Christian Fiction: A Short Story Exercise for Writers

As one who loves to write, I have come to recognize that creativity is something that I can never take for granted. Like anything else, it is something that once acquired, must be honed, and must be exercised. That said, the following is the beginning of an exercise that you can follow along with and, if you’re serious about writing fiction, can duplicate the exercise (but not the work).

It will work like this:

• I will start a story at or near the end. Such stories have been around for many years and present their own unique challenges.

• There will be no outline.

• I will have no idea how the story will really end, nor even how it began–only how it begins near the ending.

• At the end of each segment, I will write a single word. The reason is that in the beginning of the next segment, I must use that word in a substantive manner within the first paragraph.

• Somewhere in the story, I must do something I’ve never done before. In other words, I will attempt to “stretch” myself. It’s easy for a writer to get comfortable in his or her “zone” and stay “write” there.

Once a week, I’ll work on the story. There are no guarantees as to where I’ll stop each time, to wit, it may be right before a dramatic scene. I will stop when and where I choose. Some portions of the story will be longer than others. I’ll keep the entire story on another website and give the url (after the first couple segments) so it can be read completely, and not in bits and pieces, though you can read it that way, if you choose. The reader is free to critique, if he or she desires, or to offer suggestions or changes or ideas. If I like the idea or suggestion, I may incorporate it.

That said, here’s the beginning of the end, sans Title (since I’ve no idea yet of where this is going or what it’s going to be about).

[UNTITLED AS YET...]

At least the pain will only last a second or two. Jacob Carson’s mind then began a kind of free-fall with his body, whipping events through his brain faster than the wind was rushing past his body as he plummeted towards the ground.

He felt no fear. He knew he was about to die and there was not a thing he could do about it. Perhaps it was that absolute certainty about death that stripped him of fear; or perhaps it was the total wonder of it all: hurtling towards the ground without a parachute and having had no time to really think about it. He was caught up in the moment, living his last few seconds in a blur of speed.

It’s a picture of how I’ve lived, isn’t it, God? Fast. Life's been a rush, for sure.

Inwardly, he grimaced. Who’d ever believe that I’m about to die and I’m having this mental conversation with God about living?

He’d ignored God for so long that he knew praying was a worthless endeavor. God would just ignore him. And, Carson was not a man to grovel. He’d never begged for a single thing in his twenty-nine years and he’d not begin now–not even for his life.

Sorry I let you down, God.

He watched as the earth rushed to greet him.

***
"snow"

To be continued...

Copyright 2008 - Voyle A. Glover

Food Riots. Possible in America?

The strains in our nation are evident to all by now. We’re hearing the collective groans of the millions of us who are digging into our pockets to pay gas prices that keep quivering with efforts to rise to $5.00 a gallon. Many are whimpering in disbelief at the many weather related disasters of late, with flooding and tornadoes and fires. And crime has become almost numbing to the conscience. We’re stunned at the violence that surrounds us. Horror stories keep leaping to the front pages and shock our conscience to the point that we’re almost immune.

Our population has grown now to over 300 million people–a staggering number when you stop and think about all the demands that 300 million people place upon an environment. We must have food, so we consume over 200 lbs of meat (red meat, poultry, fish) per person, per year. We grow and also import millions of tons of fruits and vegetables annually for consumption. Fish and poultry are now produced in massive quantities in the effort to stay up with the demands of so many people. Every day, 300 million people must eat two or three meals. That comes to millions of tons of food consumed on a daily basis in America alone.

What if it all stopped one day? Suppose catastrophic weather conditions hit America and the grains and fruits and vegetables become a scarce commodity? What happens? Well, the first thing is that imports would drastically increase. So would our prices. But, suppose weather conditions hit other producers, such as Mexico (which supplies America with millions of tons of fruits and vegetables)? What then?

What happens the day America can’t feed most, or a substantial portion of its 300 million citizens adequately?

The day that happens, we will begin to see a breakdown in our society that already has roots. It’s roots are in our lower income citizens. Currently, they are able to subsist on government assistance. They are able to eat. But, many of the lower income citizens have grown up on the mean streets of poverty, and there is an element there which is used to taking what they want. There are gangs of young men and women who will beat, rob and even kill to survive. If the day ever comes when food is a precious commodity, they will go looking for food. When they find it, they will take it by force. They’ll take first from their neighbors. But, eventually, they will come searching for food from wherever they can find it. There will be food riots–grocery stores emptied and trashed. There will be anarchy.

