Mirrors: Am I Handsome/Beautiful?

The image of the mirror in James 1:23 brings to mind the concern most of us have for how we “look.” Am I beautiful or handsome? Am I ugly?

I have a picture of me when I was something like 10 or 12. I also have one from a bit later, graduating from High School in the Spring of 1970. I was about 18. I was so self-conscious. Most of my teen years, the 1960s, Dad insisted that I receive a “burr” haircut. The problem in my eyes, however, was my ears were too big for my head. When the Beatles made long hair popular, I so much wanted to let my hair grow, at least to my ears, to cover them up a little.

In those years, the teen and early 20s, I suspect most of us, unless you were one of the lucky ones whom everyone thought of as handsome or beautiful, go through a phase of wondering if we are attractive.

I came across an article in which this expressed itself in a sad way on YouTube.

Her screen name is "sgal901" -- and she wants to know if she is pretty or if she is ugly. Rather than ask her parents or ponder it with her friends, this middle-school student decides instead to pose the question to the world at large, via YouTube.

That is right. Smiling sweetly at her laptop and donning a knit-cap made to look like a koala bear "sgal901" does what middle school girls do: She complains of being called ugly by some and "oh-my-gosh-so-beautiful" by others. Rather than simply lamenting the craziness and confusion of being 13 years old through scribbles in a diary, this is, after all, the digital age, "sgal" has turned to the Internet for insight. Is she pretty? Or is she ugly? Of course, the Internet has responded. This one young girl's public pondering of her own beauty has received more than 5.5 million views and racked up over 130,000 comments.

This girl is not alone. In fact, she is representative of a growing trend among young girls who have been jumping on sites like YouTube and Facebook by the thousands and begging sweetly, albeit very naively, for input on their level of attractiveness. As you might imagine the fad has many a parent of a "tween-age" girl looking to toss the laptop in the trash, retreat to an Amish community and lock their daughter away until the age of 30.

Yet, if we ponder what it is that is truly bothersome about this trend, one must admit that it is not the fact that kids are wondering whether or not they are attractive. No, that question is a common and constant one, not just among adolescents but also among every adult who owns a mirror. The question itself is normal.

The audience for it makes all the difference.

For an insecure child looking to affirm her self-worth, the anonymous world of YouTube commentators is probably the worst of audiences. It is a world comprised of unemployed dudes in their mid-20s who live in their mothers' basements and are working on a double major in Jonah Hill movies and jaded sarcasm at Slacker University. Do not ask those people if you are pretty. You do not want to know the answer.

However, asking someone who truly knows you, loves you, and cares for you, whose opinion you respect and who wants the best for you, asking them to give you feedback can be an incredibly healthy and highly constructive thing. A father knows what is truly beautiful about his daughter. A mother knows what is potentially ugly about her son. A wife knows when her husband is most handsome, and a lifelong friend can be trusted to tell you when you are being kind of ugly and unlovely. Yes, ask them if you are pretty; that is fine. Their answer is likely worth listening to.

As members of God's family, we must be willing to ask the question, "Am I spiritually ugly? Am I reflecting the righteousness of Christ, or today, in the way I am thinking, acting and treating others, do I look like I've been hit with the ugly stick of sin?" As we have learned, the audience for this question makes all the difference. We can ask ourselves and we will see what we want to see, conveniently justifying everything unattractive. Or we can go to someone who knows us, someone who loves us, someone who wants what's best for us, and who can look well beyond what's on the surface and peer deep into our souls. 

God and the Art of Happiness

I would like to do something a little different this time. I came across some reflections on a book by Ellen T. Charry, Princeton theologian wrote God and the Art of Happiness (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010). Some reviewers suggest it should be in the library of pastors and teachers. It is not in my library, but a reference sounded interesting, and I chased down a few reflections on the book.

