Bill's Notes

My own words are coming back to haunt me. Over the years, so much advice has come out of my mouth. It was my job, after all, and I'd do it for free on off houses.

We all know it's easy to give advice. Applying it when a lot is on the line -- that's a different story. There's something at stake for me now. My lifestyle, my career, is on the line. And I have to admit, I'm afraid. I'm afraid of losing everything -- my loving girlfriend, and my house, career, sense of purpose, sense of accomplishment, pride in my work, hope for the future, my soul. Yes, I'm that afraid.

It's been so easy to give people advice:

Don't look for a job. Look for an opportunity to help build someone's business and then you'll have a job.

Conquer fear first -- if you conquer your fear only by getting what you want, you'll always be afraid that if you lose what you got, you'll be afraid again.

The real money is in B2B sales.

There is value in suffering. We're here in this life to learn to love not only when it's easy, but when it's difficult, even difficult to the point of enduring the pain of the cross.

We are not going to be entirely pleased with God's decisions either in this world or the world to come. Part of learning to love God is learning to have faith in his choices, what he permits and what he doesn't, even if it's difficult.

You shoot ducks one at a time. Don't look at the whole flock -- pick out one duck and shoot that one.

Now I wish I'd shut the hell up and just held them in their suffering and said, "I'm here. I love you. I'll be with you in this. I will walk with you the whole way and back, if that's what it takes."

Because you know what? Most of us know what to do. It's doing it when something we value is at stake ... that's the hard part. And to do it when others are depending on you, when you just want to fold up and say fuck it, and you still go out there and do things you don't want to do, just because you have to. That's real courage.

I have to tell you -- if any of you have ever a brutal career-killing layoff, and you actually survived when what was at stake was not only you, but your spouse or your children or parents ... I have a lot of respect for you.

I mean, me? I'll survive. I may lose my lifestyle, my house, my pride, even my girlfriend, but no one is really counting on me. Yes, I worry what people will think, what they'll say, what they'll tell others ... there's Bill, got laid off in his mid-40s and never really recovered. Never got married, never had children, what a waste.

And a million other things that don't have anything to do with anything important.

So that's where I'm at.

Time's still flying. I've been searching for jobs and haven't got a nibble. Not a call back. Not an email back. The closest thing I got is an offer to do something I'm not sure I can do -- selling marketing agency services.

My days have fallen into a pattern. First, I wake up in despair. Every morning, the same dark thoughts. By mid-morning I feel I can cope. Then as the day goes on, I feel better and better. By the time I go to bed, I'm happy and confident and the fear is gone. Then I wake up in despair and start over again.

If anyone knows of writing jobs, technical writing to journalism, let me know. If you know of any other opportunities, let me know. Thanks.

And of course prayers would be appreciated.

Any time you have a problem, you have three:

1. The problem itself.

2. The fear and anxiety over the problem.

3. Separating good from bad information, and discerning good advice from bad advice.

So it seems to me. I'm trying to deal with #2.

I could also use some prayers today. Take care.

Just received a notice that Chris, who has graciously hosted this blog for years, is shutting down. Thank you, Chris, for all your work.

At some point, I need to either move this blog or archive it somehow. I would prefer not to lose the posts.

I'll still post until the end ...

This morning.

Hits this one out of the park — even complains about the undermining effect of state lotteries. 'Bout time.

It talks about the corruption of financial values. That's our big issue. People want something for nothing — and to make money with money, instead of through hard work, Protestant work ethic, avoiding conspicuous consumption and materialistic attitudes, living within or below your means, distrust of debt and easy credit, planning for a rainy day, suspicious of fast money, unearned money, found, dishonestly earned or won money, and all that.

Hear, hear. Read the whole thing.

One of the strongest determinants of our worldview, and our spiritual maturity, is what we do with desire. The problem of desire is one of the most powerful motivators of religious journeys — but it is not the journey. The journey, ultimately, is of the mind to God — desiring what we are not, we seek He who is.