It will not be like it was in the Great Depression. There were no massive uprisings of anarchy and food riots, though there was hunger throughout the land. During that time, there was a shortage of food, money, jobs and even shelter. But, America put on its brave face, became stoic and endured the worst economic times of our history.

It will not be the same this time. There are too many criminal elements in our midst. Those elements will not be stopped by laws or locks or alarms. They will hunt much like the hunters of history did when they sought food on the open plains or in the woods. Danger will be everywhere because hungry people will be everywhere. We know that humans who are addicted to Meth or Cocaine will rob and become violent in order to feed their habit. But, their numbers are relatively few in comparison to the whole population. We have been able to contain them, more or less.

Imagine what would happen if the number of drug addicts was doubled and then doubled again, and then again. We’d be overwhelmed. That’s the kind of numbers of hungry souls that we will be dealing with if ever true famine hits America. And, far too many of them will do whatever they need to do in order to eat.

They are addicted to eating.

They are addicted to living.

We’d better plan for the lean years, lest we have a society that completely falls apart under the weight of massive anarchy.

We also might do well to pay attention to the wisdom found in an ancient writing which told about crop failures. It reads like this:

"When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them: Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance. If there be in the land famine, if there be pestilence, blasting, mildew, locust, or if there be caterpiller; if their enemy besiege them in the land of their cities; whatsoever plague, whatsoever sickness there be; What prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house: Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;) That they may fear thee all the days that they live in the land which thou gavest unto our fathers. (The Book of First Kings, chapter 8:35-40).

God gave us America.

It remains to be seen whether or not we’ll acknowledge our need for Him.

The Evolution of Life - A Glob to a Blog

What is life? What does it mean to say "I live." What are we?

We call ourselves "humans." We've explored our bodies and our minds, and we've searched our "souls" trying to make sense out of our existence. Over the thousands of years we've populated Earth, we've come to a wide array of conclusions as to many of these questions. Darwin concluded we were but an offshoot of an original organism that thrived in some primeval "soup" which enabled life to grow into its millions of shapes, forms and species, including plants and even bacterium. Of course, his conclusions can no longer stand up under the scrutiny of real scientists who practice real science.

But philosophers have also wrestled with those questions. Most of them got no closer to the truth than Darwin. Indeed, most of the philosophers spent their time and energy speculating about the existence of life from a perspective that was not based on origins, but based on existence itself. Summed up by Rene Descartes, "I am. I exist." (In an earlier work, he expressed it differently, to wit, "I think, therefore I exist.") Descartes found his solace in numbers where he felt there was some certainty. He set out in his quest to make sense out of the questions about life by forcing himself to doubt everything he learned. Descartes decided to suspend belief about everything "which I allowed myself in youth to be persuaded without having inquired into their truth." Thus, he begins by seeking to establish truth by working towards conclusions about life that will lend themselves to understanding life.

One can find hundreds of answers rendered to the questions raised, by tens of thousands of humans. Everyone, it seems, has an opinion. Everyone feels he or she has a pretty fair grasp as to what "life" means. Some are rather simplistic in their approach, like Descartes. They live, and for them, life is being alive, nothing more. While that may sound somewhat circular, nonetheless, it works for many. They are no that concerned as to the deep meanings of what "life" means. They live. They have life. That's enough for them. They don't want to know how the heart works. They're not interested in the physiology of the human body, nor do they have an interest in the inner workings of the brain, nor do they care whether the body has something called a soul or a spirit. Life for them, is something they have and something they enjoy. Their thinking carries them no further than that.

Others are more speculative. They have conjured up some rather fascinating conclusions as to what "life" means. One group, for example, has concluded that life is a never ending circle of lives in which we live again and again and again, as different humans at different times. Others have opined that life is what you see, to wit, humans of varying shapes, colors and sizes, who eventually die. That's it. Once they're dead, there is no more life for them. It is finis.

Religion has, of course, placed its indelible stamp of authoritative approval on a wide array of conclusions about life. Some hold that gods of one sort or another, have populated the earth with humans and rule unseen from the heavens.

Others, such as the Jews and Christians, hold that a single being called God-as opposed to "a" God-created life in a single moment of time, and hold that this life will continue on a different plane of existence, a spiritual one, when the body dies. In other words, their view is that life goes on.

