven “head-and-heart” claims in turn.

  1. My convictions are shaped by my work as a counselor with left-behind children in public schools, some of whom wished they had never been born. I’m glad people care passionately about unborn children, but I find my heart breaking when that passion seems to dissipate once a baby is born and disappears altogether at our borders.

However Miss Yoder defines  life, it is strikingly different from the Biblical view. Life involves hope and thankfulness. Is Yoder really conceding that these “left-behind” children reason aright? Does she think they have been better off had their mothers aborted them?

Apostle Paul told the Athenians the Lord “gives to all people life and breath and all things…” Children who wish they had never been born hunger for this news as evidenced by the fact that they had, prior to meeting Miss Yoder, rejected suicide. Redirecting their vision entails redirecting their thoughts to the many blessings they enjoy from a faithful Creator’s hand, beginning with life itself.

As to heartbreak, Yoder’s if sincere, arises from propaganda. The Left castigates Christian conservatives for their lack of compassion because many conservatives believe charitable work is best left to private individuals. This belief does not mean conservatives lack compassion for children either here or abroad. Indeed, the success of organizations such as Compassion International argue to the contrary.

  1. I’ve done community trauma work on five continents and have witnessed the devastation and suffering of real people impacted by violence, migration, war, injustice, and dignity violations. The way our elected officials vote on war, immigration, and foreign aid have life and death consequences. I want the babies and children in those far-off places, created in the image of God just like my own, to live and thrive, too.

Miss Yoder conflates several very different issues in an attempt to justify her stance on abortion. War, immigration and foreign aid may have life and death consequences in the abstract. Supporting a politicians who rejoice, as New York State Legislature did, when they pass legislation that legalizes abortion at any time up to the point of birth has a much more concrete effect.

  1. Pro-life legislators are more likely than their pro-choice counterparts to vote against the very programs that research shows decrease abortion rates: access to affordable contraceptives, age-appropriate sex education, paid maternity leave, and access to affordable child care.

The red herring is perhaps Miss Yoder’s favorite rhetorical device. Question: should politicians support legalized abortion? Miss Yoder: We need to discuss expanding government programs.

Miss Yoder either knows she is wrong and is therefore lying or is a willing dupe. Sex education does not stem teen pregnancies. Out of wedlock births for teens have skyrocketed from 15% of births in the mid-60’s to 80% today. This as progressive educators introduced increasingly explicit sex education into classrooms. Miss Yoder’s claim that sex education reduces abortion is pulled out of thin air by abortion proponents. If it were true, would not instances of sexually transmitted diseases also be lowered through such education? Unfortunately, these are on the rise as the Center For Disease Control confirms (https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/factsheets/std-trends-508.pdf). If you need more evidence of sex education’s lack of efficacy, you can read this summary of research on the topic presented on Psychology Today’s website.

  1. Pro-life politicians are more likely to support the death penalty and increased defense spending, which includes bombs and drones that kill other people’s babies and children.

Miss Yoder resorts to arguments based upon moral equivalents with these assertions. The legalism of the Anabaptists prevents Yoder from perceiving simple distinctions. There is a moral difference between intentionally killing the innocent and executing the guilty. There is also a moral distinction between the unintended deaths of noncombatants and ripping babies from the wombs of their mothers. If your moral compass is incapable of differentiating these facts, you need a different compass! 

Miss Yoder’s argument not only trivializes the brutality of abortion but also abortion’s magnitude. The Council on Foreign Relations reports President Obama authorized “542 drone strikes that… killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians.” This might give Miss Yoder pause over what her vote for pro-abortion candidates is buying, but even if none of these killings were justified, they pale in comparison to the 623 thousand abortions reported to the CDC in 2016. 

  1. Even if I don’t condone abortion, I know it’s going to happen. I don’t condone war either, but I know it’s going to happen. I don’t support defunding and closing veterans’ hospitals as an attempt to stop war. Rather, I put my effort into supporting policies that reduce the likelihood of war. Likewise, I believe the most effective anti-abortion work I can do is supporting policies that prevent abortion and decrease abortion rates rather than working to defund or close clinics or criminalize abortion. I value the lives of women having abortions and want them to be safe, just as I value the lives of our veterans who need care even while disagreeing with their choice to go to war.