But there is a trap on this journey: repression of desire. This trap is so effective that it leads to people giving up, and moving the other way, and indulging desires. It creates a cycle of craving — when indulging, we crave purity; when repressing, we crave indulgence. Both religious and non-religious people are equally susceptible to this trap — the sinner who sins and then repents and then sins; the non-believer who seeks purity through food or political beliefs or physical exercise or even "pure reason." The urge, when indulging, is to purity — and that purification can easily be displaced.

So what, then, of desire? Am I hinting that as a former Buddist, happiness comes from the extinction of desire? Am I suggesting, as a Christian, that only Christ can extinguish desire? Am I arguing, nonsensically, that all desire is bad?

I'll answer the last question first. I am talking, specifically, about desires that do not satisfy. I am talking about when there is a lie mixed in with longing — that if I have this, I will be satisfied. But long term, no thing satisfies us. There are no limits — look at the miserable super-rich, with gold-plated superjumbo jets.

From here, we can take a look at the first question: I would say that as long as Buddhists are talking about craving, ultimately unfulfillable human craving, they are asking the right question. Indeed, eastern religions focus heavily on this question — too heavily, in my opinion, but they ask it. They understand the cycle of repression-and-indulgence and come up with spiritual exercises designed to break out of it.

Which leads us to the second question: Christianity. Yes, ultimately, only Christ will satisfy our hearts. But as Christians, we are not looking at a shattering enlightenment experience — Christ indicates that our path to God is the road to Calvary — in flesh, blood, sweat and tears, guided by the grace of God.

Paul, in his teaching of "grace" and "law," seems to be talking about a third alternative, and it is analogous, though not quite the same, as the eastern religions' methods. In my humble opinion, in the Christan west, the hows of the problem of sin is not adequately communicated. The teaching is all there — but it's hard to find. Among born again believers, there seems to be a conversion experience — I know Christ now, and He satisfies me. I tried that, experienced Christ, and well, lapsed pretty quickly into sin.

To re-iterate at this point — I'm talking about one of the most fundamental arguments in our cultural wars. Partisans of one side say repression is impossible, and thus indulgence (within limits) is the answer. Hugh Hefner, but also most liberals, go this way. Partisans of the other side, however, often mistake their own religious teachings and say repression is the answer.

My point: It's a false belief. Both sides are correct in their accusations and wrong on their solutions. Which is perhaps a good summary of our cultural and political climate these days.

I have also left a hole in this story — I've said that extinguishment of craving or unfulfillable desire is not the spiritual journey of Christianity. What I mean by that: It is easy to approach God with the attitude of, "God save me from this. God save me from that." While God may or may not do it (adhering to the rule of thumb that Oswald Chambers described as — God will not do for us what we can do for ourselves, nor will He permit us to do for ourselves that only He can do. Add all the necessary adjustments to that rule, such as our motivations and God's sovereignty).

Anyway, my point is that I believe that God's not just a healer; Christ is more than that, and He wishes for us more than just a solution to our human, sinful problems. With this in mind, that's why I'm saying that the problem of desire is a concern of Christ, not the fundamental one, as with many eastern religions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if one extinguishes desire through psychological means, untrue spiritual paths, fulfilling human relationships, and human maturity, may end up taking us further away from God. The message of Christ is God's call for you to join God in a permanent relationship, a relationship we call heaven, and that goes beyond fixing up our human foibles. Just as a married couple, where one is an alcoholic, will keep building a relationship beyond one person's giving up addictive drinking. In other words, we can fall short if we don't keep pressing on.

Now, I've begged the question of the solution. Actually, there are several. One involves twice daily prayer with family and friends. But there are others: Another involves confronting three things at once — emotion, behavior and thoughts. All three act together and on each other — reinforcing one another. Any failure in any of these areas will cause a relapse into repression or indulgence. At this point, you will realize that I'm in the realm of cognitive-behavioral psychology.

Let's take a step back: Say you are repressing some desire. Cigarettes. For you to succeed, you will need to confront an erroneous thought: I need cigarettes to feel good and the next one will satisfy me. And if you give them up, you will need to confront the fear of relapsing. Any addictive, or craving, involves addressing both. Only when both the lie is exposed and the fear of giving into it again are conquered, is the battle won. At this point, you are neither repressing your desire, nor indulging it: You are "over it." The key is facing down the fear: that nagging sense that you'll slip and fall and I better not think about it. We need to address those fears head-on; we need to challenge and correct the lies, and then allow ourselves to feel the feelings and not be afraid of them.