In this study, she addresses her concern that Christian theology lacks a substantial doctrine of human flourishing. In the book's first section, Charry surveys the history of philosophy and Christian doctrine to reveal overlooked thinkers from Augustine to the Anglican divine Joseph Butler who encourage human flourishing. In the second section, Charry examines the biblical foundations of a doctrine she calls "asherism" (from the Hebrew asher, to be happy) and finds that Scripture encourages Christians to organize life around God so as to be buoyed by God's love, beauty, goodness, and wisdom. This discussion is what makes the book memorable for theologians, and probably boring for others. It has an innovative teaching of ‘asherism.’ Asherism avoids the dangers of self-denying agapism (love that would let people walk all over you) and self-serving eudaemonism (your personal pleasure is your goal) by confirming our perennial need to love God, neighbor, and self at once and to live out our lives and vocations by the letter, spirit, and telos of both the law and the gospel.” Happiness, she concludes, is celebrating our own spiritual growth and well-being and God's enjoyment of these. She makes it clear that Christians need not be dour and gloomy about life, but that their traditions do encourage them to put on a happy face.

As she sees it, western Christian theology is skittish about happiness. We hope for future, eternal happiness, but we avoid considering happiness in this life as if we suspect that God would not allow such a thing. The book offers a refreshing interpretation of happiness as a way of life grounded in scripture and the incarnate Christ.

Ellen Charry here reveals how the Bible encourages the happiness and joy that accompany obedience to the Creator, enhancing both our own life and the lives of those around us. This advances the wellbeing of creation, which, in turn, causes God to delight with, in, and for us.

Charry says that the divine goal of Christian truth is to produce virtue, and, thus, theology ought to be more concerned with teaching wisdom -- the root of happiness -- than knowledge. She believes that knowledge is a necessary, but subordinate, means to character formation. The same should be true about our study of Scripture. Yes, it helps us know what is in the Bible, but the larger purpose of our study is to help us become the person God calls us to be.

If our reading of the Old Testament brings us face to face with the asherist commands, our reading of the New Testament brings us, among other things, the Sermon on the Mount. That, too, aims at teaching wisdom and helping us create communities that thrive.

            Not all Old Testament commands are asherist. Some, says Charry, are "single occurrence or rarely occurring ... orders" related to a specific time or circumstance, to test obedience." For example, when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it was an obedience test. The asherist commands, however, are guidelines that commend an ongoing way of life. They include the Ten Commandments, certainly, but also the laws about how to treat the poor and the resident alien, and how to use the land. The asherist commands teach us the values God holds for human interactions and life together.

            I am going to explore some wisdom during worship this month. However, the reflections I discovered on this book helped me in another way. Preaching and teaching in the church, I hope, prepares us for eternity. However, that fact must not make us neglect the importance of this time and place God has given us.  God has made this world. God wants us to enjoy it. The best we can do that is to follow the wisdom we find in Scripture. It helps us to avoid the many pitfalls in life and bringing us on the path of a “blessed” life.

Time: Chronos or Kairos

How many of us are not here?

We may right now think about the difficulty we had getting here. We may think about something bad or something very good that happened this past week. Our minds may already have moved on to the next thing we have to do, whether this afternoon, tomorrow, or this week. We have a list of things to do, and even now, we think of ways to get them done.

Regardless of what timepiece you carry, it is clear that we live in a world obsessed with time. Rarely do people sidle up to you in the grocery store anymore and ask, "Do you have the time?" because everyone has it attached to their body in some way. We have multiple apps for tracking our calendars, managing our deadlines and even timing our walk to the office. We have time staring at us from the corner of our computer screens, from the dashboard of the car and from the digital clock on the bank sign down the street. If you live in a city, you might even look up and see a classic old clock fixed on a historic building that has been marking the time for generations.

In some cities, in fact, telling time is literally a big deal. If you are in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, for example, you cannot help but see the Abraj Al Bait Towers clock just about anywhere you go. Its clock face is 43 meters in diameter, roughly the size of a luxury yacht, built on a tower that is 601 meters (almost 2,000 feet) tall. By comparison, Big Ben, arguably the most famous clock in the world, is just over 6 meters in diameter on a 96-meter-high tower on the bank of the Thames. Other cities around the world have similar "big time" clocks to help residents and visitors track the time, some even assisting with chimes or bells when the clock strikes the hour.

You would think that the plethora of clocks in our world would make us better at managing our time, but the truth is that time management is one of the biggest stressors in our culture. We work too many hours, we have too many distractions, and we are trying to squeeze in more work in less time. Procrastination is often the result of being so overwhelmed with tasks that we keep putting things off, only to find that we are now even more squeezed for time.