This is sophistry and hardly merits a response. What other behaviors should we adopt Miss Yoder’s attitude toward? Bullying? Racial discrimination? Sex trafficking? Rape? 

  1. Being as pro-life as possible means we don’t kill through supporting policies that deprive those unaborted babies, once they get older, of healthcare or school lunches. We don’t kill by allowing assault weapons on our streets or supporting systems that pipeline young people to prison. We don’t kill this beautiful planet Creator God has given us through policies that increase our carbon footprint.

With this assortment of arguments, Miss Yoder, as mentioned earlier, reveals herself as more pro-leftist than pro-life. There are reasonable responses to each of these arguments, but I somehow doubt Miss Yoder is interested in them. She is focused on defending the indefensible as her comments in point 7 make clear.

  1. If we’re one-issue pro-life voters, foxy politicians — as Jesus called Herod — play us. All they need to do is say they are pro-life, and voilà, they have a whole flock of Christian voters in their pocket, regardless of their character and even if they support policies that increase abortion rates and kill in other ways.

If anyone is being “played” it is Miss Yoder. She ignores the fact that politicians’ morals affect their behaviors. The person who has no qualms about killing a baby as it comes down the birth canal á la Hillary Clinton or who advocates infanticide as did Barak Obama when an Illinois State Legislator can contrive a justification for any action no matter how heinous. Evidence of this is piling up as I write, for the Democrats in the US Senate are working to kill legislation that would ensure babies who survive abortions receive the same care as other babies.

I would have to agree with Miss Yoder on one point: she does have blood on her hands.

Social Issues

Toxic Masculinity?

As you may have heard, Gillette ran a commercial recently. You may have heard about it.

Eliciting a Response

Here are a couple points on why the commercial is not only controversial but wrong-headed.


Point 1: Gillette gets it exactly wrong.

It is not that men are too masculine; it is they are not masculine enough. In the commercial all the BBQ’ing men stand passively by saying, “Boys will be boys,” until finally some fat slob runs up to a pair of fighting boys and tells them, “That’s not how we treat each other, okay?” Really? Sorry, man child, but masculine men teach their sons to defend themselves and those around them. Such teaching avoids a lot of conflict.

Question that last statement? There was an underclassman who hounded one of my sons. He was a likable kid who I coached in cross country and track, but he did not know when to quit. One day before practice, I told him, “Hey Scott, just so you know, if Michael gets suspended, I don’t care.” The conflict ceased.

Gillette shows men groping at and cat-calling to women. This, the commercial claims, stems from toxic masculinity. But that is not a sign of masculinity, masculine men can appreciate a woman’s beauty and yet understand the differences between men and women impose limits upon their behavior.

The women in the audience may not believe this, feminist men do not hold you in high regard. I have hung out with so-called feminist men. It takes a while for them to let down their guard, but when they do, those views paint a stark contrast with their stated views. Generally speaking, they view you as pieces of meat, ladies. They do so because they have abandoned their masculine role as protectors of the weaker sex – yes, I really did just say that – and adopted the role of predator toward those who are supposed to be their equals.

I witnessed an example of this women-as-equals mentality while running near Boulder High School. That is Boulder as in Colorado, the vortex of liberal feminism where the only differences between men and women are in the plumbing. But this example relates to my second point, so let’s discuss it there.

Point 2: Feminists Want It Both Ways

I witnessed the second half of a conflict between a Boulder High co-ed and a boy. Evidently the girl offended boy before I ran by. The boy ran up to the group huddled around the offender sprang above her and hit her in the face as he came down. I was flabbergasted. During the late Neanderthal Period, when I attended high school, boys understood this rule “you do not hit girls.” But if there are no differences between boys and girls, the logic behind rules protecting girls is erodes away. Feminists cry foul, but men are doing what fulfilling feminists’ desire: they are treating women as equals to the detriment of women.