To do this, I believe, is very person specific. I also think it's time-specific — what works now may not work. It involves, essentially, rewiring your brain by repetitively doing the right thing, not being afraid of feelings (even powerful ones), getting support, prayer that's not repression, keeping your motivation up ... things of this nature. It also seems to involve taking things slowly, one thing at a time, easy does it.

I have 21 years sober this week. I remember clearly the day I didn't need to go to AA meetings, anymore. Until this time, I needed meetings to shut off desire for 24 hours. I simply stopped fighting the desire to drink. I stopped repressing it, demanding that I must stop this, and instead allowed myself simply to feel the full desire. Probably by the grace of God, I was not afraid of it — I surrendered to it, not indulging it, not repressing it, just feeling it and not acting. I felt the desire to drink pas through me. It never came back.

But that was alcohol. For other desires, I've found myself having to repeatedly do this — but I know that as long as I don't run away and hide, and instead feel it and not act, confront the emotional and thought distortions, and sometimes engaging in some breathing exercises to facilitate the feeling passing through, that I don't have to act on it. That's what I mean by not repression or indulgence. In some cases, it has to be done frequently, but it's working. By the way, I'm not holding myself up as some kind of paragon of spiritual maturity -- I'm writing this because it's a bit of a discovery for me and I'd like to share it for those who might wonder about the same issue. In fact, there are many "desires" that I haven't yet confronted. For example, one of these days I have to use these techniques to deal with my problem of procrastination, but I'm putting that off ...

For the second time in a year, I've had to bring my computer into the shop after malware got past all my anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-malware programs. Just got clipped for another $100+. Sick of it.

Questions:

Will getting a Mac avoid this problem?

Am I better off keeping my existing machine and using Linux? Will Quark, MS Office work well with Linux?

Is there another solution I'm not seeing?

Any suggestions would be most welcome?

Thank you. The management.

Last night's heathcare speech:

The demagogue complained about demagoguery. The demagogic party complained about demagoguery.

I wondered about how Obama's claim that he could remove hundreds of billions of waste and fraud from the Medicare/Medicaid system. Hey, don't wait for a HC bill -- you can get started on that right away.

The rest: butterflies and zebras and moonbeams and fairy tales ...

but what the hell is going on? The president gives a non-descript speech on personal responsibility and some of my friends on the right pick it apart. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Dear Republican Friends: The Democrats will eventually shoot themselves in the foot. In the meantime, try to look like responsible adults, so people will say, "Oh look, those folks look like adults. Let's let them back in."

Let's save our ammo for stuff we really oppose ...

Besides, when a president goes on TV to tell school children to study hard and listen to their parents and teachers, um, ... lemme put it this way: How would you react to that? Would you think that's cool?

We're conservatives. Just let shit happen and pick and choose our battles. This ain't one of 'em. Some of you are starting to sound like ... hate to say it, them nutty Democrats during the Bush Administration.

Galt's Law is proving true: The party in power is smug and arrogant; the party out of power is insane.

The thing is online: Its theme is children have a personal responsibility for their own education. An important, presidential message. Basically, it's a pep talk for children starting the school year, putting their efforts in a broader context. Good stuff.

Answering this question leads to one of two directions, at least for me. One is more of a philosophical discussion, the kind that end up inconclusive 'cuz that's just how philosophy ends up. Then there's my practical answer:
Writers are people who have readers.

Back in the day, I wrote that and a reader here proved my point by arguing with what I wrote -- he suggested -- what about the people who sock away a manuscript and it's never read in their lifetime? Duh, I thought: Once it's read, they're writers. The present changes the past. My friend had the point that writers are people who write, which would include all literate persons. Or he was pushing for more of a philosophical answer, one which would prove inconclusive.

One you get into the philosophical discussion, you get into the realm of aesthetics. Unfortunately, aesthetics are extremely difficult to talk about it. Some people can assert that Erich Segal is a typist, not a writer, as Truman Capote said, and Mr. Capote himself was a writer. And I would immediately agree. But alas, arguing it convincingly is a different story.

