And who is Sarah Palin? There are many theories: she’s a rube, she’s uneducated, she’s stupid, et cetera. But as I’ve watched the parade of wild-eyed, spittle-spewing Leftists denouncing her over the last three years, I’ve become convinced these are incomplete reasons. Certainly, her clumsy vernacular and home-spun, folksy approach grate on eastern establishment (both Dem and Rep) sensibilities. But our most successful president was also accused of all these things, yet he won his reelection bid in 1984 by the biggest landslide in American history.

What, then? Like most things, the correct answer is usually the simplest. Though the charges that she’s an unlearned, moronic hick are indeed simple reasons, if there are even simpler reasons, Occam’s Razor requires that we investigate them.

Unfortunately, this involves math, and the Left hates actual numbers, which get in the way of their precious and inarguable feelings. But life is not always an essay question where you can fudge the answer; most often it is unforgivingly arithmetic, requiring binary answers: right or wrong, good or bad, truth or lies.

There are about 300 million Americans, about half of which are female. Of these 150 million women, roughly half would describe themselves as Democrats. Of these 75 million Democrat women, probably one half are of child-bearing age. That leaves us with 37 million Democrat women of child-bearing age.

In the almost forty years since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, there have been over 50 million abortions in America, 95% of which were elective (i.e., used as birth control). Of the women who have had abortions, almost half have had at least two.

These staggering numbers result in a simple statistic: 35 million Democrat women of child-bearing age, 35 million abortions if each of those women had just one abortion, well over 50 million abortions if each Democrat woman of child-bearing age had two abortions.

But surely not every Democrat woman has had an abortion. Republican women also have them. But most abortions are had by Democrat women for two reasons: (1) abortion-on-demand is an integral part of the Democrat party platform and we naturally identify with those who agree with our choices; and (2) blacks vote 95% of the time for Democrat candidates, and half of those black voters are women.

Recent CDC statistics reveal that the abortion rate in 2007 was 16 per 1,000 women nationwide. White women had the lowest abortion rates (8.5 abortions per 1,000 women). In contrast, black women had the highest abortion rates (32 abortions per 1,000 women). Thus it appears that most abortions, quite simply, come on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Therefore, the reason the Democrats (and especially Democrat women) hate Sarah Palin is much simpler than her offensive “Mama Grizzly” persona: huge numbers of these women have had at least one abortion and feel guilty about it. (Remember, less than 5% of abortions are due to the health of the mother, rape, or fetal abnormalities.)

And speaking of fetal abnormalities, here we have the most direct answer to our question: Sarah Palin, when informed by her doctors that the child she was carrying was suffering from Down Syndrome, said she would carry the child to term because he was a “gift from God.”

That’s why the Left (and especially Leftist women) hates Sarah Palin. In the moment of truth, when decency and love and honor and courage were required of them, many of them chose to kill their unborn children, whereas Sarah Palin chose life.

Occam’s Razor states that the simplest answer is the most likely one. And there is nothing simpler than guilt and shame.

 

 

IN 2006, ABC/DISNEY SURPRISED THE WORLD by announcing a miniseries called The Path to 9/11 to be broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, based on several books, including, prominently, the 9/11 Commission Report. Opposition began immediately.

The project was maligned by the mainstream media and pressure was brought to bear because the miniseries took a hard look at the lack of response between the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks. Remember, those years included the Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and the African embassy bombings—and that’s just the attacks on American interests. During that time, all over the world, the jihadists were blowing things up, and Bill Clinton was asleep at the switch.

The miniseries, condensing the voluminous matter coming out of the 9/11 Commission, and including other authoritative sources, promised to be a bombshell in itself. But the series almost didn’t broadcast. Bill Clinton himself demanded changes to the completed film and a number of politicians—none of whom had seen the film, mind you—attacked it. And ABC caved, deleting entire scenes, truncating others, and running a disclaimer. The series, designed to run every year on September 11th, ran just once. It never aired again and was never released on DVD.

Blocking the Path to 9/11: An Anatomy of a Smear details what happened in the aftermath of this debacle. The miniseries itself was billed as a docudrama, indicating that certain liberties were taken with presentation. In Blocking, it is clear from interviews with the participants that they were just trying to tell the truth about the lead-up to 9/11, to “connect the dots” as so many accused the Bush administration of failing to do. Unfortunately for the Left, there were only a few new dots to connect during Bush’s few months in office, but a whole mess of them were ignored during Bill Clinton’s tenure.

A growing sense of horror builds as you watch Blocking. The main writer, Iranian-born American Cyrus Nowrasteh, has a formidable pedigree in the film business, as does director David Cunningham. But nevertheless, they soon became marked men for their temerity in trying to tell us what happened prior to the attacks.

Blocking the Path details how craven Disney was in bowing to pressure from the politicians they helped elect. Several scenes are shown with the excised material intact. The one that stands out most is a moment when the Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan have Osama bin Laden in their sights, the target painted with lasers, and American fighters above, their thumbs poised to fire missiles, awaiting a kill order that never comes. The national security team, including heads of the FBI and CIA and the president’s own national security advisor, all agree that bin Laden must go, but no one has the courage to give the order. And Bill Clinton? He’s upstairs in the White House residence and won’t come down to take the phone call and make a decision. For two hours they wait and he never arrives. Finally, the operation is cancelled. As the leader of the rebels leaves, he says to the CIA operative, “Are there any men left in America?”

The gainsayers of this episode say things didn’t happen exactly that way. Nowrasteh responds that maybe that is true, but they had thirteen such opportunities to kill bin Laden, and for the purposes of the film, they collapsed them into one. All the elements in the edited scene were factual.

That’s thirteen chances to avoid 9/11, folks. Thirteen. Talk about an unlucky number.

And that’s really the crux of the so far successful attempts to derail The Path to 9/11. Though millions of people saw the two-night series broadcast, they didn’t see the version that was approved by the phalanx of ABC/Disney lawyers and researchers prior to the filming. But when pressure against the film began to be felt, ABC/Disney caved for no other reason than to spare the person most responsible for 9/11—William Jefferson Clinton.

Blocking the Path leaves the viewer stunned. Every fact need not be unassailable for you to realize that those charged with protecting us failed miserably and are still trying to cover up their malfeasance with help from the very people who are supposed to defend free speech.