The nearby screenshot was taken from Gillette’s commercial. Why did the producers have this actress don this “outfit” to use my dear, departed mother’s term? Rhetorical question, I know. The garb is meant to provoke. Women understand their dress affects men and exploit that knowledge to their perceived benefit.

Indeed, feminists have preached a half-truth for decades. Namely, that women should be able to dress however they want without fear of consequence. From a theoretical standpoint this is true. From a practical standpoint, it falls under a technical philosophical term: goofiness.

Men should treat women respectfully regardless of how they dress – read that last sentence again before building your straw man, please. That said, women hardly have room to complain when provocative dress provokes a response. Women, if you want to be treated more respectfully, help yourself out in your wardrobe choices. Masculine men will treat you with deference regardless of your dress, but you will earn more respect with a bit of modesty.

Conclusion: We Need More Masculinity Not Less

If there is a media source that is more emasculated than NPR, it could only be NPR’s Canadian twin. The metro-sexual pictured nearby appeared on a discussion of the Gillette commercial on Canadian Public Broadcasting. Tell me, ladies, is this the guy you run to if circumstances became – how shall I phrase this? – “interesting” ? Hardly. You would look for the manliest man around.

The Hipster Pontificates on Masculinity

The Gillette commercial perpetuates a half-truth. (Half-truths are, by design, more difficult to set aright.) Men do need to step up. However, “stepping up” does not mean becoming more like women but less so. We need more masculinity.

The premiere example of masculinity can be found in these three accounts from the life of Jesus. These are taken from Luke 7 and John 2. You will see Jesus interacting with a prostitute with no hint of impropriety, He helps out at a wedding by creating wine. Lastly, He drives man and beast from the temple square with a homemade whip and the forcefulness of His countenance. This is not some milk toast, eunuch but One who embodies both compassion for those in need and wrath against those promoting injustice.

Want to help women, encourage men to follow Jesus.

Self-Defense for Women Mostly

Ladies, What Would You Do If … ?

“Come here often?” 
“Nope, just thought about it!”

I have a friend whom I affectionately call Big Bob. Big Bob routinely endured extra screening at custom’s desks. He was an intimidating and suspicious looking individual back in the day. So much so in fact, his wife –  a beautiful, 100-pound-soaking-wet blonde – was subjected to a strip search in Heathrow Airport. Why? Because she was traveling with Big Bob of course.  

Well, Big Bob “escorted” a female professional from her office hallway all the way to her car one dark night in Denver. The problem, at least from the lady’s perspective, was she had no earthly idea who Big Bob was, and neither knew they were parked in adjacent parking spaces in a multi-level parking garage.  Bob said the lady was preparing for the inevitable attack from this huge stranger as he unlocked his door and drove off. 

Although I could have assured this lady she was safe with Big Bob – indeed, safer with his “escort service” than without – she evidently had misgivings at the moment. This then begs they question why did she get on the elevator with him in the first place? A little speculation informed by experience provides a likely answer: she never considered what she should do in such a situation. How could she have prepared for this situation?

“How do you get to Carnegie Hall?”
        “Practice, man, practice…”

Most skills are acquired through practice. The skills that could have assisted our unnamed female professional are no different. But since there is not really a practice field for these experiences – unless you take time to study martial arts – how does one practice? The easiest way is to run through a series of mental what-if exercises. 

“What if I am walking down the office hallway and discover Big Bob wants on the same elevator?” Easy. Employ the ol’ Dang-I-Forgot-Something routine. You snap your fingers, mutter, “Dang”, spin on your (high) heel and return to the relative safety of your office. 

“What if I am on the elevator when Big Bob enters?” Well, that depends? Did you enter on the same floor as Bob? Refer to Dang-I-Forgot-Something. Did Big Bob press the elevator call button from a separate floor? Then you employ the Hey-This-Is-My-Floor trick. Look up at the floor number, say “Wow, that was quick,” and exit.