The relentless ticking of the clock (or, in their case, the movement of the shadow around the sundial) is what the ancient Greeks referred to as chronos time, from which we get "chronological" time. If you buy an expensive watch today (either to tell time or to make a fashion statement), the jewelry store will likely refer to it as a "chronograph." It keeps the time that we are always tracking, managing and running out of.

I hope that in the midst of all these thoughts, you will allow me to ask you a question. Why should we waste our precious time on something like worship?

In our busily engaged world, we might tempt ourselves with thoughts that we need to keep moving, keep busy, refuse to reflect upon our lives, and redeem the time.

Philosophers like St. Augustine have reflected upon the puzzling nature of time. I like Science Fiction movies that play around with our experience of time. That reminds me; Albert Einstein once said that the only reason for time is so that everything does happen at once. The philosopher and comedian Steven Wright said, in the dry humor of his, “I Xeroxed my watch. Now I have time to spare.” He said he took a course in speed waiting. Now, he can wait one hour in only ten minutes.

Our Christian faith -- along with the underlying Jewish tradition -- offers a marvelous tool for figuring out how to redeem the time. It is so important that God devoted one of the 10 commandments to it. It is, of course, the Sabbath. A wise teacher from the Jewish tradition, biblical scholar Abraham Heschel, has this to say about what a wondrous gift from God the Sabbath is:

"Time is like a wasteland. It has grandeur but no beauty. It's strange, frightful power is always feared but rarely cheered. Then we arrive at the seventh day, and the Sabbath is endowed with a felicity which enraptures the soul, which glides into our thoughts with a healing sympathy. It is a day on which hours do not oust one another. It is a day that can soothe all sadness away. --Abraham Joseph Heschel, The Sabbath (Macmillan, 2005), 20.

            Paul actually kept a running clock in his head, but, instead of tracking the chronos, Paul was far more interested in redeeming the kairos.

Kairos is the brand of time most often mentioned in the New Testament. You will not find it on the hands of the dial or the digital numbers on a screen. Instead, kairos refers more to a decisive time -- the right time, the appropriate time. The writers of the New Testament seem to understand kairos in relation to the moment when God intervenes or is about to intervene in human history. However, the word can also mean the time that God's people have to prepare for the ultimate kairos, thus Paul's admonition to the Ephesians to "[make] the most of the time [kairos] because the days are evil" (v. 16).

It is that kairos expectation that should fuel the management of our chronos. I invite you to pause with me for just a moment, before we go any further.

I want you to meet Randy Hofman. He is an artist — a sculptor dealing in primarily religious themes. He created monumental works such as “Christ on the Cross,” “The Last Supper,” “Jesus Praying” and “David and Goliath.” He creates sculptures out of normal beach sand and seawater. An ordained minister since 1985, Hofman now earns his living as an artist and views his sand sculptures as his ministry.
            Sand sculpting is a purposely temporary and fragile art form. Here today, gone tomorrow, taken by tide, rain, or wind. Obviously, he does preserve his art in photos, but what he created is gone. The impermanence of sand is part of the magic, part of the beauty. Most of us, however, devalue the temporary. If something does not last, or have staying power, it does not have value. We want durability, sustainability, strength and endurance — whether we are talking about our marriage, our washing machine, our job, our car, our family or our God. We value things that last. We cling to the permanent, perhaps because, deep down, we know that human life is a sand castle before a coming tide.

One movie that played around with time was The Curious Case of BenjaminButton (2008), about a baby born old, placed in an old folks home, and increasingly gets younger throughout the movie.

For what it's worth: it's never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit, stop whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. And I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people with a different point of view. I hope you live a life you're proud of. If you find that you're not, I hope you have the courage to start all over again."[1]

---

[1] --Eric Roth, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button screenplay.

Einstein, Knowledge, Wisdom

This is a picture of the young Albert Einstein. We do not see it too much, but it seems fitting for this brief reflection.
Einstein.
Albert Einstein.
E=MC²
His name is synonymous with smarts.
People don’t say, “You don’t have to be an Edison to figure it out.”
They don’t say, “You don’t have to be a Bill Gates to figure it out.”
They don’t say, “You don’t have to be a Carl Sagan to figure it out.”
Instead, they say, “You don’t have to be an Einstein to figure it out.”
He had the wisdom of Solomon. Plus a mastery of the photoelectric effect, which earned him the Nobel Prize in physics.