As stated, The Path to 9/11 is still unavailable on DVD. Imagine spending $40 million and not wanting to recoup your investment. When a group of investors at a Disney shareholder meeting challenged the company to either release the film or sell it to someone who would, the CEO responded that he knew of no one interested in buying it. The investors immediately made an offer, which Disney refused.

Mickey Mouse is indeed a rat.

Note: You can sign a petition to encourage ABC/Disney to make The Path to 9/11 available at www.ipetitions.com/petition/thepathto911.

He who controls the media controls history.

THOMAS SOWELL'S REMARKABLE BOOK Economic Facts and Fallacies is even more remarkable for its brevity. In just over two hundred pages, he tackles and deconstructs fallacies infecting our cities, our relationships, the academy, business, race relations, and the Third World.

John Adams said famously, “Facts are stubborn things.” The Austin Lounge Lizards sang, “Life is hard, but life is hardest when you’re dumb.” Both are true and one of the most difficult things in life is keeping an open mind for facts that contradict received knowledge—our vision of the world which we hold close because it’s simply easier to believe what we already know is true than to investigate contradictory claims. After all, we’re not stupid; we know certain things are true, right?

Well . . . that depends. Here are a few fallacies and the facts that contradict them. How you receive these facts is something to ponder:

Urban Facts and Fallacies

Fallacy: Affordable housing requires government intervention.

Fact: It is precisely government intervention in housing which has made housing unaffordable. A hundred years ago people spent a smaller percentage of their income on housing than today. With increasing restrictions on building, due to zoning and environmental regulations, housing prices skyrocketed. “Open space” and “smart growth” policies restrict building and send prices upward. Houston has no zoning laws or like restrictions; a typical middle-class home on a quarter-acre lot that costs $152,000 in Houston costs more than $1 million in San Francisco. As recently as 2001, home prices in Tampa, FL were not much different than Houston, but after restrictive building laws began to take effect, housing prices doubled. And these rates hold true even when adjusted for inflation.

Male-Female Facts and Fallacies

Fallacy: The fact that women earn less money than men is proof of discrimination. Where such disparities have lessened, it is because of government intervention.

Fact: While many white collar jobs may be performed equally well by women as men, most jobs are still dependent upon physical strength (construction) and the willingness of the person to engage in dangerous behavior (phone linemen). While men are 54% of the labor force, they are 92% of job-related deaths. In addition, women are often out of the job market for years at a time, bearing and raising children. When they return, their skills are rusty and outmoded. In the sciences, these same years are the peak years of achievement, and thus fewer women are notable scientists because most opt for motherhood instead. The proportion of women engaged in the professions was higher a hundred years ago than it was fifty years ago—long before anti-discrimination laws or the rise of the feminist movement. The reason is that the median age for marriage for women was higher a hundred years ago, thus more women were in the workforce during the formative years prior to their forties. Indeed, most women who staffed women’s colleges during this earlier era were not married at all; they opted out of family life. Finally, the likelihood of future interruptions because of a woman’s prospective role as a mother can make placing her in a senior position more of a risk to the employer than placing a man of similar ability in that same position. Only the never-married women and men are in comparable circumstances, and here women have had comparable or higher incomes than men, years before there were laws or government policies against sex discrimination.

Academic Facts and Fallacies

Fallacy: Attendance at a big-name college or university is essential for reaching the top.

Fact: The four institutions with the highest percentage of their undergrads going on to receive Ph.D.s are all small colleges with less than 2000 undergrads each. And of the chief executive officers of the 50 largest American corporations, only four had Ivy League degrees and just over half graduated from state colleges, city colleges, or community colleges. The fact that graduates of Harvard receive prestigious jobs and salaries may be traced more to their wealthy family connections than the education they receive, as well as their income from the earnings of inherited assets.

Income Facts and Fallacies

Fallacy: American household income has stagnated, rising just 6% between 1969 and 1996.

Fact: Household size has diminished; average real income per person in the U.S. rose by 51% over that very same period. Studies of what people actually consume—their standard of living—show substantial increases over the years. Alarming statistics about the plight of the poor never take into account the government and charitable resources available to them; indeed, the poor’s actual income from work accounts for only 22% of the actual economic resources at their disposal. As for stagnation, by 2001 most people defined as poor had possessions once considered part of a middle class lifestyle. Three-quarters had air-conditioning, which only a third of all Americans had in 1971. 97% had color television, which less than half of all Americans had in 1971. 73% owned a microwave, which less than 1% of Americans owned in 1971, and 98% of the “poor” had either a VCR or a DVD player, which no one had in 1971. In addition, 72% of the “poor” had a car or truck. Yet the rhetoric of the “haves” and the “have nots” continues, even in a society where it might be more accurate to refer to the “haves” and the “have lots.” In fine, the problem is not a stagnation of the national economy, but particular economic and social problems of particular groups of people.

Racial Facts and Fallacies

Fallacy: Governmentally-enforced civil rights laws have reduced racism in America.

Fact: The percentage of black families with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87% to 47% over that span, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when “affirmative action” evolved into numerical quotas. While the downward trend in poverty continued, the pace of that decline did not accelerate after these legal landmarks, but in fact slackened. There was a similar historical trend as regards the rise of blacks into professional, managerial, and other high-level occupations. In short, affirmative action has produced little or no effect on the relative sizes of black and white incomes. The median black household income was 60.9% of the median white household income in 1970—and never rose above that, or as high as that, throughout the decade of the 1970s. As of 1980, median black household income was 57.6 of median white household income.

Fallacy: The current fatherless families so prevalent among contemporary blacks are a “legacy of slavery,” where families were not recognized.

Fact: Most black children were raised in two-parent homes, even under slavery, and for generations thereafter. Freed blacks married, and marriage rates among blacks were slightly higher than among whites in the early twentieth century. Blacks also had slightly higher rates of labor force participation than whites in every census from 1890 to 1950. While 31% of black children were born to unmarried women in the early 1930s, that proportion rose to 77% by the early 1990s. If unwed childbirth was a “legacy of slavery,” why was it so much less common among blacks who were two generations closer to the era of slavery? Oh, and by the way, from 1994 on into the twenty-first century, the poverty rate among black husband-wife families was below 10%. Turns out that “the man” most important to blacks is the man his wife calls her husband.