You get the idea. You can develop similar OIT’s* for maneuvering through dark parking lots, driving alone through sketchy areas, getting in a fender bender or answering the door when home alone. Now neither elevator OIT guarantees your safety. A nefarious Big Bob imitator – not the real, teddy bear original – could try to stop your retreat from the elevator. However, that is a better situation for two reasons.

“[T]he clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy…”
             Sun Tzu

First, you have forced your attacker to fight on ground favoring you. He wants seclusion, you need attention. Your screams – again, practice screaming… LOUDLY – your screams will summon more help in a hallway than on an elevator. Second, you have purchased room to implement other self-defense mechanisms. A bigger, stronger opponent has an overwhelming advantage in an elevator-sized arena. Even a few feet of separation provides opportunity to deploy a weapon (read: handgun) and inflict wounds before your assailant closes the gap.

So when you have some otherwise idle time, commuting to work or in a meeting, use it to good ends. Say to yourself, how might someone seek to harm me or my loved ones in such-and-such a situation? How can I avoid that situation? If I cannot avoid it, how should I respond.

Going through these mental “what-if” scenarios will not only instill confidence but will also make action more likely and timely when Big Bob appears in the hallway.

_____________________

*Old Indian Trick

Uncategorized

The Magnificent Seven Ain’t Arriving In Time

I watched the remake of The Magnificent Seven the other night. Good entertainment but lousy history. The townsfolk are portrayed to a man – well except for one woman – as bumbling, defenseless victims who can neither shoot nor gather the courage to fight.

It does not surprise me that Hollywood portrays people of frontier towns in this fashion, for they paint a self-portrait. Writers and directors cannot conceive of common folk who would actually rise to their own defense and have the skills necessary for the endeavor.

The truth is that even towns far from the frontier inhabited by dangerous men as the James-Younger Gang learned when they attempted to rob the bank in Northfield, Minnesota. The citizens quickly armed themselves and shot the fleeing – and shooting – criminals to “rag dolls” as Louis L’Amour would say. Several outlaws were wounded. Two were killed outright and photographed in the flattering poses nearby as a warning to others.

Northfield was not alone. Ranchers near modern day New Plymouth, Idaho are reputed to have held an impromptu recall of Boise’s sheriff when they discovered him rustling their cattle. There was an electoral vacancy in Boise at the end of the proceedings.

These episodes demonstrate the regrettable but, in some ways, understandable change in attitudes that has occurred in our society. People have embraced the idea that law enforcement will protect them and, too often, that they are incapable of protecting themselves. Simple common sense and recent events display the folly of these attitudes.

From a logical standpoint, when would you attack your victims if you were a criminal, when the police were close at hand or absent? From the experiential perspective, is it reasonable to entrust your life to other humans who share your flaws – fear, battles against cowardice – and who have the added burden of bureaucratic regulations restraining their actions? Probably not.

You and your loved ones will be safer if you accept the fact that your safety and theirs is first and foremost your responsibility.

Uncategorized

The Nunes’ Memo: A Summary

So the “disputed Nunes memo” has been released and is available here for download. I would recommend that everyone read it. It is only 6-pages long including the cover letter from White House Counsel Donald McGahn.

Source:https://usawatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1wsa.jpg

Two features quickly jump out of this memo. The first is how restrained and matter of fact it is. This is particularly unexpected in light of the inflammatory preview offered us by those opposing the memo’s release. The second feature is how extraordinarily damning it is to those who portray themselves as above reproach.

Here are some relevant points:

  1. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hilary Clinton Campaign paid Christopher Steele to compile the “Trump Dossier.”
  2. Senior Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI officials knew this to be true.
  3. The FBI obtained one 90-day FISA warrant which allowed them to spy on U.S. citizen and Trump campaign volunteer, Carter Page.
    1. The FBI subsequently applied for and was granted three (3) 90-day extensions to their original warrant.
    2. Each renewal required a “separate finding of probable cause.” but failed to divulge this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) when applying for the warrant.
  4. The DOJ and FBI failed to disclose the political roots of the dossier to FISC in any of the applications for a FISA warrant.
    1. The initial application does mention that Steele worked for an unnamed U.S. citizen but does not reveal that this person had ties to the DNC.
  5. Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr knew that Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” However, this prejudice against then candidate Trump was not disclosed in the FISA application.
  6. Deputy FBI Director McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee and said that the FISA warrant would not have been sought had it not been for the information in the Steele dossier.