In 2002, there was a groundbreaking exhibit in New York about this great scientific genius. Although Einstein’s thoughts are often assumed to be too complex for mere mortals to master, The New Yorker reports that this assumption is completely untrue. Walk in the door of this exhibit, and you are immediately greeted with a view of yourself as seen through a black hole.

It is not a pretty sight.

Then, as you work your way through the displays, you come to understand how light travels, why time warps, and what makes stars shine. You discover that the mass of a single penny, under the right conditions, could be converted into enough energy to fuel New York City for two years. Of course, to accomplish this feat, you would need to crank up your oven to a temperature hotter than the sun. So, for now, New York is stuck with ConEd.

Most amazing of all is what Albert Einstein managed to accomplish in a single year.

In 1905, at the age of 26, he published three groundbreaking papers that provided the blueprint for much of modern science. The first was on the motion of particles suspended in liquid. The second was on the photoelectric effect, the release of electrons from metal when light shines on it. Last and perhaps most famous, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, which led to the shocking conclusion that time is not constant, and neither is weight nor mass.

It is still hard to believe that Einstein’s work in that single year led to the discovery of, among other things, X-ray crystallography, DNA, the photoelectric effect, vacuum tubes, transistors and the mechanics of the information age.

1905. What a year.

Richard P. Feynman explained that Einstein’s general theory of relativity does away with the need for a force of gravity. Time and distance rates depend on the place in space you measure time and on the time. In this theory, the effects of gravitation are local, not distant.  Nature does what is easiest.  In this case, objects in the universe simply respond to the contours of space in their immediate vicinity. The laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a fixed observer as for an observer who has a uniform motion of translation relative to him, so that we have not any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion. Newton’s second law F=d(mv)/dt assumed that m is a constant. His famous formula, E=MC², modifies what Newton thought of as constant. Einstein said that the mass of a body increases with velocity. The theory of relativity changes Newton’s laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass. The formula for relativistic mass says that the inertia is very great when v is nearly as great as c. Space and time are relative to the observer.  The speed of light relativizes both space and time.  Experiments proved that light did not travel in space in a straight line.  As one advances toward the speed of light, time slows down.  The law of gravitation has an elegantly simple principle. Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that for any two bodies is proportional to the mass of each and varies inversely as the square of the distance between them. If we add the fact that an object responds to a force by accelerating in the direction of the force by an amount that is inversely proportional to the mass of the object, we shall have said everything required. Einstein modified Newton’s law of gravitation to take into account the theory of relativity. Anything that has energy has mass. Even light has a mass. For consistency in our physical theories, it would be important to see whether we can modify Newton’s law modified to Einstein’s law to be consistent with the uncertainty principle. Scientists have not completed this last modification. All of this had a practical effect upon our view of the universe. Light travels in accord with the curvature of the universe. This discovery has led to a revision of our view universe, especially as it begins (and is therefore finite), as it matures (the universe grows), and as it possibly moves toward its end (like any finite thing).

Of course, Einstein’s work at that time also laid the groundwork for the atomic bomb. He did not like that. When America dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Einstein’s immediate response was “Vey iz mir” ... “Woe is me.” I have read enough about this incident not to have this reaction. Truman agonized over the decision. He knew a ground battle would be devastating to both sides. He made a judgment he thought best, in light of the information he had. People have started second-guessing this decision, of course, but we must always remember that people must often make judgments that will be difficult to determine as to whether it was the right decision.

In any case, Einstein was one of the smartest humans in history, and yet he ended his career feeling that his creations had slipped beyond his control. The pro-bomb position that he took during the Second World War turned into pacifism by the end of his life. The mushroom cloud that validated so many brilliant theories brought no joy to this genius, but instead only woe.

“Vey iz mir.”

The point here is that regardless of your view of whether dropping the bomb was wise, Einstein came to think of the answer as “No.” For him, the best knowledge and the best wisdom can turn out not to be so wise or knowledgeable. He thought he was part of something wise, but came to think of his involvement in the bomb as questionable. In his words, Vey iz mir!

