Bill's Notes

Um, there's a certain disconnect. Usually, I know pretty clearly who is going to win a presidential election, or if it's close. For example, I knew Jimmah Carter was going to lose, and I thought the Democrats were insane when they thought Walter Mondale might actually win. I was confident in both Clinton elections and all three Bush wins.

Yet, this time around, I think I'm out of touch. I think the GOP has a chance, yet there's some rumblings out there that the Dems could run, in the words of one commentator, Paris Hilton and Barry Bonds, and win.

I mentioned this to a conservative friend of mine, and he said, basically, yes, I'm out of my mind. The Dems are going to win, and by the way, there's going to be 12 million more of them.

Hmm ... is the GOP through?

Sigh.

UPDATE: Uh, now I'm thinking in 2000 that Al Gore was going to win. Never mind.

Blogger and one-time "bright" Dean Esmay has apparently returned to Roman Catholicism.

Suddenly he's going all gooey about the beauty of the Eucharistic celebration and he's quoting Thomas Aquinas. Suddenly he's taking on a glow and talking about mysteries, eternal forms among fluidities, humility, peace ...

As my pal Doc Jones would say, have more mercy.

What's going on here? It must be the end times ... gotta be the end times :)

And in case anyone misses the little joke in the title and tongue-in-cheek tone, this is actually great news and I'm quite pleased to hear it. There seems to be a trend here. I'm noticing more and more people are being called to the Roman Catholic Church or back to it. Even the late Ron McRae was moving in that direction before he died — Ron was a mystic and he was starting to investigate Catholic mysticism, specifically St. Bonaventure's Journey of the Mind to God.

Welcome home to Dean and anyone else returning to the Church. And to God be the glory.

Outstanding article here.

Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

Yep. We'll see.

One quibble: There's an implication that we are talking about weakness, when what we could be talking about denial. Some people don't believe there's a real terrorist threat, and if there is, we can fix it by adopting a better U.S. policy toward Muslim nations, and especially the Palestinians. I disagree (partially and with numerous qualifications), they disagree with me, and we talk about it and yadda yadda yadda. We're Americans. We never shut up. But if we were in a position of survival, I think we would have numerous options, including many that are not pleasant. Whether we would have the wherewithal to do it is an open question.

A friend of mine and I were discussing superheroes one day (he likes the show, "Heroes") and he points out something I've never noticed.

"For the life of me," he says. "I can't figure out how Superman is supposed to fly."

"Superhero powers," he said.

Even given that, he said, what's moving him around? He explained if Superman's just jumping in a very powerful way, then he should have some kind of arc, he should be committed to the physics of his jump. But he's moving all around, here and there, in the air like he's some kind of jet. But there's no jet — it's just him.

"Is he farting himself around?" he asked.

"Hmm," I responded. I admit I was stumped.

Simply put: Superman can't really fly. They're making it up.

Several hatefests regarding Jerry Falwell's death. While I don't agree with his more extreme remarks, he was, at heart, a God-fearing man who followed his conscience. Those who judge the state of his soul should fear for their own.

Jerry Falwell brought an important voice — it wasn't always accurate or reasonable — but he was sincere in trying to follow Christ. He did what he did out of love — and of course that got mixed up in our secular culture as a message of hate. I can recall his talking on Nightline with Hustler's Larry Flynt, and both men were surprisingly respectful of and even loving to each other. Not what you'd expect. Flynt even said that his conversion to Christ at Falwell's direction in the late 1970s was sincere, and he though he later renounced his belief, he still seemed to indicate, at least to me, that he'd a contact with the divine that he was unprepared to renounce.

Falwell knew love means willing the good for someone else, and not just allowing them to careen on the "wide path" that leads to destruction. Many on the wide path, I suspect, hated hearing that.

I see folks like Falwell as those fighting outside the gates of the Church, taking artillery rounds that would otherwise be directed at the Church. He also no doubt won many souls for Christ, which covers, as it says in the Bible, a multitude of sins. I suspect he did just fine in the afterlife. It's clear he followed his conscience and his intentions were good.

Not saying he won't have a short stay in purgatory, though ...

Will many be saved? You remember Jesus' answer to that -- enter by the narrow gate, for the way that leads to destruction is wide.

But no, really, will many be saved? I've wondered about this, and know that I'm not getting an answer this side of the grave. Perhaps pointless to speculate.

Some people point the number somewhere around the middle of the bell curve -- if fewer people in this life choose God, then the Devil would have some glory over God. Nonsense, I reply. It could be my personality, but I suspect the answer is somewhere on one side of the bell curve or another -- that is, almost everyone will be saved, or very few.

I even read of a near-death experience where the individual said he was told about three percent are saved. Ninety-seven percent of the population doesn't make it. Only those who sincerely put God first in their lives, who walk the talk about confessing Christ, actually make it. The rest get stuck in a dark place.

I've also read of near-death experiences that seem to indicate there is a place after death where you have an opportunity to be purified -- that is, to choose love. You stay there, in the dark, alone with your thoughts, until you choose love and God. At which point, other beings help you grow up. Call it time-out. This coincides more with my Catholic faith -- that all who seek God may have a shot at it.

But I also know enough about the attractiveness of sin in my own life, and its stubborn refusal to go away, to recognize that this dark place could be home for many for a long, long time. Perhaps salvation would be possible, but the purification process may be so difficult that many are ensnared for eons, and others, forever. Plus, the Catholics talk about final impenitence, and this view of the afterlife kind of discounts this life, which seems to be about learning to trust God.

Lastly, the bottom line is whichever of these is true, or whatever is true, is actually true.

I dunno. Which do you think?

I reserve the right to change my mind as more info comes out, but so far, Mr. Obama seems ... well, like he's got some real talent and common sense, a rare quality in a democrat :)

On the Republican side, I also like Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani also may be a good leader, and may make a good president, but if you don't know as a person, he's an asshole (and worse, a Yankees fan), then you're not from the New York metro area.

Could we really have an election in which both the major candidates' names end in vowels? I'm pretty sure we've never had a nominee with a name ending in a vowel that's not 'y' or a silent 'e'. If so, this is a sign of ... I dunno ... something.