Now, as a professional writer, I could argue that writers are people who get paid to write. But it's a tautology. I'm a professional because I get paid. Do I stop being a professional writer once I cease getting paid? Kinda. Do I stop being a writer once I die if I have no residuals or generate no income? Or under my other standard, writers have readers, do I stop being a writer when I am no longer read?

It is a conundrum. But of all, I like the idea that writers have readers. That makes every blogger and Tweeter and commenter a writer -- and I'm OK with that definition. Unfortunately, as a writer by profession, I either need to make a distinction (adding the modifier "professional") or cease seeing writing, in a day where anyone has the potential for a worldwide audience, as anything special or unique.

I was initially excited about blogging and the democratization of the Internet and publishing. But, now, I'm feeling a little saddened by what's been lost. Imagine, if you will, that a computer was invented that could let anyone be a doctor. It would scan bodies and tell you what's wrong, and recommend prescriptions. You just punch in the info and voila -- fully demotized medical care. What would we say about professionally trained doctors? How would they feel? A sense of loss. They'd be convinced they still brought something extra to the table. That's how I feel, sometimes.

I didn't realize that my profession would get swallowed whole by the Internet. So I'm a little depressed and demoralized right now. This blog was supposed to be a fun outlet, where I could say anything I want, set against the highly disciplined (albeit creative) writing that I must do to earn my daily bread. I didn't realize that it's existence itself (not in the specific, but in general terms) would threaten my livelihood.

On a somewhat related topic, I'm starting to really hate the Internet. I'm longing for life when it didn't exist. I'm looking, in a way, for a new profession that won't involve me turning on a computer. I'm happier away from the Internet. It's a cacophony of voices. It's everyone's voice. It warps my sense of the world -- it's the mental version of the superhighway.

What I mean is this: The automobile, and the superhighway, distort our personal sense of our physical being. I see myself, for example, as a person who can shoot down to Philadelphia in an hour, or up to Scranton, or get to Florida in 14 hours. It gives me -- or us, if you will -- a false sense of our human limitations. My car breaks down, and I have a four mile walk (or bike ride) to the nearest quick mart to get milk, bread, and the like.

The Internet gives me a strangely distorting sensation of being able to access the mind of the world. Take that away, and I feel better.

I am not arguing for Luddhitism. But I am beginning to think that the Internet is incredibly distorting or warping. Maybe I'm just being too negative. Maybe I'm just missing the camaraderie of the newsroom and publishing houses, the smell and feel and finality of print. And yes, the exclusivity. Everyone thinks they have a story to tell -- and now everyone's telling it. The gatekeepers have been routed around and the gates flung open. And I feel like one of the privileged class inside losing its privileges, and saying, what about me, and my profession, in this new world?

I am still employed. But I've dedicated my life to this profession, and if it's not going away, the handwriting's on the wall ... hard-won lessons in writing are available free on the Internet, things that were analogous to trade secrets and learned from hard labor, all out there for anyone to learn. And they're learning it.

What's a writer? It's everybody now.

So Sarah Palin's stepped down as governor, for reasons that are not entirely clear. Something about deciding not to run for a second term, which in turn, means she'd be a lame duck and she didn't want to do that. Now she has some sort of plan. What worries me are two things:

1. She seems to lack the awareness that her political career is over.

2. Her political career may not be over.

If she merely quit and said she'd have enough, that she was going back to Wasilla to raise her children, write a couple of books, and maybe teach or otherwise contribute as a private citizen somewhere, that would be one thing. That's understandable. But she's not. She actually thinks she's up to something. Borderline delusional.

When Sarah Palin was first chosen, my first reaction was WTF? Then I gave her the benefit of the doubt, and listened to her. Perhaps McCain had seen something in her that I hadn't. Her introductory speech was excellent. Her speech at the convention was excellent.

About that time, I saw the "narrative" shaping up — she was clearly unqualified, but nonetheless more qualified than Obama. It highlighted The One's lack of qualifications. It was working brilliantly for about two weeks until the market crashed and brought the whole campaign down.