The experience of Einstein with the bomb actually shows how difficult it can be to determine whether a decision is wise.

It is essential to have a discerning mind and to understand that human wisdom can lead both to good and to evil. Experiments on stem cells derived from human embryos can unlock cures for disease, but may also undermine the dignity of embryonic life. Advances in computer technology create amazing tools for education and business, but produce incredible amounts of toxic waste when people throw away outdated computers. The clearing of land and the building of homes can provide wonderful quality of life for new generations, but these actions can also degrade the environment and reduce biodiversity.

        How do we discern whether our actions are going to lead to good or to evil?

Republican 2016 Debate - Cleveland

The purpose of this blog is to allow the potential reader to ponder the field of Republican candidates. I have been collecting some thoughtful articles that I hope will prove helpful. I have stayed away from what I thought of as polemical arguments. The order of discussion of the candidates is the in order in which I have my preferences today. I like the diversity represented in the field of 17 candidates. The order reflects that appreciation. This field is diverse, and the "best" person will win, but I hope the best will also be Hispanic, Black, Indian, or female. I hope any potential reader will take a few moments to reflect. After the debates, my impressions changed slightly with the middle group. However, my top preferences, and my please not these preferences, remained the same.

Arthur Brooks wrote a book that explores the moral case for conservatism, and Gabriella Hoffman summarizes the ideas.

Before I begin, a few authors have explored some general issues in the campaign. For example, Helen Raleigh explains why the Asian vote typically goes Democrat and how Republicans might change this. For another example, we can take the matter of Iraq and its continuing influence on the campaign. Steve Chapman explores the hesitancy of Republican candidates to deal with Iraq. If you look at the comments section, you should see one from me. Charles Krauthammer has his reaction to the question of a hypothetical here.

Of course, we have some analysis of the horse race. Mark Davis offers a general analysis of a Quinnpiac numbers as of May 2015. Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute offers a study in June 2015 that suggests that Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are the strongest candidates in this field. David Shribman describes surprises in the campaign as of June 2015. Charles Krauthammer offers a betting approach to both Republicans and Democrats, giving Marco and Hillary 3-1 odds, and Republicans a 55-45 advantage to win. Thomas Sowell considers the candidates as of August 2015.

Of course, the debate scheme, with 17 candidates, is one that will attract attention. Byron York discusses the criticism of the debate scheme. My puzzlement has been the focus upon national polls rather than the polls in IA and NH, where the candidates have naturally been spending their time.

I should add that at this stage, in addition to the articles I refer, much of what I have are impressions. I do not have the time, at this stage, to study the positions.

Marco Rubio
He presents his position on the issues on his web site. I like the idea of a Cuban-American becoming President, but my primary concern is the issues.

Whenever I hear him speak, I am impressed. He has what some of us might call a conservative vision of what American can be. For me, this is primary. He seems willing to engage the battle. Nicholas Riccardi of the AP has provided a relatively balanced review of the Rubio tax plan. Star Parker shares her early sense that Rubio may have that Reagan touch. She also writes about how his understanding of "black lives matter" is on target.

The New York Times provided some levity. They must think he is dangerous from the perspective of their liberal bias. They ran stories that he had two driving violations in 20 years and that he had a "luxury speed boat." My understanding is that for many who live in Miami, the driving violation should earn him an award for best driver. You can find a picture of the boat. Ramesh Ponnuru digs into the supposed bad decisions regarding personal finances and thinks that he is like most Americans.

Carly Fiorino
She does not have an issues page, but you can "meet" her.

When I hear her, I like what she says. She has persistence about her. I would be happy for her to be the first female President. She has integrated her faith journey into her presentation of herself in a powerful way. She offered a speech on the rise of China in August 2015.

Debra J. Sanders discusses some of the things excite her about this candidate. However, the layoffs at Hewlitt-Packard and the failure to pay off campaign debt promptly are problems with her. Alex Smith discusses the contrast between this candidate and Hillary Clinton.

Jackie Gingrich Cushman explains why she crushed the debate - optimistic, knowledgeable, and articulating the difference between progressive and conservative. She compares her to - Margaret Thatcher!