Third World Facts and Fallacies

Fallacy: Western nation’s imperialism is responsible for poverty in the Third World.

Fact: There are some prosperous countries whose conquests have been minor or non-existent, and countries mired in poverty that were never conquered. Why are those parts of the Third World least touched by contact with prosperous the most destitute of all? Blame is easier to understand than causation, more emotionally satisfying, and more politically convenient. There are many factors that must be considered: geography (mountainous countries persistently lag behind countries with extensive river valleys), isolation (the indigenous people of the Canary Islands were Caucasians living at a stone-age level when the Spaniards discovered them in the fifteenth century), climate (water is not only life-sustaining, but trade-sustaining; most advanced civilizations arose on navigable waterways), history (in the long view, all nations were Third World nations at some point), law and order (property rights, courts of law, uncorrupt officials—all culturally-dependent—create an environment of prosperity; even Rome’s bloody oppression of conquered lands resulted in a higher standard of living because these elements were a by-product of Roman dominance), population (there must be enough people to congregate in cities, where standards of living always increase; over-population is hardly ever the problem, as there are no examples of countries that had a higher standard of living when their population was half of what it is today), culture (Argentina was mired in poverty before German and Italian immigrants brought cattle-ranching and wheat-production to the country), and foreign aid (living standards were lower in sub-Saharan Africa decades after the departure of the colonial rulers, despite both nationalization of industries and foreign aid).

I’ve merely touched upon Dr. Sowell’s brilliant book, just one of the scores of clear-thinking economic tomes he’s written over the years. Yes, life is hard, but I intend to make my own life less difficult by basing it on facts, not fallacies.

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE UNREST in a dozen Middle East countries does not bode well for the West. When the images of demonstrators first started appearing in the media, I wanted to believe that the people marching in the streets in Cairo, Tripoli, and Bahrain were marching for political freedom. After all, they all lived under cruel, repressive regimes. Some governments had military rule (Egypt), others maintained power by bribery (Saudi Arabia), and others by sheer anti-Americanism (Libya). Did not all these autocrats deserve to be overthrown?

Perhaps. Having traveled in the Middle East, I have seen first-hand the culture there and, suffice it to say, it is more elementary school than graduate school. Though the union protestors in Madison screamed like spoiled children, violence did not break out, even when anti-protestor-protestors met them face-to-face. In America, for the time being, it appears we still can have confrontations without gunfire.

But in these repressive Middle East regimes, it takes incredible courage to face down soldiers who have no qualms about shooting you. The people in these countries must really want freedom, right?

Yes, but freedom to do what? That’s the important question.

Commentator Mark Steyn mentioned that he’d seen a series of photos of female graduates of Cairo University, taken between 1950 and 2009. In the earliest photo, the women wore poodle skirts and tight sweaters to their graduation exercises, just like their counterparts in America. In the 70s, they likewise sported jeans and peasant blouses. But in the 1990s, there were no bare arms and legs, and by 2009, all the women wore hijabs covering their hair and heads. That fashion detail alone indicated to Steyn that the Arab world is growing ever more religious. His comment made me look for women in the demonstrations. I saw very few and those I did see were completely covered.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a key instigator of the demonstrations in Libya and Egypt, states explicitly that it will work within existing political systems for as long as practicable, but violence is always an option. (You’ll recall that the Brotherhood was a fertile petrie dish for the men who planned 9/11.) That same Brotherhood will have a powerful position in the new government of Egypt, so say all political commentators.

I was dismayed at Obama’s response to the demonstrations. Remember he completely ignored the “Green Revolution” (a true quest for freedom) in Iran in 2009, but quickly decided that Mubarak must go, dismissing our thirty year relationship with Mubarak, who has honored the treaty with Israel made by his predecessor Anwar Sadat and kept the Suez Canal open and functioning for all that time. Mubarak was a tyrannical despot, but I’m reminded of what FDR said in the 1930s when he was chided for supporting the dictator of Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza: “Sure, he’s a son of a b**ch,” said Roosevelt. “But he’s our son of a b**ch,” which is a restatement of the famous Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

We live in a dangerous world. We have no friends; we have temporary allies. To see the world in any other way is foolhardy. And yet when a true enemy of the United States, the madman Muammar Ghadaffi, is challenged by his countrymen, Obama takes almost two weeks to take sides. Ghadaffi was behind the murder of Americans on Pan Am flight 103, which crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland. It seems you can almost set your compass by Obama’s response to any crisis: whatever he does or says is the exact opposite of what should be done and said.

I believe Arabs throughout the world want more freedom, but the freedom they desire is apparently the freedom to live under a theocracy which will institute sharia law, with beheadings for marital infidelities and terror against the West in order to comply with the Koran’s mandate to convert, subjugate, or murder unbelievers. In short, it is reasonable to believe that Iran is the sort of country most of the people in the streets from Algeria to Pakistan desire, and that cannot be good for Western interests.

But as usual, Obama lives in a make-believe world where all people want American-style freedom. Sadly, his world is not the real world, where you and I live.

Imagine a single Muslim caliphate stretching from Morocco to Pakistan. Now imagine it with nuclear weapons and tell me you wouldn’t prefer Mubarak and even Ghadaffi still in power.

Waiting for Superman is a heart-breaking and anger-inciting documentary about American public schools. Heart-breaking because of the injustice this system is inflicting upon innocent children and anger-inducing because the perpetrators of this outrage are its self-styled saviors.



But teachers are not entirely to blame. A student is not a tabula rasa; they are the beneficiaries or victims of their environments, and their situations both in life and school are a direct result of their social and economic status. Three of the five children in the film are apparently without fathers, supported by single mothers in low-paying jobs who are unable to move elsewhere to provide better educational opportunities for their kids. The charter school lotteries are a salvation long shot.

PROPHECY: IT'S GONNA BE A BLOW-OUT. This November, Republicans will take the House (by historic mid-term numbers) and the Senate (by more than a squeaker). Obamaism will be repudiated, lock, stock, and barrel. Most of this will be due to the insatiable appetite of the ruling class to take our money and not merely spend it, but flush it away on boondoggles that have cost us $1 trillion and resulted in a flat economy.