If one truly examines the question, "What is life?" it becomes rather critical to come to some kind of conclusion as to the beginnings of that life. The simplistic solution of Darwin is, of course, unacceptable. Life is too complex. There are simply too many variations of life. There are animal species of countless variations and kinds. There are plants and bugs and trees and bacterium and cells that are so widely different that it becomes impossible to believe all life evolved from a single source. We must ask this question as well: How did life begin? We know life exists. We see evidence of our existence. We see evidence of the existence of other forms of life, ranging from tens of thousands of species of plants, animals, and insects, to strange species that live deep within our oceans.

How did all of these come into existence?

The complexity of the human brain is but one example of the staggering complexity of the human systems and argues against an evolutionary process. Judson Herrick, Professor of Neurology at the University of Chicago, states that: "If a million cortical nerve cells were connected one with another in groups of only two neurons each in all possible combinations, the number of different patterns of interneuronic connection thus provided would be expressed by 10 to the 2,783,000th. This, of course, is not the actual structure, as we shall see; but the illustration may serve to impress upon us the inconceivable complexity of the interconnections of the ninety-two hundred million [9,200,000,000] nerve cells known to exist in the cerebral cortex."

Michael Denton, a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand, has written two significant books dealing with the complexities of life, entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Nature's Destiny. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton writes "In crude terms, the human brain is a natural computer composed of 10 to 100 billion neurons, each of which connects to about 10,000 others, and all of which function in parallel. Neuronal systems take about 100 processing steps to perform a complex task of vision or speech which would take an electronic computer billions of processing steps."

We must ask another question. How finely-tuned is life? How precise are the parts and the whole of humans, and of other life? What are the odds of this complexity evolving naturally, on its own? What are the mathematical probabilities of this highly intricate web of systems of life somehow creating itself into perfectly nuanced systems? Those are questions being answered by scientists like Denton and Herrick and many other very learned scientists.

Once we begin looking at the precision with which the parts of life fit, we begin to realize that "life" is far more than mere existence. Life begins to take on a different meaning. The precision with which life on our world is put together and the incredible complexities involved in the capable functioning of life, whether it be plant or animal or human, begs a new question to be answered. How can this be?

Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and author of the book Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996), speaks of the complexities of blood-clotting and compares it to a mouse-trap, opining that if you take away any one piece of the trap, such as the spring or baseboard, or the metal piece that traps the mouse, the trap ceases to function so as to catch a mouse. In like fashion, take away one component from our blood and it ceases to give life.

Behe notes that if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly. This is but one single example, out of tens of thousands, of phenomenally complex and intricate elements in the human make-up and the plant and animal make-up that defy the conclusion that such intricacies somehow "evolved."

Those critical of Behe and other like-minded scientists fail to grasp the essence of his and scientists like Behe's findings. They also fail to realize that the debate is not about Behe, nor is it about evolution. The real debate is about life and how it came to exist. The real debate is about the quest for truth. In order to understand the issue, those who profess to be scientists must one day put aside their pre-conceived notions and biases and ask themselves this question: How can it be that tens of thousands of intricate systems have come to exist and work within humans and animals and plants? They have never asked that question. Instead, their question has always been on the heels of Darwin, to wit, "How did evolution evolve?" The simplistic approach has put them into an intellectual straight-jacket in which they now struggle.

Many scientists, some former skeptics, are turning away from the shaky platform of evolution. In 2006, three University of Michigan professors added their names to a list of scientists who have concluded that evolution cannot explain the complexities that exist in life. Ronald Larson, chairman of chemical engineering, Phillip Savage, a professor of chemical engineering, and Kenneth Ludema, an emeritus professor of mechanical engineering, are among about 500 scientists worldwide who have signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.''

The petition was signed by 514 people, with nearly a fourth of them biologists. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine. The signers include some nationally prominent scientists such as James M. Tour, a professor of chemistry at Rice University; Rosalind W. Picard, director of the affective computing research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Philip S. Skell, an emeritus professor of chemistry at Penn State who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

The petition reads, in part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.'' Citing his extensive training in chemistry and physics, Larson noted "that evidence for natural spontaneous formation of living cells from undirected chemical reactions is virtually nonexistent.'' While Ludema refused to go so far as to say he supported the creationist's views on evolution, he remarked that the mathematical probability that the elaborate structures existing in life could emerge from random processes was minute.