Ben Carson
He offers his position on issues on his web site. I like the way he weaves his faith story into his presentation of himself. Having a black president who is actually successful would be wonderful. However, I share the concern about his readiness. I wish he would have run for Senator, for example. I would normally have him ranked higher. This field is strong.

Star Parker writes about the power of the personal story of this candidate. Joy Overbeck offers the same through the eyes of his mother. A blogger wanted to like him, but points to a blunder in Iowa to say that he is not ready for prime time. Justin Haskins also has a concern for his readiness for the presidency, but thinks the vice-presidency would be a possibility. Arthur Schaper has a similar concern, noting public utterances he has had to retract or for which he made apology. Rich Lowry writes positively of his non-political alternative to Trump. Michelle Malkin writes of his wife. Debra J. Saunders thinks he stills needs to show he has the executive experience necessary, but she has other positive things about him.

John Kasich
I have long liked him and followed his work in Congress as well as Governor. He would find ways to get things done and work across the aisle. I like the way he has integrated his faith journey into his presentation of himself.

A Newsweek interview in the Jewish World Review offers some background. Margaret Carlson promotes this candidate on the basis of his record, but also points out that he is not pure enough for some conservatives. David Shribman says this is his moment.

Chris Christie
I like his combative style. I like his willingness to tackle entitlements.

Scott Walker
He has a news page that will keep an interested person up to date on his take on matters.

I admire him for his willingness to fight on issues in which he believed in Wisconsin. He seems to have been a good governor. A recall election that should never have happened showed his strength.

Ken Blackwell seems to like this candidates position immigration. Brent Bozell states that the NYT is already starting the character assassination. Arthur Schaper discusses the common core issue. This article is disturbing in that I have seen Walker waffle on issues before. Here, he started out for common core and then changes his tune as he starts thinking about the presidency. He keeps wanting to appeal to the "right," when his real appeal is broader than that. He also changed his position in Iowa on subsidies. Some democrats are wanting to paint him as a male version of Sarah Palin.

Jeb Bush
He offers news and positions on issues on his web site. I like much about him. I have not been a Bush fan, although I think they are wonderful people and desire to serve the nation they love. George H. W. gave us Bill Clinton, and George W. gave us Iraq and Barak Obama. It also simply looks like he does not really want the job. I saw this recently when Jeb, following Hillary as a speaker, listened to Hillary attack him, and he simply got up and gave his prepared speech. Byron York addresses this incident.

Guy Benson writes about the relationship between Jeb and George W. William Kristol says that George W. was right on several matters.  Jonah Goldberg is surprised that a family with so much institutional knowledge of how to run for President seems to have so many mistakes at the beginning of this campaign. Erick Erickson discusses some of the problems he has. Debra Saunders has a positive reflection on the energy of Jeb Bush. Kathleen Parker discusses Alzheimer costs to the government and the plan of Jeb to deal with it.

Larry Kudlow thinks that he is right that the economy can grow at 4%.

Jeb seemed to have a misstep in his response to a question from Megyn Kelly about whether what he knew now would he have done the same thing that George W. did in Iraq. David Harsanyi connects this interest with the vote by Hillary Clinton for the war.

Ted Cruz
He has a news portion on his web site. Of course, his Hispanic background is attractive. He has said many things I like. He is an intelligent man. He can make a sound argument. I do not like the fact that when he has staked out a position in the Senate, only one or two others join him. He sounds too much like a preacher for me. Byron York, after Steve Deace of Iowa endorsed him, examines the increase in support for Cruz since the debate.

Rand Paul
Not surprisingly, you can quickly access his stance on issues. His libertarian leaning is well-known, and I like it. His stance on the military is a little too far for me. I wish other Republican candidates shared some of his hesitancy to use military force.

Brian Darling explores the challenge he brings to the Republican Party, apparently thinking other Republicans favor a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy and are they do not tell the truth about the Bush/Obama NSA spying program. Of course, the way I have worded this, I disagree, but the article is worth reading. Stephen Moore helped put together his tax plan and offers an explanation that it is "flat and fair."

Bobby Jindal
He has a newsroom that discusses issues as they arise.

I have long liked this candidate. His parents were from India. He provides a fresh look for the Party. He also presents conservative ideas in a fresh and interesting way. My problem with him is that at critical moments, he seems to under-perform. His promise does not coincide with reality.