How is that possible? Because government cannot create long-term job growth. Certainly, it can mobilize people and money to build giant projects like the Hoover Dam or the interstate highway system, but eventually those projects come to a close and the workers are again looking for work. Only private enterprise is on-going, building businesses that will outlive their creators. Taxing one person to pay for another’s job is not job creation; at best it is an even economic exchange. At worst (and most commonly), it results in the impoverishment of both: the taxed worker has less money and thus his standard of living falls; the newly-hired worker has a tenuous job which is dependent upon the quickly-emptying pockets of the taxed worker. When the first loses his job, the second will eventually lose his as well, unless, that is, Congress discovers how to spend the money of those who are not yet born. Which they have.

This economic shell game has birthed the Tea Party, which is nothing more or less than an amalgam of angry people who feel they pay too much in taxes and receive too little benefit. More taxes, less services. More taxes, less security. More taxes, more politicians and bureaucrats, but less money to spend on the kids at Christmas. While most Tea Partiers are white-middle class mortgage payers, the fact is that most mortgage payers in America are white. So the fact that Tea Party conclaves reflect that racial makeup means nothing, only that the brightest anger with the government is focused in groups that pay taxes. But if the USA were France, the welfare class would also be marching. That will come next summer when the Republicans, perhaps properly chastened, begin cutting entitlement programs so our unborn grandchildren will not enter life as serfs.

But will the Republicans actually cut spending and entitlements? The fact that the average civil servant makes double what the private sector worker makes (after factoring in non-cash benefits) is the match that may light the fuse of real change. If a newly-empowered, Tea Party-flavored Republican majority says to America, “We intend to cut everything by X percent,” perhaps this will fly. Equal hardship is easier to bear than the class warfare now being waged by the Left. But if the GOP returns to their spendthrift ways, then this is my prophecy:

It is 1860 and the Whigs are no more.

The Whigs, you remember, were the political descendants of the patriots who formed our nation, and became the strongest opponents of the Democrat party between 1830 and 1950. They elected four presidents: William Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore. The question of the expansion of slavery into the territories divided the Whigs and by 1856 they had crumbled, to be replaced by the fiercely anti-slavery Republican party. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a Whig who left the party over the slavery issue.

In short, the Whigs fell behind the times and became irrelevant. They did not listen to the electorate.

If the Republicans, energized by the Tea Party activists, who clearly espouse Constitutional governance and a balanced budget, fail to follow these principles, then the Democratic slaughter of 2010 will be a pale precursor for the complete destruction of the Republican party in 2012, which will be replaced by a new party that more accurately reflects the wishes of the vast middle-American electorate: low taxes, low federal spending, less government intervention in our lives, and the reigning in of entitlements.

In November, the leaders of the Republican party, heretofore complicit in the Democrats’ economic crimes, will receive a clear wake-up call. It remains to be seen, however, if they will hear a bell or a death-knell. On that, my prophetic powers are weak, though my gut sadly reminds me that power corrupts. Therefore, what shall we call the new party? Any ideas?

Whatever it is, sign me up.

NOT LONG AGO A FRIEND said we should not expect profundity from movies; they are, after all, mere entertainment. I deeply disagree. From time immemorial, humans gathered around the campfire to tell and hear stories whose design, then as now, is to teach us how to face our fears, overcome obstacles, pursue love, or have integrity—in short, how to live. I will buttress my argument with ten examples of films that have had a powerful impact on me—all for the good. (We’ll leave the negative lessons for another time).

1. Defending Your Life. This was the movie that prompted me to say, “Hey! I’m supposed to make this movie!” Hapless advertising exec Daniel Miller (Albert Brooks) fecklessly cuts short his life and finds himself in the Afterlife, where he has to defend his earthly actions. The standard he must meet is to overcome fear, an ability he lacks as seen in several funny and sad flashbacks. But love in the form of Julia (Meryl Streep) finds him and he finally becomes fearless. In the end, he is allowed to move onward, leaving mortality behind. Though I quibble with the notion that we’re here to overcome fear (I believe we’re here to learn to love), it’s a small quibble. And it’s all done with pitch-perfect comedic writing, such as when Julia approaches Daniel and asks innocently, “Do I know you?” and he responds, stunned by her beauty, “I hope so!” Most of all, the movie postulates an ordered and loving universe where nevertheless there are standards we must achieve. Learning to love each other and acting fearlessly on that love is something I think about every day.
   
   
2. It’s a Wonderful Life. Frank Capra’s tour de force in which George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) discovers what the world would have been like had he not been born. There is an indisputable reason why this is the most viewed movie in history (beyond a glitch in copyright which allows unlicensed broadcast): Our lives are important, and thus wonderful, even if they’re painful. As Clarence the angel says, “Each man’s life touches so many other lives.” What Clarence does not say is equally true: each man can choose how he will touch others’ lives. He can do so positively or negatively; it is his choice. Also, he can do so subtly, as George Bailey does, so quietly that he is absolutely stunned to know that so many people love him. This film prompts me to do good, quietly, and know that those who matter are watching. It is a wonderful life and we have the power to make it so.
   
   
3. Groundhog Day. The other side of the coin from It’s a Wonderful Life. Selfish weatherman Phil (Bill Murray) discovers a world diametrically opposed to that of George Bailey, a world where no one changes except him. Small town Punxsutawney is a perfect foil for Phil’s big-city brashness, but the Universe has a lesson for Phil: see what your life could be if you stopped thinking about yourself. At the beginning of his ordeal, Phil reacts in typically narcissistic ways, indulging himself in sex, entertainment, and gluttony. After a time, bored, he turns to a quicker sort of self-destruction, but each morning he wakes up the same man: physically alive but emotionally dead. Finally, he begins to change the world by changing himself. He catches the kid falling from the tree, performs the Heimlich on a choking diner, changes a flat tire, and feeds an aging derelict, kindly calling him “Father.” Through all these acts, he becomes someone who thinks about others and thus becomes someone others think about. And he wins the lovely Rita (Andie McDowell). “Let’s live here!!” he exults as they step out of the hotel into a bright new day of fresh snowfall and blue skies. “We’ll rent at first!” That’s a happy ending.
   