Professor Savage said he signed the petition because of those (evolutionists) who have asserted that the origin of life has been fully established scientifically, when in fact the evidence does not support that. Tour echoes Larson, saying his experience in chemistry and nano-technology showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. He concludes that the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete.

How can such precision, such incredible variety, and such marvelous intricacy exist within all of the forms upon the earth that have life? Clearly, life could not have simply sprung into existence on its own. And no one who has the ability to reason can conclude that life "just happened" by chance. The chance of life "just happening" by some fluke or lucky break is incalculable. It simply could not happen by chance. And, if life did not happen by chance, then we must conclude life happened on purpose. If life happened on purpose, then that suggests intelligence behind the existence of life. Once you reach this conclusion, as one must, if he or she is a true intellectual, then you must make a conclusion called "Intelligent Design." There is simply no other explanation for the existence of life-all life.

Here's a very excellent video on the subject entitled The Miracle of the Cell

If you have not seen the Ben Stein movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Required, you must see it. This is such an excellent movie dealing with this subject. It will make you think, and if you're an evolutionist, it will make you blink.

Richard Dawkins blinked.

Copyright 2008 Voyle A. Glover

What are your needs?

Ever consider your real needs in life?

God says He will provide all our needs. But, suppose I get real sick? Is that something I need?

Perhaps.

I know at least one man who takes that position.

Our view of life is very different from God's view. He sees our lives as completed already. We've already been placed in His hands, indeed, in His kingdom. We have a presence with God that is very real. Our vision, our perception is too limited, too earth-bound to grasp that vision.

When it comes to knowing what we need, though, we usually err. We simply cannot grasp the concept of something "bad" being good for us. But, consider the Apostle Paul. Read his report about suffering with a "thorn in the flesh," which was something physical that he felt was causing to be less effective in his ministry. Jesus rejected Paul's request for healing and told him, in simple, but profound words: "And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 2 Corinthians 12:9

But, Paul suffered far more than that. Would you say that the "needed" the to be beaten? Or robbed? Or to suffer hunger and privation? All these things, and more, he suffered. Eventually, he went to prison and was executed.

Sometimes, we need to be sick. Sometimes, we need to hunger. Sometimes, we need to suffer. Sometimes, we need poverty. Wealth and health are often hindrances to spiritual growth and retard the desire to seek God. For example, if I have a bank account that is pretty good and a home that is secure, and a pantry that is full of groceries; and if I'm in good health, enjoying life to the fullest, how apt am I to fall on my face before God and utter the following words: "Lord, give me today my daily bread?" Or, how probable is it that I'll be on my knees asking God to bless me and give me what I need? Ah, but give me a sickness that draws me nigh unto death, and I'll be like Hezekiah, crying out to God to spare me. Or, let the pantry be bare and let the bank account be empty, with a family sitting at the table hungry, and you'd be more apt to find me on my knees before God.

This is not to suggest that all the pain or grief you have suffered or will suffer in life is a "good" thing. It is to strongly suggest that for a child of God, this verse is still applicable, and God has not abandoned you.

Child Molesters in the Church

Most Protestant churches do not have a “church policy” regarding child protection.

That’s unfortunate, because it can have serious consequences. The irony is that if you asked the pastor of most churches whether they had such a policy, they’d indicate they do have such a policy. Sadly, they don’t even recognize what is meant by that term. The position of some, radical though it may seem, is that since everyone is against child molesting, then it can be said that it goes without saying that the church is against such things, thus, there is a “policy.”

Others are a bit more sophisticated.

One church I know held a view that sounds something like this: Every church member is against child molesting and for child protection. We take steps to watch out for this kind of thing. It’s a heinous thing and we don’t want any child harmed. Our church has certain standards with respect to the lives of our workers. If a worker is found to be living in sin, we will dismiss that worker immediately. We make sure a worker meets our standards even before they are accepted as workers. We will handle these kinds of issues ourselves. We know what to do. [and blah, blah, blah...]

Still other churches hold to the view that they watch out for such things and are very aware about the need to beware of sexual predators who might victimize a child under their care. They have security monitoring the premises. They warn the workers to be careful. Workers are instructed to never be alone with a child. All events are chaperoned by at least two adults.

But, they still don’t have a church policy. They think they do, but in reality, they don’t.