Stuart Rothenberg offers an initial assessment of why no one should underestimate him. Stephanie Grace discusses the low approval he has in Louisiana and the budget deficit. Arthur Schaper has an interesting article on why one should not count him out yet. Jeff Jacoby says that Jindal is particularly good at emphasizing the importance of being American, rather than a hyphenated American.

Jeff Crouere, after Jindal made personal comments against Trump, analyzed the eight years of Jindal as governor. It does not look good.



The rest are people that I hope and trust do not get the nomination. Here is my "Please No" list.

Mike Huckabee
Do not ask why. I think he seems like a fine person and good TV host, but President? No.

Steve Chapman thinks that since 2008 this candidate has done things to narrow his appeal rather than broaden it. George Will has concerns related to the way he understands God in politics. David French argues that a loss by this candidate will be a victory for cultural conservatives. Jonah Goldberg offers his analysis of the progressive nature of the Huckabee campaign. Todd Starnes thinks he is a man of conviction as he stands for traditional marriage and has concerns over what the Supreme Court will do regarding legalizing gay marriage. Jonah Goldberg does want to defend this candidate, but he did not compare Obama to Hitler.

Lindsay Graham
Daniel Doherty considers him a longshot candidate. Paul Greenberg does not think he has a chance, but he likes him, especially on national defense and on reform of entitlements.

Rick Santorum
George Will makes it clear that he thinks this candidate is silly for even considering a run for the presidency again. Agreed.

Jim Gilmore

George Pataki

Donald Trump
He will not be the nominee. Jeff Jacoby shares why, beginning with the idea that it says many good things about the Republican Party that most Republicans have a negative view of him. William Kristol is also against Trump, but pauses to listen to what attracts people to him. Joseph Curl thinks that he is actually a Democrat plant, given his donations to the Democrat Party. Jonah Goldberg says he is a bad deal for the Party. In raising the issue of illegal immigration, Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Michael Reagan says that Trump is a fake conservative and a danger to the Republican Party. Alicia Colon, who apparently knows The Donald, thinks he would have been wonderful mayor of NYC, but not a President. Kathleen Parker says one should not dismiss Trump, and offers her reasons. David Limbaugh wonders if Trump will awaken the "sleeping giant." Angelo Codevilla has some very good comments about the rise of Trump. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration. Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is. After the debate, George Will, whose wife works for the Scott Walker campaign, wrote that Trump is a counterfeit conservative. Will continues his probing in a September 2015 article. S. E. Cupp describes the Trump voter as not part of the base conservative (who thinks of Jeb Bush as establishment, purist) but rather disaffected moderates and even some on the Left. She points to some voters who say that if Bernie Sanders does not make it through the primaries, they are going for Trump. The Corner in the National Review offers a brief description of the immigration plan he offered in August 2015, which is largely the plan of Jeff Sessions. Ann Coulter explains why Trump is right concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Linda Chavez focuses on birthright citizenship and defends it. Michael Barone offers a discussion of the 14th amendment and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Mona Charen joins the ranks of this view of the 14th amendment. Charles Krauthammer takes on the immigration matter and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Michael Reagan thinks it time to take on Trump. George Will thinks the immigration plan could spell doom for the Republican Party. He also thinks that Trump will damage the Republican Party amidst minority voters and offers statistics to show why this is so dangerous. Paul Greenberg refers to Trump as in the tradition of the ugly American, Pat Buchannan and the populist know-nothing party. Jeff Jacoby shows how Trump is in favor of expanding "eminent domain," something most conservatives would normally be against. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore point out that the last protectionist president America had was Republican Herbert Hoover, and that did not go well. The trade policy of Trump seems headed down that path. Dana Milbank writes of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley talking back to Trump. Nate Silver says we should not compare Trump and Sanders, and offers his reasons.

Out of the race:
Rick Perry
He presents his position on the issues on his web site.

He is doing better this time. I like much of what he has to say. He seemed to do well as governor of Texas. I do not like the way he handled the Donald Trump matter.

Mark Davis offers a good introduction to this campaign and reasons for him to become the nominee as of June 2015. Star Parker offers what appears to be an endorsement, given his economic record as governor and his military service.