   
4. A Man for All Seasons. The true story of Sir Thomas More, who, alone of all English nobility, did not sanction Henry VIII’s dissolution of the Catholic Church for the sole purpose of effecting his own divorce. This movie is nothing more or less than a study in integrity. At every turn, More (the unforgettable Paul Scofield) is besieged by friends and enemies alike who wish him to conform to the crowd. Indeed, the most memorable exchange is between More and his friend, the Duke of Norfolk, who begs More to join the aristocracy and sign a pledge supporting Henry’s actions “for fellowship’s sake!” More calmly responds, “And when you go to heaven for doing your conscience, and I go to hell for not doing mine, will you join me . . . for fellowship’s sake?” Eventually, Henry can no longer stand More’s silent opposition, and false witnesses secure More’s conviction. As he scales the gallows, More gives the customary coin to the headsman, and says, “Be not afraid of your office: you send me to God.” Archbishop Cranmer leans forward and says, “You’re so sure of that, Sir Thomas?” More replies, “He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him.” This exchange alone completely changed my view of God: There is nothing we can do that will separate us from Him, if being with Him is our desire. God is love; he loves us; we shall one day be with Him. Pretty profound, in my view.
   
   
5. Casablanca. Rick (Humphrey Bogart) is the quintessential weary American: tired of doing the right thing, he tries to find anonymity in Casablanca, Morocco, during the height of World War II. But he cannot escape himself, and a welling joy in the heart is felt at every turn as we watch Rick try again and again to do the wrong thing, and utterly fail. He cannot turn down the young couple who desperately need his help to escape Nazi-occupied French territory, even though the young woman offers him an almost irresistible temptation. He cannot mistreat his employees, even when the bar is shut down. And he cannot not love Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) when she comes to him, even after she broke his heart in Paris. In the end, Rick proves that goodness—true goodness—is the marrow in the bones of an integral man. Many men try to do good but fail because it is an affectation, an act. But Rick, whose goodness was burned into his soul through saccrifice for a virtuous cause (resisting tyranny), can no more leave Casablanca with Ilsa than he can resist the love he feels for her. In the end, he loves her more completely by letting her go than he ever could had he left with her. Nobility? Play it again, Sam.
   
   
6. The Mission. Robert DeNiro’s finest performance as Rodrigo Mendoza, a slave hunter in 18th century South America, who murders his own brother and then, finding no forgiveness in his own heart, finally turns to God. But God has more in mind for Rodrigo, and the challenges only escalate. A newly ordained monk in a jungle-bound monastery, he comes to love the natives and eventually dies defending them from a new crop of slave hunters. The most poignant scene in the film, and filmdom’s greatest treatment of spiritual conversion, occurs when Rodrigo, burdened by his own sins (literally, his armor and weaponry) attempts to scale a steep waterfall-drenched slope as penance. The natives in the company watch, at first uncomprehending, then in dismay, and finally, notwithstanding that they know he enslaved and murdered their own brothers, one of them performs the supreme act of forgiveness and he cuts the rope connecting Rodrigo to his burden, and the armor tumbles down the hill, releasing the broken, penitent man, who collapses into their arms, spent, empty, both spiritually and emotionally, ready now to be filled with love and hope. That scene alone encourages me to believe that there is nothing so terrible that we might do that cannot—and will not—be forgiven.
   
   
7. Chariots of Fire. When British film producer David Puttnam came to Hollywood, they said it couldn’t be done. Popular films about uplifting topics? So passé, so Sound of Music. Yet Puttnam did what he promised (for a time) and his finest result is this extraordinary film about two competing runners, one a prickly Jew, the other a placid Christian, who find friendship and honor at the 1924 Olympic Games. Running, a common Biblical metaphor, is also a metaphor here, for life and the differing yet successful approaches each runner takes in his. The entire mood of the film is sacred and fervent religious belief (as well as bitter agnosticism) are both treated with the utmost respect. I particularly enjoyed Eric Liddell’s (Ian Charleson) wonderful line, “When I run . . . I feel His pleasure.” Same for me watching this film about men with human goals achieved through godly virtue.
   
   
8. Star Wars. Don’t laugh; I’m talking about the first three Star Wars (the final three were made by the Body Snatcher’s pod-version of George Lucas). It was the first film I had seen after two years in South America and had a powerful impact on me, determining not only what I would study in college, but also illuminating my understanding of what cinema (our modern campfire) could be. Everyone knows the story, but what influenced me then (and continues to do so today) is the spiritual arc of each character. Everyone in the story is on a spiritual quest, though they do not know it. Some characters like Obi Wan and Yoda are clearly bodhisattvas, descended masters, acting as spiritual guides for others. Some have turned from the Light (Darth Vader), but are eventually redeemed. Most of the others are young souls just beginning their spiritual journey, as evidenced by the fact that everyone in the films says, in a crucial decision-tree moment, “I have a bad feeling about this,” evidence that they’re on the right track and the Force is working within them. As they grow, the Force grows stronger in each person—even Han Solo!—and in the end, it is sufficient even to redeem Darth Vader himself. In this light, Star Wars is a masterful example of redemption. With light swords.
   
   
9. Forrest Gump. At the time it came out, Forrest Gump was ridiculed as a study of Reagan-era stupidity and fecklessness. Gump was the lovable stooge (like our president) who couldn’t help but come out on top, due to a perversion of natural laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Forrest Gump is (the movie version, at least; the book is much darker), is a wonderful example of goodness. Though Forrest often quotes his mother as saying, “Stupid is as stupid does,” what he could have easily said instead was, “Goodness is as goodness does.” Forrest overcomes his disability, throwing off his (spiritual) shackles, literally. He loves Jenny and shares her pain (“Sometimes there just aren’t enough rocks in the world.”). He saves his fellow soldiers, including the reluctant Lieutenant Dan (twice) and manages to mete out justice even at a Black Panther “party.” In the finale, he redeems (that word again) Jenny, and his expansive love accompanies her into the valley of the shadow of death, then continues on to raise their child with humility and bravery. Most of all, he never thinks of himself. Perhaps he is too simple to comprehend selfishness. We should all be so stupid.
   
   
10. Man of La Mancha. I could do an entire top ten list of memorable musicals, but this tops not only that list, but makes it onto this one as well. Peter O’Toole is compelling as Don Quixote, the manic and utterly mad subject of the play within a play that is this fine film. Quixote’s life-saving decision to live in an fantasy world of honor and integrity results in the salvation of those around him, including the desultory barmaid Dulcinea (Sofia Loren), with one of the most powerful love songs ever written, succeeding in showing her who she really is when she sees herself reflected in his eyes. This tender, non-ironic film showcases the last of the 1960’s crop of astonishing musicals, where love was both virtuous and unashamed. What significant, uplifting musical have we had since this gem?
    
