Bill's Notes

A commenter on another blog suggested ways to reduce end-of-life medical costs — studies show that the last six months of life have by far the highest costs. The commenter had a brilliant suggestion: Motorcycles.

Issue each 70-year-old American a motorcycle. I'd add this point: And take away their car driver's license. Either walk or ride a bike everywhere (and stay in shape) or live fast, die quickly and leave the world while your organs can still be harvested.

NOTE: To my friend in Dothan. There's the idea for your next column. On the house.

That's just a suggested response to Nancy Pelosi's "Poor Baby" comment.

One thing I pride myself on (a dangerous state of being) is not being intellectually fooled about general principles. My behavior only intermittently matches my principles, but I usually think I've got the principle right. I credit my Catholic education, which, if you do it right, usually gives you a pretty good nose for spotting intellectual bullshit.

I have to admit, though, that I got intellectually snookered on the waterboarding thing. I let my emotions get the best of me and used my intellect to justify my emotions. Waterboarding is torture, and we can't support torture. End of story. Questions about what kind of interrogation techniques should be allowed and not allowed -- I'll leave those for others. But the fundamental underlying principle -- that we can't torture -- needs to remain inviolable. We can't do evil that good may come.

That said, I wonder what else I'm missing :)

Recently, two people mentioned the oft-repeated concept that "God has a plan for your life." For some reason, I have always thought of this as a half-truth at best and easily misunderstood. But as so often happens, I sometimes have difficulty explaining why.

Does God have a plan for your life? Yes and no. I believe God has a plan for humanity, and that individually, there is a similar plan. But I think, in many ways, the problem is the question and how it's phrased.

What I believe is a little different: I believe that God's promise after the Resurrection was, "I will be with you always, even unto the ends of the earth." "I will be with you." What that implies is not only the Gospel Commission, but that God's promise is that He will be with us, no matter what.

But I don't believe what constitutes that "no matter what" is necessarily part of God's plan, except in an extremely macro-sense that's above my pay grade. Follow?

That is, it's one thing to say that God has placed trials and obstacles in our lives for a specific purpose. (I don't believe that's true in all cases.) It's another thing to say you're born into a sinful world that was NOT His original will, but that He will be with us in it. (I believe that.) Thus, sin, sickness, evil and death are not about God's plan so much as the result of man's rebellion. God simply says He'll walk with us during that time, and be there at the end.

So if you're sick and suffering, it doesn't mean, "Well, this must be part of God's plan for me." It does add up to a cross you must bear. But I don't think it's any more part of God's plan than any other cross we must carry. We are engaged in a process of being redeemed (note the passive voice). We are not engaged in what the original plan was.

The question, when suffering, is, "Where's the grace in this?" Yet, clearly, there is a macro-plan involved in all this, the process of redemption by the world. But it doesn't mean that the people who get killed in terrorist attacks were meant to get killed in them by God Himself. It means that we live in a dangerous world filled with snares, traps, temptations, and deceptions, and we need to be watchful. I don't think these baleful effects of sin are part of God's plan — I think they are part of the Devil's plan, and that God may use these things as part of His counter-strategy, if we remain open to Him.

Make sense? Is this Catholic?

Obama's resume looked a little thin to me. Since he is a serious candidate with about a 25% chance of being president right now, I thought I'd look into him.

What I was worried about was that Obama has never earned a private-sector dollar in his life. I do believe there is a vast worldview outlook between those who rely on donated dollars/tax dollars for their daily bread, and those who actually produce those tax dollars by serving customers.

It turns out that I was wrong. While he has little experience, he has actually earned some private-sector dollars.

But here was the real shocker. Obama was a B2B newsletter writer. I shit you not. His first job out of college was working an editor for Business International Corporation, writing newsletters for international businesses. (The Economist Group bought the company many years ago.)

Also, Obama worked as an associate in a big Chicago law firm, where he was assigned a personal mentor who later became his wife. He did this for a couple of years.

So the man does have some experience in the private sector. I'd definitely consider hiring him as a senior editor here at our B2B newsletter company. As president, um, no. I mean, Hillary Clinton at least made partner in her law firm. Managing partner, I believe. However, she was never a B2B newsletter writer.

*****

More broadly, it's important that everyone realize just how clever this guy is. His rhetoric is extremely effective, particularly with people who want to believe in the valuable sentiments he mentions.

What's certain so far: You underestimate this guy at your own peril.

Hillary gets sworn in in front of the Capitol, and hurries back to the White House, wondering why Bill didn't show up at her inauguration. She enters the White House and walks straight to the Oval Office. There, behind the desk, she finds Bill already moved in and conducting a meeting with his top aides.

"What are you doing, Bill?" she demands.

"My job," says Bill. He thinks for a second, wondering why she's angry. Then he gets it. "Oh no, Hill ... you didn't really think you were going to be president, did you?"

"Yes, Bill, as a matter of fact, I did."

"Then I'm sorry if you felt misled," says Bill. "I feel your pain. Now how about you go into the kitchen and make me a sandwich? And oh yes, you don't have to bring it back yourself. Just send the sandwich back with one of those plump interns."

Here's Mme. Noonan:

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.

Well, back in 98, the GOP chose Bush as the heir apparent, so eager were they to get back into power. Today's damaged Republican Party is the consequence of that decision, then. We nominated someone more because of their brand name rather than their qualifications, and were just competent enough to get him elected. Not only that, but we forgot how much Bush the Elder pissed us off, squandering the Reagan Revolution.

We could've had McCain for the past eight years, or Gore for four and McCain for four. But noo, we had to elect Dubya.

I don't entirely blame Dubya, though. It's far from this simple. Truth is, the GOP made two horrific strategic decisions that have gotten us to the place we are now:

1. Impeachment. Knocked Newt Gingrich out of the House Leadership, and wasted the country's time and energy and the party's capital trying to get rid of a lame duck president who was already going to leave. Not only that, but impeachment fanned the flames of the high and destructive partisanship you see today (and sometimes see practiced on this blog.)

2. Dubya and the GOP Congress abandoned what got them in power: The Reagan Revolution, and Contract with America revolution: the Congressional balanced budgets of the mid and late 90s.

Truth is, the GOP has never been as much the party of Reagan as it supposed.

We can't continually run on "but the other guys will be worse." It's true — the Democrats have a way of institutionalizing failure. But we can't blame the Dems for the current situation we're in.

Newt, in his book, Real Change, notes that the fundamental problem with both parties is that they don't appeal to broad American values and our native optimism, and instead look to eke out electoral victories by casting red meat to various constituencies and setting people against each other.

Remember, Reagan spoke about "Morning in America." I didn't believe it at the time, back in 1980 — but I wanted to. I knew, as so many of us did, that this is exactly the right message: The best is to come.

* Note: In fairness to our presidential candidates, many of them are trying. I'm more talking about the era from 1998 to 2006.

Is there any just-plain fun Websites out there? Where do you go for a laugh? (Don't send me to The Onion.)

Any recommendations will be greatly appreciated.

Nothing new to report. Carry on.