The problem was this (and now, in retrospect, obvious): She was a lightweight. She never could have handled Washington. She never could have handled the press. I kept hoping against hope — McCain's decision couldn't have been this stupid. I figured maybe behind the scenes, Palin had the intellectual heft and that would come out. It never came out. It's not enough to be a good person, like Sarah seemed to be. You have to be ready. She wasn't ready, and never will be. Because the intellectual heft wasn't there. She burned through her entire intellectual capital in a weekend. After that, she was just repeating herself. It was worrisome.

That doesn't mean she won't be back. She will be. Perhaps she'll find a place she's comfortable with in the public square. What that is, I don't know. I do know that she doesn't belong anywhere near the White House except as a guest.

Overall, this situation is an "own goal" for the GOP. One thing I'd like to see is for my fellow partisans to stop retrieving the ball and kicking it back into our own goal.

Time to admit that nominating Sarah Palin was an awful decision, and had the GOP won in 2008, would have been disastrous for the country. Give it up, already. It's a mistake — a harmless one because the GOP lost, but a mistake. Many on the right see that. 'Cuz it's obvious.

The key is to understand why it happened, and what we can do to prevent it from happening again. It happened because the GOP, as it sometimes does, got "too cute." It was more concerned about the perception of reality, rather than reality itself. That's the problem. Once you start "managing perception," you put the battle on the Democrats' ground. The Democrats, for the most part (except for the Blue Dogs), are almost entirely a party of perception. They are masters of illusion and self-delusion. The GOP wins when the masks slips off.

But when the GOP plays "perception" and "illusion," you create a hall of mirrors in our political debate. Nothing is as it appears. It makes it a game, and not a productive one. Because as the masks slips off Obama (and it already is — he's consuming his personal intellectual capital at a rapid rate), the answer needs to be reality, not another perception.

You see, because of our two-party system, we have a tendency to think, "If not the GOP, then the Democrats." Or "If not the Democrats, then the GOP." It's a logical fallacy. Both could be wrong.

The facts of life are conservative. Some of those facts are unpleasant. We all wish these facts were otherwise. The Democrats' problem has never been its aspirations. The problem is that government, particularly federal government, is a poor tool to achieve many of its aspirations. Not only that, what the Democrats accomplish is often the exact opposite of what they intend. The road to hell and all that ...

But the Democrats' faults don't mean we in the GOP are somehow pristine, or free from error, or admitting error. With Palin, we fucked up. Let's admit it and move on.

If 2012 is actually Obama v. Palin, we're screwed. I won't vote for either of them.

Finally, let's remember the whole "facts of life" thing. Conservatism doesn't have to be in the GOP. The Blue Dog Democrats, who are suspicious of abortion, want responsible spending, and believe in gun rights, are an excellent start.

And don't forget Obama himself. I still say there's something conservative about the guy.

The GOP will have an opportunity for a big comeback. But we need to be ready. Backing Palin will compound the error.

Recently, I read on National Review that conservatives generally support subsidies of private insurance plans. I suppose that means that if you're gonna subsidize something, subsidize the private. Um, no. That puts business and government in bed together -- exactly where they don't belong.

A second thought: This "healthcare" reform seems to really be about government management of health insurance -- which is an entirely different thing than actually providing medical care.

That is, I'm not too happy about what either party is saying right now.

Healthcare is about a $2.4 trillion industry -- that's one sixth of the economy, right? That comes out to $8,000 per person per year. That's the cost of paying all the bills. The government could do that, but it couldn't do anything else. So we've got to find another way.

I dunno enough about medical care and the industry to really figure this out -- but it seems like both parties are being cute here. I don't see real reform here. This seems too complex.

Now that I'm really thinking about it, I'm amazed it works at all.

Everyone from my high school class seems to be showing up on Facebook. Initially, since I was in a place where all these people were long in the past, it was nice. Now, it's like high school again!