    Those are my top ten. Which great films did I miss? Tell me why.

THE CURRENT IMMIGRATION CONTROVERSY, where the federal government is suing Arizona for enforcing a state immigration law that is less invasive than its federal counterpart, once again raises cries from the left of racial profiling.

As if that were a bad thing. Not just profiling, but racial profiling. Oh, the horror!

Let’s say I’m driving home late one night and I am stopped by a policeman because my car matches the description of a car leaving the scene of a crime. A quick check of my license and registration resolves the issue and soon I’m on my way. I was just car profiled.

But what if the car was seen leaving a bar after a woman had been mugged by a man? I might be delayed for a substantially longer time because I am a man driving a car fitting the witnesses’ description. I might sit in the back of the police cruiser for some time as my alibi is checked out. When it is, I am let go and the police say, “Sorry, sir, but we had to be sure.” In addition to being car profiled, I was gender profiled.

Now, let’s take it one step further. Say the witnesses of the mugging noted that the assailant drove a car like mine, was male, and was white. As I sit handcuffed in the back of the police cruiser, another man driving a car like mine is allowed to pass. Why don’t they stop him?

Because he’s black. I have just been racially profiled.

Now, tell me truthfully, how is racial profiling any different than car or gender profiling? All these profiles help law enforcement find the guilty party. Eventually, the police will discover that I am not the perpetrator and will let me go. I might spend the night in jail, but I will be let go because I am innocent. Indeed, if I am arrested, I will pray that they profile every white man driving a car like mine within a hundred miles of that bar in order to find the criminal and let me go free.

Someone is going to say that the police are not interested in catching criminals, only in making arrests. I will only say that such police should be exposed and punished. But the other 99% are trying to catch criminals, not arrest innocent people.

In this light, the immigration debate becomes quite simple. Since 99% of the illegal aliens in this country are Hispanic (due to our contiguous borders with Mexico), it makes perfect sense to focus on the Hispanic population when seeking illegals. When I travel in South America, I always carry my passport with me. I stick out like a sore thumb because of my race. Soldiers at provincial border checks single me out and ask me for my identification. I am not surprised or offended. The vast majority of the people around me have dark skin; I do not. I am, therefore, by definition, “alien” and thus accorded scrutiny. That’s why I got the visa and passport in the first place, so I could enter their country legally and, notwithstanding the inconvenience of having to produce my documents, can move freely within the country.

Given the tens of millions of illegal aliens now in my country due to the dysfunction of their countries and our porous southern border, it therefore makes perfect sense to ask all Hispanics for identification. Only those who are not citizens have anything to fear; lawfully-admitted foreigners and naturalized American citizens will suffer only minor inconveniences. I doubt anybody with proper identification will find themselves sitting handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser. You provide ID when you write a check at the grocery store, don’t you?

The core truth behind the immigration debate is the desire of the democratic party to increase its voter base. Since the vast majority of democrats vote that way because they see the government as a provider of goods and services and not as a thief of wealth, democratic votes are obtained by interest group bribery: affirmative action for the black community, government contracts for the unions, and anchor-baby citizenship for illegal Hispanics, who really should be called “undocumented democrats.”

So all this whining about racial profiling is a mere smoke screen. Every day, I am profiled in a dozen different ways. The credit card offers I receive in the mail are economic profiles. The yard maintenance flyer on my front door is a home-ownership profile. Even the ads that pop up on my Facebook page are tailored to the profile I authored there. Most of these profiling measures are minor inconveniences; some, like a mistaken arrest, can be greatly disturbing. But every day we’re profiled in order to maintain a safe and secure society.

Seems a small price to pay. So, profile me . . . please! I have ID and an alibi.

FOR YEARS, I PARTICIPATED IN SUB-FOR-SANTA. I was always happy to be a part of this tradition and looked forward to it each year. Until a few years ago.

My church group was given the name of a needy family and a list of suggested gift items. One evening in early December, my group met at Shopko. An hour later we had filled four carts with with food, candy, staples and toys. We returned to the church where we wrapped the items and had an enjoyable evening chatting with other groups doing the same.

A couple of days before Christmas, we parked in front of the family's home. As we unloaded the gifts, I looked around. The neighborhood was humble, but clean. Christmas lights adorned most of the homes. There were two cars parked in the driveway, including a pickup truck. As we trundled our gifts toward the house, I recognized the kind of truck it was from my experience as a contractor: the father of this household was a carpet installer. A niggling question arose in my mind as we congregated at the front door. Carpet layers work hard. Very hard. But they also make a good living: around $300 a day. That's over $70,000 a year. The bag of gifts in my hand suddenly grew heavier.

The door opened and a Hispanic woman greeted us. Several children stood behind her, gawking. She spoke little English, but motioned for us to enter. As we did, I noticed the expensive marble tile on the entry floor and the well-furnished living room, complete with a large Christmas tree, already surrounded by presents. Since I speak Spanish, I told her who we were.

"Ya lo se!" she said brightly. I know! Curious, I asked her how. "We signed up for this," she said brightly.

"Signed up?" I asked. "Where?"

"At the community center. They had a list for people who wanted Christmas and I signed up. I told them what gifts we wanted and now here you are!"

I grimaced a smile. Here was a prosperous immigrant family with their own home and two cars. There was no sign of dysfunction, trouble, or poverty here. Dad made a good living. And we were giving them Christmas because Mom had signed up for it.

I didn't say anything; my friends were not privy to my conversation with the woman. After singing a couple of carols and leaving, we bid each other goodnight. I saw the glow of happiness on the face of my friends and I was glad for them. But in the rearview mirror of my own car, I saw my face. I was angry. Angry because some feckless government bureaucrat, eager to be "of help" during the season, had institutionalized and ruined what should have been a personal, highly private charitable act, where someone sees someone in need and quietly answers that need. Instead, a sign-up sheet and a gift list was given to church groups around Salt Lake and we spent our money and time awarding someone the Christmas lottery.