A church policy must have, at a minimum, the following features:

• 1. It must be in writing.
• 2. It must be designed so as to reasonably protect the children in the care and custody of the church.
• 3. It must be disseminated.
• 4. It must be implemented.
• 5. It must be followed.
• 6. It must be comprehensive, that is, it must cover all the bases.
• 7. It must be understood and understandable.

Many, if not most, church leaders assume they have a “handle” on the issue. They presume to understand what it is that the church must do in order to protect both the child and itself. But, far too many do not. Some do. But, many are ignorant of their ignorance.

For example, I recall a conversation with a pastor who was one of those who assumed he had things under control. One piece of the conversation went something like this:

VG: So, if you’re called to the stand, you’d testify that everyone in your congregation knew about your policy?

Pastor: Well, maybe not everyone. But, we did talk about it with the deacons and everyone in that meeting got a handout, plus every Sunday School teacher got one.

VG: So, if you had a worker who wasn’t in that meeting, would he or she have gotten that handout?

Pastor: I, uh, well, I don’t know. I suppose. I’m assuming that the leaders would have made sure of that.

VG: But, you realize that you would be the one on the stand answering questions like that? And you do understand that the old proverb, “the buck stops here” is very much applicable?

Pastor: Sure. I will make sure every worker gets a copy.

VG: Suppose a child comes to the church for the first time with her parent and mom leaves her off in the Sunday School. Now, suppose further that on this particular day, a man comes to the Sunday School class looking for this child. And, suppose that on this particular day, there is a new worker there who didn’t get her copy of the “rules” you handed out. Or, perhaps she didn’t read them if she got them. She hands the child over, but it turns out the man is not her father, nor even a relation. He disappears with the child. Is there any liability on the part of the church?

Pastor: I suppose so, yes.

VG: I can tell you that for certain there would be. But, let me ask you this: Do you have any proof that you gave a copy of the policy to these workers? And if you do, is there any proof they read it? And, that they understood it? And, that they will comply with it?

Pastor: No.

As we talked further, it became clear that the “policy” they had was completely inadequate. There were so many potential problem areas not addressed that any jury would have found against the church because their efforts to protect the children in their care was not “reasonable.” Indeed, they took more security precautions to safeguard their cars and the premises than they did the children. It wasn’t because they were a bad church. They were just ignorant of the large number of areas that must be addressed, some of which are complex, in the undertaking of formulating a valid church policy. For example, they had no policy or even an awareness of the problem dealing with who is able to take a child out of his or her Sunday School class. It was kind of understood that if someone showed up for the child and knew the child by name, and the child went with them, that was all right.

If a church does not have a written church policy that is published to the congregation and followed regularly, then some day, a child will be harmed and the church will be harmed. The harm to the child will be permanent. They harm to the church may prove to be “fatal” in economic terms, and even if not, the reputation damages may have consequences lasting for decades.

Predators are cunning, devious, and able to spot vulnerabilities in a church system. Sometimes, there’s almost nothing you can do to protect against them. A dedicated molester will find a way. But, if a church makes it difficult, and places obstacles in the way, he’s usually going to look for an easier target. He’s got a virtual banquet of churches to choose from, ranging from those who are arrogantly ignorant, to those who are just ignorant. He’s not going to choose the churches that are aggressively establishing guidelines and policies designed to thwart his evil.

There is a book I highly recommend on the subject. It is designed to not merely inform, but to educate and motivate. The book contains some useful forms, but most of all, it contains all the reasons why your church, if it is to survive in the coming days as an outreach to the community, must address the issue of what to do about protecting the children and the church. The book is entitled “Protecting Your Church Against Sexual Predators.”

I may be a bit biased, but frankly, I think it is a “must read” for every church member, not just the leaders. An informed church is a church on guard.

An ignorant church is a "candy store" for a child molester.

Some day, one will visit your church.

It's almost a statistical guarantee.

Parents are Creating Monsters

We all sit in astonishment as predators come and snatch our children from us, wondering why, wondering why no one can stop them, wondering where they come from, wondering if anyone cares, wondering if God cares, wondering if they're truly of the human race.

They come in the garb of humanity, perhaps draped in the robes of clergy, or suits of respect or wrapped in rough working clothing or the attire of a youth. But all of them have the same desire: they want to kidnap, to rape, to murder, to torture, to kill and to hurt. They are destroyers. They are humans doing inhuman things.

They're doing it to our children and to us.

Some of them are mere children.