I'm kidding. Everyone is much nicer now that we're older. What I'm really commenting on is the tendency is to view them today through the lens of high school, and to watch, through Facebook, the lens changing, with the present superceding the past memories. Not quite writing over them, but altering them. The present changing the past. You know what it's like? It's like visiting a city you've imagined going to. You have a vision of it, and once you get there, it disappears. Regarding what's happening with Facebook, it's like some part of my past is disappearing, not imaginary as with the city, but memories distorted by time and lack of perspective at the time they occurred.

This has been happening a lot lately. Things I've carried with me for way too long -- suddenly retreat into the past. It's a good thing, for the most part.

My college friends are a different story. I've kept in touch with them longer. In most ways, I knew them better. They weren't quite so receded into the past, even if I hadn't seen them in decades. I kept in touch with them longer, so some of this perspective/memory work was already done.

So that's what I'm thinking about this morning.

As the secular left becomes more and more depraved*, As more and more people lose their way amid the confusing messages in our culture, we see new ways to justify, ignore and even celebrate evil.

This story, I don't even know ... it's come close to silencing me. Pray for those at this "party," and for those who justify it.

I felt compelled to point this out, but don't look too long. Remember, spiritual evil corrupts two ways: (1) It makes you despair. (2) It fascinates.

If you read this link, pray for them and then remember God's glory. When I see stories like this, I understand Calvary better. And my own role in sending God there. God have mercy on us all.

* I struck through this sentence because it's not fair to members of the secular left. Many of them are pro-life, and many are just as horrified, even if pro-choice, at this story. My own thinking has become more and more tribal, and I'm tired of it. My biggest regret on this blog has been my own development of a tribal mentality -- liberals here, conservatives there. That's not something I believed most of my life, as I've always tried to see people as individuals.

Let's see. First of all, I have concluded, reluctantly, that John McCain would not have been a good president. He'd have thrown we conservatives under the bus faster than Dubya did.

We need to get the correct set of values and policies together. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. The GOP has become a party of economic conservatives, libertarians, social conservatives, a few old-style bluebloods (increasingly rare and more likely to be found in the Democratic Party), belligerent imperialists, and exiles from the Democratic Party.

The problem is ... the social conservatives aren't necessarily economically conservative. The economic conservatives aren't necessarily socially conservative. The libertarians are 80% sane and 20% nuts. The belligerent imperialists are often not socially conservative or economically conservative. And there's a certain amount of don't-tax-but-spend philosophy proponents, too.

Some baleful tendencies in the Republican Party:

1. A tendency, just as bad as the Democrats, for sloganeering and demogoguery, for feeling over thinking.

2. A tendency to hate their political opponents. (I fight this tendency a lot.)

3. A tendency to apologize for torture.

4. A tendency toward instrumentalism — to see government as an end toward cultural change. Even though this started out as a defensive move.

5. A tendency to make some really bad choices on the national level. Dubya, Palin and Quayle are three of them. Now, I admit I backed Palin. My initial reaction was WTF? Then it was, Oh, I get it, it's brilliant. But lately I've seen a Cult of Palin that, while nowhere near as bad as the one surrounding Obama, is still worrisome.

Straightening all this out won't be easy and probably won't happen. We had our chance from 2000 to 2006 and didn't take it. In doing so, the GOP unraveled the winning narrative we'd had for 20 years — the Democrats are tax-and-spend, engage in nation-building exercises abroad, and irresponsible. In doing so, we allowed the Democrats back in the game, and now we're out of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if we were out of power for two or three terms.

That said, remember we are opposed by the Democrats, who are notorious for circular firing squads. They'll self-destruct, because, well, they always do.

Now, the Democrats and their leftist allies have a twofold political strategy. Everything they do that's truly evil falls into these categories:

1. Undermine all the values that help people be self-governing. These include what we normally call family values. Indeed, they attempt to demonize these values as bigotry.

2. Create constituencies, whether from the business community, non profits, racial/ethnic groups or academia/science, that are as dependent as possible on the government's coffers for funding. Once the Democratic Party can create a 51% majority of people who can live off the other 49%, they're in power until they bankrupt the state. See New York, California, New Jersey ...

Republicans have for the past 28 years attempted to fight these two battles. The Republican Party stood for:

1. A preservation of those cultural values that allow people to be masters of their own affairs, or at least in a way that allows them to remain independent of the state, and use and preserve human freedom. These include your standard civic, Christian, and family values.