Now, before you call me Scrooge, hear me out. Historically, Santa Claus did not give gifts. He kept a list of naughty and nice children and rewarded them according to their behavior. Good kids got nice gifts; bad kids got a lump of coal. Both were earned. But Santa now represents the getting of something for nothing. Giving someone a gift doesn't reinforce good behavior (being "nice") and may indeed reward bad behavior (teaching people to expect no-strings charity).

May I offer an alternative? Instead of hand-outs, let's give hand-ups. And I know some folks who do just that: OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL (http://www.opportunity.org). For over thirty-five years, OI has made small loans to help people start their own businesses. Most loans are just $60 and 98% are repaid. The money is then lent to another worthy entrepreneur. Loan recipients form "trust groups," which bring together 10 to 30 entrepreneurs who elect leaders, receive training and pledge to guarantee each other’s loans. Because the group guarantee replaces the need for collateral, credit becomes available to those previously locked out from formal financial services.When clients build businesses this way, they set monumental changes in motion. Family income rises. Children are fed and go to school. Homes are improved. Lives are changed.

How many times have you wondered when you gave the panhandler a dollar what they were going to spend it on? With OI, you direct your loan to someone who not only values it, but will repay it and that money will then bless the lives of others.

I joined OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL and I urge you to do the same. For as little as $25, you can change someone's life, and then that money, once repaid, will go to work again, changing someone else's life. You can make a one-time donation or choose a regular contribution schedule. And since OI has been at it, scandal-free, for decades, you know your investment -- for that's what it is -- is actually reaching the people who need your help. You're not teaching a man to fish and then taking your tackle home with you. You're loaning him the money to buy his own fishing pole, which he will repay. And then that money will help another man buy a fishing pole for his family. And generations of families will be affected.

Originally, Santa Clause had it right. Good behavior should be rewarded. This Christmas, I urge you to fill someone's stocking with a loan; give them a gift they will in turn give to another. Truly, a gift that keeps giving.

St. Nick will be proud. No coal for you!

IN THE WORLD WHERE I'M KING, all my subjects would be allowed to say anything they wished, but they'd have to say it properly. They'd have complete freedom of speech, so long as they used correct grammar and definitions.

So when I hear people call me "anal" when referring to my non-slovenly lifestyle, I want to shout, "Off with their heads!" and send them straight to the dirty, dank, dreary dungeon: their own filthy bedroom.

First of all, there's the matter of definition. "Anal" is short for "anal retentive," which is a Freudian stage of child development when the infant's attention moves from oral to anal stimulation, where it then learns to control excretory functions. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period may develop the personality traits of orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control, as well as a generalized interest in collecting, possessing, and retaining objects. Although Freud's theories on early childhood have been influential, modern research suggests that parental attitudes have a much more concrete effect on how an infant will grow up.

The key phrase here is "Freud theorized . . ."

In George Orwell's 1984, the totalitarian government pacified the populace by redefining words as their opposite meaning. War fell under the rubric of The Ministry of Peace and so on. In the real world, this tendency for the majority (or a powerful, vocal minority) to redefine previously acceptable behavior as deviant continues apace. Formerly lauded personality traits such as neatness, organization, and cleanliness, falling outside the ability or approval of the powers-that-be, are redefined as wrong and even sick. "Anal" is one such definition.

Now I'm perfectly willing to allow that the woman that lives in her tiny apartment with 35 cats is in trouble by any standard, most notably hygiene. Ditto the co-worker who sharpens all his pencils to the exact same length. No one is going to say these folks do not have issues. But to apply the term "anal" to them is incorrect and doubly so when applied to someone whose organizational and achievement skills are not extreme but merely surpass your own.

You see, we "order-freaks" are on to you slobs. We've been in your home, waiting for half an hour as you scurry around searching for your car keys. Ours we found hanging on the hook by the kitchen door, where we place them each evening as we come in from the garage after work. When you finally find the keys under a couch cushion, we're late for the movie and you wonder why we're, as my mom used to say, "fit to spit!" It's probably just as well that we are seated apart in the crowded theater; you don't want to hear for the thousandth time how your lack of organization (or dare I say consideration?) has once again made a simple evening a never-ending battle with inanimate objects from the car keys to the sitter's number, to where we parked the car, to getting napkins for the popcorn.

If cornered, you toss it off. "I'm too creative to be bothered with such mundane things!" you shout as you sort through the garbage can for your retainer. (Not too bothered, I hope, to make it to the ER for treatment for salmonella poisoning.)

You look around at my house and snort, "Does anybody live here?" as if slovenliness were a prerequisite for happiness. To a shrinking minority of us, order in our physical surroundings happily releases us from worrying whether those undies really need washing, allowing us time to ponder the wonders of nature, plot our next book, or reminisce on the good old days when cleanliness was God's next-door neighbor instead of his arch-enemy living across the street in a Silence of the Lambs basement.

But we fuss-budgets are generous sorts. We know that your life of confusion, memory loss, and disorder effectively punishes far more than we could. We know that when you smirk and label us as "anal," what you're really saying is that you're unwilling to master one of life's most basic talents: the ability to structure your world so you achieve your goals. Not my goals. Your goals.

That's too bad, because I want you to achieve your goals. I want you to experience the joy of getting there early, the self-satisfaction of finishing your homework in time to watch your favorite TV show, the pride of wearing matching socks. All that I want for you. But you've got to want it too. So start by ceasing to label the rest of us. We're not your enemies. We don't have a derogatory psycho-sexual term for your failings; to us, you're just a slob, and being a slob is not a personality disorder. It's merely a refusal to do what's next.

That's all we clean-mongers do. We do what's next. The dishes don't fill the sink because we rinse and stack. The remote doesn't get kicked into the pool because we don't take it out to the backyard in the first place. Our cavity got filled because we made the appointment with the dentist, wrote it down on the calendar taped to the fridge, and looked at it the night before as we raided the freezer for the Rocky Road, which was in there because we bought two containers, knowing that no matter what lies we tell ourselves, we're going to eat a whole half-gallon and so it's a good idea to have another one for the rest of the family.

We do what comes next and guess what: It becomes habit and soon we don't have to think about it anymore and that means we're free to think about everything else. Including what you want for Christmas. (You're paying attention now, aren't you?)

So next time you're tempted to call me "anal," remember: if you do, it will be just another reason you might not find something from me under your tree. The other is that you don't have a tree because you put off buying one until Christmas eve and they were all sold out. But that's your problem. I don't have one.

