The Machine

Does it matter who’s in the Oval Office? On a friend’s advice, I ordered the Matt Damon movie, The Adjustment Bureau, from Netflix. The premise is that greater forces are at work, maintaining everything in order, according to an over-arching blueprint. Deviation is pointless, because “enforcers” of the orchestrated plan do whatever is necessary to keep it on track, regardless of what any individual prefers. It’s an acceptably entertaining film, though not an entirely original concept, and may be truer than is comfortable. I avoid believing conspiracy theories. You know, 9/11 was planned and aided by our own government and the moonwalks were staged. But maybe there’s something to this “big plan” idea, invisible hands guiding, pushing us down a predetermined path. Does it make any difference who’s President? Obama ran on a platform of “change” which pinko progressives would argue has not materialized; our troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, shrill partisan politics is no better, oil companies still enjoy big tax breaks and those responsible for tipping us into the “great recession” go unpunished. George W. Bush proclaimed himself a “uniter” in 2000, but there was no hint of that during his 8-year tenure, and he brandished “fiscal” conservative credentials, inheriting four years of federal budget surpluses but never balancing a budget of his own. The saintly Ronald Reagan also ran as a “conservative” but raised taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986, pushed to increase the government debt ceiling repeatedly, including to over $1 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history, and he granted amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in 1986. So what gives? How can we square the presidential candidate’s campaign promises with their eventual, historical track record? Are they all liars? Does the reality of compromise once in power shift priorities and agendas? Or … is there a cadre of special interests at work, so powerful that no White House resident can resist their cosmic force? No, that couldn’t be. Sounds too much like a left-wing conspiracy theory!

When Terrorism Isn't

I’m with Bill O’Reilly. Why bring up the fact that Anders Behring Breivik – the suspect implicated in two heinous acts, killing 76 Norwegians – is Christian? That’s completely irrelevant. The non-Fox News media played the religious card, calling attention to Breivik’s rambling manifesto advocating a crusade to rid Europe of creeping Islamic influence from immigrants. The shoe-bomber and underwear bomber were committed to jihad, so pointing out – over and over and over – that these two were Muslim is obviously legitimate news. The Fort Hood massacre in 2007 was committed by an American soldier. And last week a plot was foiled to carry out a second attack at the same military base – by another American soldier. Each was Muslim. Their religion is very relevant. And was rightfully trumpeted in the media. What was Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh’s religious persuasion? I don’t recall that was covered in the media, so it must not have been important. Breivik is a nut-job, pure and simple – even his own court-appointed attorney says so. Why bring religion into this sad story? There’s no way a “true” Christian could be capable of such terrorism. That’s reserved for Islamic jihadists.