And all of them used to be.

I'm astonished at the absolute ignorance of the vast majority of Americans. I guess I shouldn't be, but I am. We read the news accounts and creep back into our wall- papered existence, pretending the evil doesn't exist. And, we debate endlessly, pontificating to anyone who will hear our shouts of outrage and anger and frustrations. Opinions bounce around the e-world like ping-pong balls, never accomplishing anything other than to draw the attention of others who may bounce their word-balls against our screen.

We listen endlessly to the babblings of shared ignorance as fools debate one another and display their stupidity naively to the world of Springer-Lativa gluttons. And we wonder why no one can understand the problem?

It is said that sheep are the dumbest animals under the sun. They can get lost in sight of the flock. They really are stupid. Is it any wonder that Christ likened us to sheep? It was an apt characterization. Americans are being shorn whilst they bleat their cries of bewilderment to one another, too ignorant to see that they have bought the shears and trained the shearer.

Our children are trained from birth to laugh at violence, to see violence as entertainment, or as something done to achieve success, or perhaps as something to do to another in order to win. One only needs to watch the cartoons to understand this. As they get older, the violence gets more graphic. Today, the children no longer participate passively in the panorama of death flowing into their minds from the television, or the movies. No more are they merely engaged with their minds, but now their body, hands, emotions, and mind, are engaged in "killing" someone, or something, or destroying someone, or something. The games provided to our children today mesmerize them, and their little fingers are a blur of movement as they "kill" in the games they play.

In their teens, the psyche imprinting moves to another level. Now, they see movies that are far more powerful than the most effective thirty-second advertising spot could ever achieve. Instead of a thirty-second ad, their minds are pulled into a maelstrom of violence that is equal to hundreds of powerful advertisement strung together.

These "ads" are working even better than the commercial multi-million dollar ads work for the giant corporations imprinting us with their messages. Our kids are hooked on violence, desensitized to it, and see life through a screen of interactive impulses they find difficult, and sometimes impossible, to control in real-life.

American parents want the fiddler to play us to the grave. So, we pay our children to go out and purchase music that will sear their minds, that will hypnotize them into syncopates who indeed "march to a different drummer." The Pied Piper appears in garish costume designed to shock and draw attention, designed to excite the "rebel" and invite the devil. And, with a swagger and John Waynesque demeanor, our children leap into the darkness we've helped finance.

We are shocked and confused, and can't understand when they don garish costumes and do goulish deeds. We express disbelief at their deeds. We wonder how such a "good boy" could go so bad and do such horrible things.

Stupidity's sister is Ignorance and we've dated her too long.

We'd best come to understand that our children are being programmed. We're helping finance that programming. A growing number of our kids aren't able to cope with the programming. Stresses come into every child's life, especially as they reach the teen years. Years ago, most all of America's kids were able to deal with the usual stresses, and even to emerge at the other end stronger. Now, they're cracking. And, instead of working through it, they're dealing with the stresses the way they've been trained. The thousands of hours at the "death games" and the "death videos" taught them how to solve a problem.

We've taught them well. And we financed it.

Will the sheep ever awaken and realize that once they quit paying the producers of "scare movies" and "death games" and "hate rap" and music that glorifies evil and glamorizes death, the predators amongst us will diminish? These producers operate under the banner of "free speech," but their "free speech" is costing us all dearly. You see, once we take away the program, we, the parents, become the programmers. And, once we take over the role of parenting and emerge from our stupidity, shedding our ignorance, we will begin to see children growing up into healthy adults instead of bizarre beings we hardly recognize.

It really is your choice.

It is your choice to give that child the money to attend the latest "gore" movie or "horror" movie. Go ahead and give money for the music that rips the soul from your child and gives it to a man with a painted face who is placing words of hate and evil into his or her head. But, don't weep for that child when his mind is bent by that powerful force. Don't wonder why. Don't blame him. Don't look at her and say "How could you?" Don't look at the dead bodies and become angry at him, wondering how he could shame you with such a despicable act. He was just doing what your education taught him to do.

Don't wonder why your child is an addict when hundreds of hours of music glorifying drug use was pumped into that child's mind–music you paid for, maybe even purchased.

Look to yourself.

You are the blame.
You were ignorant.
And you chose to be ignorant.
You chose to ignore the danger.

A bad date can be dumped, you know.