Perhaps you do not particularly care for President Trump. Your response then may be, “So what?”  Well, if the DOJ and FBI can abuse their power and intentionally circumvent the law with impunity in this case, then they can do the same for any candidate! Whether one approves of President Trump or not is beside the point. Rather the point is this: Do not grant power to an official with whom you agree that would be dangerous in the hands of one with whom you don’t.

This conclusion of this memo are all the more troubling since this – pardon the pun – trumped up FISA warrant is the basis through which U.S. citizen’s careers and financial fortunes have been destroyed. Most notable among these is Michael Flynn who President Trump rightly, I think, called “a good guy.”

The implications of this memo are at least as startling and foreboding as Watergate. The citizens of the United States should demand that those who abuse their power be held accountable, or we lose any hope of securing our democracy. Read the memo yourself and see if it doesn’t make you want to call your elected representatives.

Uncategorized

Christians, Moral Relativism and the 2016 Presidential Election

The presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has thrown Christians into turmoil. The character flaws of both candidates have focused the debate on the choice of the lesser evil.  This line of reasoning makes many believers uncomfortable, and they cite a recent article on the Gospel Coalition web site in which the author, Dan Doriani, equates choosing the lesser of two evils to Utilitarian ethics (what he calls Consequentialism).  Utilitarian ethics says that the good choice – it is not really a moral choice – is the one that brings the greatest happiness to the most people. Doriani contends:

But in biblical ethics, taking Scripture as a whole, obedience to God’s moral law, and the pursuit of godly character are far more prominent than calculation of consequences.

When it comes to voting, there are two major problems with Consequentialism. First, no human can predict or fully assess the consequence of any action. Full assessment requires omniscience, which is an attribute of God, not man. Second, consequentialism tends to decay into lawlessness when people do whatever it takes to achieve their desired result. (Opt Cited)

Doriani goes on to say that “character matters. Candidates need qualities like wisdom, justice, love, mercy, even humility.” Mr. Doriani
equivocates a good deal but concludes

… “Who will do the most good for the country?” is valid, but it’s not the only question. One believer may believe it is right to vote for the lesser of two evils. Another may conclude, “I cannot vote for a candidate I consider evil.”

Thoughtful Christians will come to different conclusions on this, but it is clear in Scripture that God’s people often do what is right and leave the results to the Lord of history. (Ibid)

Mr. Doriani may be a nice guy and his writing reflects an attempt at reasonableness. Those points notwithstanding, his thinking is flawed, and his conclusions trivial.

In Jeremiah 29: 7, the Lord instructs the exile in Babylon, “But
seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare
you will find your welfare.” The Lord’s commandment stands in contrast to the false prophets of the day who claimed that they had a vision from God to the contrary. No doubt these prophets claimed the moral high in making their arguments: “How can you support an evil society ruled by a wicked tyrant?” Was the Lord advocating the moral relativism of the Utilitarian philosophy? Hardly; rather He was telling his people to pursue morally right decisions in a fallen world. Do you suppose the exiles of Judah sometimes struggled in determining what that was? Of course; Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were faithful servants of Nebuchadnezzar but opposed his edicts and those of his successors when those edicts ran afoul with God’s law.

Mr. Doriani’s claim we cannot “predict or fully assess the consequence of any action” is simultaneously self-evident and clichŽed. This was true when the Israelites were commanded to pursue the welfare of Babylon but did not prevent the Lord from commanding them to do so.

Voting for King David isn’t an option… move on

The assertion that voting for one of the major candidates may “decay into lawlessness when people do whatever it takes to achieve their desired result” is a straw man argument. Few people whom I have heard and no thinking Christians argue that the ends justify the means. Rather, Christians are trying to determine what the right thing to do is given the circumstances that confront us today. It does no good to say that “Candidates need qualities like wisdom, justice, love, mercy, even humility” (Ibid); we have no such candidates before us – neither candidates from the major parties nor third-party candidates. I wish voting for King David were an option; it isn’t. Get over it, move on.