2. An attempt to keep the state from encroaching continually on our lives, and to wean people off dependence on the state, so they can be productive citizens living out freedom for their own purposes.

The problem is this: Both of these strategies are defensive. The Democrats open up new fronts all the time ... they attack the family, they attack the idea of marriage, they attack the concept of personhood, they attack the very idea of America, the idea of equality under the law, the person of God and His Church. It's one front after another, it's always on defense, and it's exhausting.

And now they're in charge.

What we need to do is be ready. It's not too late, but someday, it will be. It's too late, for example, many of our city's public school systems — politically, they're unreformable, because there's a combination of political interests, stupid legal decisions, and community-value failures that have destroyed it.

So what to do?

First, we need to realize we'll be on defense for a while now. But at some point, we're going to get the ball back, and we need to be ready. It might be sooner than we think, or not. But we need to be ready. Too often the Republicans have settled for the status quo after getting a mandate to roll back Democratic excessives. In 1991 in New Jersey, an unpopular tax increase caused Republicans to gain a veto-proof majority in both houses of the legislature. Did they roll back the tax increases? No.

In 2000, we won nationally. A close victory. Did we roll back? Some. But not the growth of government. We got involved in nation building. And we had elected an inarticulate president who couldn't successfully defend our values in the public square, like Reagan did.

This articulation is required for the job of any future Republican president. The person can't be like Nixon or Dubya — but more like Reagan. Must be unflappable in public. Democrats can whine — they are whiners by definition. But Republicans can't.

We need to be adult. Buckley like. We need to handle this period with grace and humor and not mimic the Bush Derangement Syndrome of the past eight years. It'll be difficult. It'll force maturity upon us. But the GOP needs to go back to being the grown-up party. That means being grownups. It's the more difficult road.

We cannot return evil for evil. We can't seek vengeance. We must look for the good in others. We must remember that Democrats are the mission field, not enemies to be destroyed. We conservatives can accomplish more by converting Democrats to adopting our values.

You don't know what you don't know. Me, too. For example, if we get a lot of our information from the press, you still haven't met the person. You can tell a lot by public actions and private associations, but you still don't really know someone.

For example, my sense is that George W. Bush was a caring, but flawed, individual, and not the crypto-fascist would-be tyrant he was painted out to be. Palin seemed like a decent person, too.

Same goes for people on the other side. There are ways to guess, but you never know what skeletons people have in the closet, and you also never know what lies beyond the caricature. People are complicated.

Ted Kennedy, for example, has repugnant politics to me. He's done an enormous amount of damage to this country. Yet, by all reports, he is an extremely thoughtful person who never forgets to send a thank-you card or offer a word of condolence, and takes the time to remember important details about people's lives.

Anyway, my point is you never really know ...

OK, before any more news comes out, let me say my news instincts kicked in immediately when Sarah Palin resigned. These instincts said there are only two likely reasons:

1. Gov. Palin has simply "had enough" of the shit slinging her way and decided to return to private life, or has some other personal-related reason. People quit. It's not always a bad idea.

2. She's resigning either in advance of a scandal or to avoid one. That is, "they've" either got her on something and she's decided to quit in order to take some of the sting off a future scandal. (And her resignation would inoculate the news value of a sudden scandal of a GOP presidential hopeful. If she gets indicted in three weeks or so, it'll be news, but not as big as it would have been.) Or there's a back room deal where she was offered a deal -- "either resign or all this comes out." She simply exits quietly.

After she gave a rambling set of reasons for leaving, I have to say my news instincts say it's probably for the latter scenario. For one thing, if there are two versions of a story, usually the more disreputable one is true.

However, as a Christian, I'm required to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the more charitable explanation. Some see this as a contradiction, but for some reason, it makes perfect sense to me. I have no problem saying, I will assume (1) in absence of proof, but (2) is probably the case.

If you're resigning because you've had enough, you keep it simple. You say that's it ... You say you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore, and then are never heard from again. (Unless you're Nixon, of course. But no one else is.)

Anyway, we'll soon see where this leads.

Don't ya think?