For a look at a related topic, see the book "Protecting Your Church Against Sexual Predators"

copyright 2007 Voyle A. Glover

The Taking of Iraq: An American Perspective

Was Iraq a Bush Blunder or was it a something else?

Was there a legitimacy to the invasion of Iraq?

Put another way, is there ever a valid excuse for one nation invading the other and taking over its territory, destroying the ruling government there, and setting up a new government?

Some have jutted their lower lip and said with a sneer that Bush and America were after the oil, while others have ascribed other motives to him. But, whatever his motives, was there any justification for the actions of America? And even if one concedes (for the sake of argument) that Bush had other motives– ulterior motives–was there any justification for America and its allies to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein?

In order to answer that question, one has to step back in time a bit. Any good historian will tell you that in order to interpret historical events, one must look at a wide range of things. In this instance, it’s important to look at the mind-set of the leadership and the governments involved, as well as the facts surrounding the events.

We’re all familiar with the events leading up to the first war with Iraq. This action was headed by a multi-national force which waged war with Iraq after it invaded its neighbor to the south. The coalition, in January of 1991, began operations (Desert Storm) to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Those entire events, from the invasion by Iraq, to the end of that war, demonstrated a few important things. First, it showed Saddam’s recklessness. He had to know that there was a substantial likelihood that even his Islamic brethren would not sit idly by while he made such an invasion. And, if he did not know this, he surely had to know that America and other nations would be very uncomfortable with his move and might take serious actions. But, even when there was a clear indication from the U.N. and many Islamic states of their unwillingness to accept his new land acquisition, Saddam refused to budge. He refused to order a retreat. He stayed put, this in spite of the enormous forces arrayed against him by not just one nation, but 34 nations. He was warned and ignored the warnings.

Thus, if one is to understand the second invasion of Iraq, one must understand the perspective of Saddam left in the minds of America. Saddam Hussein was, to put it bluntly, either insane, or so driven by his ambitions and delusions of power, that he was willing to do anything and willing to risk anything. The American government did not trust him to behave himself after that, realizing they were not dealing with a man who was mentally stable.

Some very bellicose statements were coming from Iraq during this time. The American government recognized that any radio broadcast or news editorial had to have the approval of Saddam, since such broadcasts and editorials had to be in line with his own views and opinions. There was no “free speech” in Iraq and had been none for many years. Thus, when the following statements came from within Iraq, by state controlled entities, America had to take these as statements from Saddam, and indeed, at times they were directly from him:

• "[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim Mujahideen and all the honest strugglers in the world." -Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991.

• "What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."-Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991.

• "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" -Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

• "If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?" -Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002.

• "[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."-Babil, September 20, 2001

Now, given that rhetoric coming from a man the American government has to have deemed drunken with his own sense of power, it is no small wonder that Saddam Hussein made them very nervous. Here was constant rhetoric filled with hate, with promises of revenge, with promises of missiles, and attacks in American cities by a man who has already demonstrated how willing he was to risk everything. The American government considered carefully whether this man was willing to use weapons of mass destruction as a tool to gain political favor and everlasting glory and fame in the eyes of the Islamic world. They could not ignore his threats as idle boastings. America had already ignored one terrorist, and September 11, 2001 would always be in the minds of the government as it gave consideration to the threats and bellicose rhetoric of Saddam Hussein.

He could not be ignored.

Things only got worse. Hussein played a game that was not merely reckless, but brought absolute fear into the hearts and minds of the leadership of the American government. If this man acquired weapons of mass destruction, he was capable of inflicting severe harm upon our nation. It became paramount for the government to learn whether or not he had any such weapons. They already assumed he was capable of using them. Worse, they had to assume that if he had them, he would use them. There was no room to guess on that issue.

Once Saddam began playing “hide and seek” with the U.N. Inspectors, the end was inevitable. He’d already laid the foundation. He’d already pressed the hot buttons in Washington. If his goal was to make America afraid, he succeeded. They were very afraid of what he might do. But, if his goal was to make America back off and leave him alone, he failed miserably. Indeed, he’d made it impossible for America to ignore him.

When he ordered the inspectors out, the American government was then put in a rather unique position. If they did nothing, then Saddam would, given his megalomania, and given his prior stated positions about revenge and the hurting of America, act accordingly. It only remained for him to take chemical weapons, something he’d already demonstrated his willingness to use, or biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, and reach into the heart of America with his revenge, as he’d promised.