The question that Christians should move on to is what is the right thing to do. This is not “Consequentialism”, to use Doriani’s favored term, but the realism of moral decisions in a fallen world. To illustrate, an ectopic pregnancy necessarily requires taking the life of baby to spare the life of the mother. Is this “consequentialism”? Of course not! The most godly doctor will perform this procedure because he understands it is the moral thing to do. If he were able to spare the life of the child, he would, and perhaps some day the Lord will bless him with the technological means to do so. But until then, everyone – including the tiny guy in the fallopian if he were more mature – understands that this terrible action is right.

So how then should believers approach this election? By pursuing the welfare of the country. I would argue that this means focusing on policies, platforms and, yes, likely consequences. This does not mean that we jettison character assessment but that we acknowledge that character must be assigned less weight this election cycle and look for how character foretells policy.

I will tell you why I am voting for Donald Trump and let you make your own assessments:

1) Law and Order – The Republican Party acknowledges that laws matter and have generally, even when they disagreed with the law or court rulings, obeyed those laws. Democrats, in general, and Hillary Clinton, in particular, have shown a disregard for the law and have expressed a desire to upend the law as embodied in the Constitution through lawless judicial fiat.

2) Life – Hillary Clinton’s policy positions, her support for Black Lives Matter and her recent decisions with respect to Benghazi reflect a reckless disregard for human life.

3) Females and the So-Called “Homosexual Community” – Democrats embrace all manner of sexual perversions and promote those as rights. The Republican platform will result in fewer sexual assaults because bathrooms will not become “gender neutral.” Furthermore, Republicans are less likely to misappropriate the word “compassion” and abandon homosexuals to the hopelessness of their sin.

4) The Black Community – This is related to Number 1 above. The Republican party and Donald Trump will support law enforcement in the inner cities. This will enable law-abiding blacks to live in much safer conditions. Further, Donald Trump supports school vouchers which enable children to escape failing schools and attend schools of their parents’ choice. To paraphrase a Peruvian friend, “If you teach someone to read a contract, you have greatly increased their prospects of success in life.”

5) The military – See point 2 above.

6) Religious Freedom – Hillary Clinton and the Democrats will continue their assault on Christians. It may seem self-serving to want something else, but that desire is also supported by Scripture (I Timothy 2: 1 – 2).

7) The Economy – I am an economist, I cannot leave this out. The Republicans’ policies are not perfect, but their policies will be much better for the economy as a whole, including lower-income households, than the Democrats’.

I trust I have not been too hard on Mr. Doriani. He makes several points with which I am in strong agreement: 1) Regardless of the outcome of this election, the Lord is in control; and 2) Regardless of its outcome and of how other believers vote, Christians should obey Jesus’ command to love one another.

Phillip O’Reilly

Uncategorized

A Conservative Response to Matt Walsh’s Indictment of “Enhanced Interrogation”

A Conservative Response to Matt Walsh’s Indictment Against “Enhanced Interrogation”

This is a topic that is a bit off topic for a tactical self-defense blog, but is, nonetheless, an important. Over the holiday break, my oldest daughter and son shared a podcast by Matt Walsh titled “The Conservative Case Against Torture.” Mr. Walsh attempts just what his title suggests, but his reasoning is flawed, fatally so. I address these issues below. In the interest of time – mine AND yours – I give some of Mr. Walsh’s errors short shrift but will devote more time to several critical errors.

As the KOA radio talk show host, Mike Rosen, frequently says, “Before someone tells me where he stands, it’s usually instructive to know where he sits.” Such is the case in this situation. I am a political conservative, but before that, I am a Christian. I attach no adjectives to “Christian” because all are insipid. I can only say that I take the Bible seriously, attempt to condemn what it condemns and likewise attempt to commend what it commends. Although I do not know Mr. Walsh, he claims to come from the same camp and gives me no reason to doubt his commitment to following Jesus.

Points of Agreement

I agree with Mr. Walsh on two points. First, it is incorrect to support the “enhanced interrogation techniques” under the premise that the ends, protecting innocent civilians from terrorists, justify the means. If the means are immoral, that is not changed by the righteous nature of the ends. Second, we should view human life as sacred because the Creator of life commands us to do so.

A Critical Distinction

We should first establish why these individuals were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” because Mr. Walsh rightly claims that we would be outraged if an enemy treated U.S. Marines in a similar manner. Mr. Walsh’s asserts U.S. outrage would stem not from the fact that the U.S. Marines were Marines from the fact they were humans. Consistency, Mr. Walsh further asserts, requires that we be outraged that alleged terrorists were treated in this manner, since they are not less human than the Marines.

However, Walsh ignores a fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian tradition: justice requires treating people differently based upon different behavior. If you want to wage war against the U.S. and avoid waterboarding, there is a very simple way to do so. You can either join the military of a country so engaged or join a militia or volunteer force that meets these requirements: “(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates ; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Then when captured, you must, in accordance with Geneva Convention requirements, be afforded the privileges of a prisoner of war. If however you do not fight under a sovereign flag, purposefully blend in with the general populace, and specifically target civilians, you have no grounds for complaint when you are captured and then ill treated. The point that Mr. Walsh misses is that U.S. Marines generally abide by these rules; terrorists do not. Further, these rules were not made up after the terrorist combatants were captured but were commonly known before hostilities began.

There is a second reason why these combatants were subject to enhanced interrogations: To use the itinerate travelling evangelists’ term, they refused to repent. Not only did they engage in activities that made them an unlawful combatant against the U.S. and other countries, but they also continued their hostilities after captivity by withholding information regarding others who were so engaged. One might object that lawful combatants also withhold such information. That is true, but they are withholding information about soldiers who are “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” We must not miss that distinction.

The Question of Torture

Mr. Walsh asks why we, the United States, chose the term “enhanced interrogation.” The answer, he asserts, is because we did not want to call it what it was, torture. That is a possible explanation, the other explanation is that we wanted a general term to use for a group of techniques that legal combatants were not subjected to and which were not torture. So were these techniques torture?

Mr. Walsh argues that waterboarding, sleep depravation, and forced rectal hydration and feeding “unquestionably” qualify as torture. To claim otherwise, is to set an arbitrary standard that cannot be defended. Mr. Walsh cites the UN Convention Against Torture which states in part that “the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….”

So, is Mr. Walsh correct? No. His assertions are fraught with errors, some logical, some factual. First the logical, any demarcation between “enhanced interrogation” and torture is arbitrary. The Lord chose not to hand down the 10 commandments of terrorist interrogation, so we are left with trying to determine what is appropriate and what is not.

Next the factual. To claim, as Walsh does, that forced rectal feeding was used only to demean and exert control over detainees is not supported by a very biased Senate report. Rather, the report acknowledges that forced renal feeding was used to thwart one detainee’s hunger strike. The report’s language also implies that renal hydration was, at least in part, a response to detainees’ refusal to drink fluids. Put plainly, the CIA interrogators used these techniques to communicate to illegal combatants, “You are not in charge. You will not dictate the terms of our interaction.” This practice may violate Mr. Walsh’s sensibilities as he sits in an armchair by a warm fire, free from terrorist threats, but calling it torture is, at best, disingenuous. To equate this practice to sodomizing someone with a broom handle, as Mr. Walsh does, is an egregiously inaccurate indictment upon men who were working to protect U.S. citizens.