Only a government run by sainted monks and Quakers would ignore Saddam Hussein and do nothing. And, as we all know, the American government is run by men and women who would not qualify in either group.

The American President, George W. Bush, his averment espousing Christianity notwithstanding, surely felt the rather enormous pressure of duty as he weighed his options and considered his mentally unstable opponent. He had to carefully look at the threats and whether or not Hussein was capable of carrying them out. His conclusion was that Saddam Hussein was not only capable, but if he had the weapons, he would use them against the citizens of America. Thus, the paramount questions became: (1) Does Hussein have weapons of mass destruction; and (2) If he does not, and if he is not controlled, can he acquire them?; and (3) How do we control him?

The American government’s intelligence agency made some conclusions, based on intelligence they’d gathered in Iraq, that those weapons did indeed exist or were in the process of being acquired. There was an inability for the CIA to fully vet each source. When in-place Iraqi government workers gave the CIA information on the building and/or storage of weapons of mass destruction, there was no option for that agency to do anything but take it at face value and pass it along to the President. At that point, the American government had little choice. The President, as the primary individual responsible for the safety of American lives, could not afford to gamble. The American government could not afford to sit by idly, hoping there would not be another 9-11. There could not be an “uh-oh” moment. No government official wanted to be the American version of Neville Chamberlain.

Thus, you had Democrats and Republicans coming aboard the “Let’s Stop The Madman” Express.

Al Gore’s words aptly describe the American government’s assumptions as to Saddam: “Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” And another staunch Democrat, Madeleine Albright, said, “Iraq is a long way from the U.S., but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

It is somewhat fascinating now to hear key Democrats trying to fit their positions into the framework of the current demagoguery being espoused by them against the Bush administration’s venture into Iraq.

Hillary Clinton, one who voted for the invasion, now attempts to backpedal and give a “golly-gee-whiz” reason for voting like she did, namely, that she believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. But, what she’s really saying is that given the historical scenario, the facts, including Saddam’s actions and rhetoric and threats, that she’d have not made a move to stop him unless she knew there were weapons of mass destruction. That’s scary, if one contemplates her as President. She’d not act to stop a madman from carrying out his threats. In short, she’d not take his threats seriously.

But, Barack Obama is even scarier. He knew about the rhetoric of Saddam (as did just about anyone who read the newspapers). He knew of the intelligence that was being delivered (something circulated to various congressional members, the media, and those like Obama who were in the "loop" as a potential candidate for office. He knew the threats that were made. He knew Saddam’s mental instability. And, he knew that the CIA had concluded that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction. If he were on another planet and somehow missed all the reporting being done, certainly when he came back, he got caught up on the news such that by the time he reached the hallowed doors of Congress in 2004, he knew what was being said by the CIA. While the President and most of the U.S. government realized they could not afford to assume the intelligence was wrong, and while the President and most of the U.S. government realized they could not afford to take a chance with the lives of millions of Americans, Obama says he was always against deposing Hussein and removing him as a threat to our lives. Even if Saddam was cooking up a Witch’s Brew of viruses to spread on our land, as he said he was doing, Obama would not have moved against Hussein. He would have ignored his own intelligence reports from the agencies, including the CIA, and used his own judgment.

Amazing.

Scary.

(And he's not even a Quaker.)

Moreover, given his own pastor’s rhetoric in which that man clearly has a deep, abiding anger against America, and given Obama’s decision to sit under that rhetoric, with the thunderous approvals of the congregation echoing in his ears (and presumably, the ears of his children), one must wonder what it would ever take to move Obama to take an aggressive, hard-nosed stance against an enemy. This man couldn’t even stand up to his pastor.

I’ll not tell anyone how to vote, but I cannot vote for someone who is going to stand by idly whilst a madman acquires weapons that will destroy my country and kill American lives.

I don’t know much about John McCain, but I do know this. He’s seen Hussein for what he was in terms of a threat. He’s not equivocated on the justness of the invasion. I’m grateful for that. And, this is a man who’s been tested as few Americans have been: he suffered at the brutal hands of captors. He’s proven his mettle under fire. He was a POW who turned down an opportunity to leave captivity. That speaks of his character. Whatever else he may be or not be, when standing alongside the other choices, he’s head and shoulders above them in every department.

Fortunately, I’m not very opinionated.

Like some of you are.

copyright 2008 Voyle A. Glover