So what of waterboarding, is it torture? Mr. Walsh claims that waterboarding is not simulated drowning but drowning, and points out that if you waterboard someone long enough they will die. I have heard firsthand accounts of waterboarding from a friend who is a retired Navy SEAL. He, along with other Vietnam era soldiers, was waterboarded as part of his counter interrogation training. During the waterboarding, his “interrogators” repeatedly ordered him to “hold still squid”, because he did not panic, applied his diving training and breathed through the corner of his mouth. Does this sound like actual drowning? Furthermore, as Michael B. Mukasey points out in the Wall Street Journal, the number of detainees who were waterboarded is fewer than the number of reporters who have paid someone to waterboard them! Yes, if you waterboard a man long enough, he will die. What does that prove? If you hold someone in a “choke hold” too long, they will die; however, choking someone down is a restraint that does no lasting harm. Are chokeholds now torture?

Members of the Bush Administration struggled with what techniques should be permitted and which should not. Both the Senate report and Mr. Walsh ignore the debate and downplay the Congressional briefings to the so-called gang of eight. You can get a flavor for this debate in an article at NPR. My point in raising this is that Bush Administration officials were concerned that they implement effective techniques that were lawful and defensible. Mr. Walsh dismisses these debates among policy makers and serious legal scholars; he is the one committed to the sanctity of life. These Philistines are harming the conservative movement. Mr. Walsh’s attitude smacks of hubris.

Finally, Mr. Walsh and many in our country view these detainees as passive agents in this period. Nothing is farther from the truth. They were actively engaged in unlawful hostilities against civilians. How so? By their willful, intentional refusal to cooperate with interrogators who were attempting to stop further attacks on civilians. Had they cooperated from the start, they would not have been subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and once they started cooperating, the harsh interrogations apparently stopped. Ends do not justify means, but circumstances often determine what is permissible. When dealing with evil men bent on carrying out murderous endeavors through their silence, a different set of rules apply.

Mr. Walsh is not the only one whose sensibilities are violated. There are events that violate our civilized, sanitized, pasteurized U.S. sensibilities. However, just because events make us squirm does not mean they are immoral. In chapter 10 of the Old Testament book of Joshua, Joshua brings out 5 defeated kings and has the elders of Israel put their feet on their necks. He then says, “Do not fear or be dismayed! Be strong and courageous, for thus the Lord will do to all your enemies with whom you fight.” (Verse 25) The Scriptures are mute on the Lord’s moral verdict on Joshua’s little ceremony, but the remainder of the book indicates that the Lord did indeed defeat Israel’s foes. A similar queasiness arises when we learn of the Lord’s prescribed method of execution: stoning. Stoning strikes many, myself included, as cruel and unusual, but we must bow to God’s moral authority and acknowledge that He is just in all things.

Just because a prisoner is treated harshly or in a “degrading” manner does not necessarily imply that his captors or interrogators acted unethically. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Not all desperate measures are justified, but we should exercise caution in pronouncing judgment on the decisions and actions of others when we stand comfortably removed from the context within which they were forced to make their decisions.

Quick Points

No Ticking Time Bomb: Mr. Walsh asserts that we know there was no imminent threat posed by terrorists which would have mandated such techniques. The point is not what we know now but what we knew then! At 8:00 am on September 11th, 2001, we “knew” that President Bush was going to be an inconsequential president during a time of peace and spend his time reading quietly to school children in Florida. Let us pray that all of the CIA does not divulge all threats that were neutralized because doing so will enable terrorists to better plan in the future.

Rejecting Torture Does Not Imply Inaction: Mr. Walsh goes to considerable effort to insist that his stand against torture should not be construed as advocating passivity. Unfortunately, he offers no alternatives to enhanced interrogation. It is easy to say, “Hey, knock that off!” It is much more difficult to come up with other viable alternatives, particularly under the stress of wondering when the next attack might come.

The Techniques Harm the Humanity of the Interrogators: This is a concern. However, the same is true of police work and military campaigns. The fact is that the interrogators were working under specific guidelines designed, presumably, to protect the prisoners and to minimize the psychological impact that these techniques would have upon the interrogators.

Inaccuracies of the Report: This is my point, not Mr. Walsh’s. The Senate staffers who compiled the report did not interview the staff or administrators of the CIA who were primarily responsible for this program. That indicates that they had a pre-arranged conclusion they were working toward.

KSM Waterboarding
“I need a vacation.”