Okay, maybe one: I'm not king.

IN THIS THIRD POST, I WILL WRAP UP exposition of my core beliefs. In previous posts, I've discussed my view of the nature of God and man and our purpose here on earth. I will now turn to the individual I believe God has chosen who is best fit to guide our sojourn here and help us accomplish the purpose of our mortal existence.

THE NATURE AND MISSION OF JESUS

I believe Jesus was mortal. He was a bodhitsatva, a soul who had mastered love over his lifetimes and was poised to transcend mortality, but instead chose to return to earth one final time, for an important purpose.

I believe Jesus’ purpose was to teach us to love. His Gospel is the shortest, straightest path to mastering love and thereby transcending mortality, which is the goal of all souls incarnated on this planet. When he says, "Come, follow me," he guarantees that if we emulate his example, we will master love and transcend mortality, just as he did.

I believe in error, not sin. Errors require correction; sin requires judgment. Because every mistake we make (willful or not) comes with an automatic, proportional, and negative consequence to our soul, when we are in error, we immediately begin the process of suffering for and learning from that error. Therefore, there is no need for an eventual judgment by God because perfectly proportional consequences are linked to the error and we instantly begin learning the connection between our error and its consequence.

I believe in individual consequences. Because each error has an immediate and proportional consequence, there is no need for a savior to "pay" for my errors. Jesus did not, and could not, die for my errors because (1) they have nothing to do with him—they are inflicted upon myself and upon other mortals, not God. I alone am solely responsible for them; (2) in the precise moment they occur, I begin suffering for them, whether I recognize it or not; and (3) it is contrary to God’s loving nature to ask or permit anyone to interfere with these natural and balanced consequences which I have caused and which accrue to me alone.

I believe Jesus is our example. Because of his transcendent status as a soul who learned all the lessons of mortality, Jesus is the ultimate example of our potential. Those who allow his perfect love to envelop them begin the personal processes of spiritual self-mastery. When that process is complete, any cosmic debt that might exist is, by definition, paid. Only the person in error and the offended person are parties to the process. There is no need or place for the suffering or forgiveness of a third party, including God and/or Jesus.

I believe that though Jesus did not suffer and die for my sins, he nevertheless died for a purpose. This purpose was to show his mastery of love and to stand as a witness of the same. By his death, he left a lasting impression on his disciples, who then took his Gospel to the world, giving all mankind the opportunity to hear, comprehend, and follow his example, if they so choose.

I believe in universal salvation. By "universal" I mean everyone, and by "salvation" I mean unhindered in progress toward godhood. There is no unpardonable sin because God is pure love and nothing, barring our own recalcitrance, can keep us from him. Our errors have profound consequences to our eternal souls, consequences which accrue immediately and proportionally. Yet once the error is comprehended and forsaken, forgiveness occurs immediately because God's love trumps judgment and we once again find ourselves on the path toward him. In this way God's plan is perfectly fair because it allows every soul unlimited progress, thereby demonstrating God’s key attribute: Love.

SUMMARY

The preceding Articles of Faith can be condensed into the following syllogism:

Love transcends all limitations.
I am learning to love.
If I master love, I shall transcend all limitations.

* * *

Thank you for taking the time to read these very personal statements of belief. My intent in sharing them is not to offend or convince, but to encourage you to consider the foundations of your own life and then to live accordingly. For my part, I've found great solace in believing that I am an eternal soul with a potential limited only by my own desires and effort. I am grateful for the miracle of living in a benign universe with loving souls all around me who wish nothing but happiness and joy for me. When I ponder the eternities ahead of me, I sometimes grow faint and weary, but when I remember the eternities behind, I know I can do it. And that is when I know I've just heard the voice of God in my heart.

What a gift!

IN MY LAST POST, I shared some of my core beliefs, which I call "articles of faith," in a tradition going back almost two thousand years. In that post, I discussed my views of the nature of God. I gave only minimal rationale for my beliefs for two reasons: 1) these are statements, not arguments, and 2) this is not an attempt to proselyte. My desire here is merely to encourage the reader to carefully consider what precepts might form the basis of their own belief system.

In this post, I will continue positing my articles of faith, this time focusing on my view of the nature of man and mortality. To me, these beliefs are logical extensions of my beliefs about God.

THE NATURE OF MAN

I believe we are eternal entities who are presently clothed mortal bodies by God. For the same reason I believe in God when I gaze up at the star-strewn night sky, I also believe my origin is from that God and that he has placed me here on this earth.

I believe in eternal progression. Because God is love and agency is eternal, nothing we do on earth can prevent us from progressing, unless we so choose. Consequentially, what we do during our moment of mortality could not possibly change the entire course of our future, given the weight, depth, and breadth of our past experiences and accomplishments, as indicated by our presence here on earth.

I believe man’s destiny is to transcend mortality. Our eternal nature is intelligence, not mortal matter. Intelligence has no gender. Our spiritual and mortal bodies may contain parts and passions, but our souls do not. The body and its experience here on earth are tools designed to teach us specific lessons and when we learn those lessons we will discard those tools and move on to the realm of pure intelligence, perfected by mortality.

I believe there is a plan designed to help us transcend mortality. There are many probations that yet await us, tests and experiences that will help us progress on our eternal path, though I do not know the form these probations will take.

I believe the purpose of our eternal progression is to become gods if we so desire. That is the ultimate definition of God’s love—that we might have all that he has or experiences.


THE NATURE OF MORTALITY

I believe the earth is perfect. Far from being a "fallen" planet, it is the ideal testing place for our mortal probation and was created to aid our eternal progress. When we pass beyond mortality, we will return to the realm of intelligence, unbound by mortal matter. The earth, as all physical things, shall pass away.

I believe God communicates with man on earth. He guides and influences us though inspiration, visitations and dreams, and through mortal guides and exemplars.

I believe in reincarnation. Each of us has lived may lives on this earth, progressing at our own rate. Mortality simply has too many lessons for one life, and God’s loving nature requires that we receive the maximum opportunity mortality can afford us so we will be prepared for the higher realms. This also explains the disparity in the quality of life and abilities across the human spectrum—the only just explanation for this is that each challenge and ability is designed to teach a valuable lesson and each lifetime has its own unique emphases. Wicked people are simply those who have not learned their life’s lessons and must continue returning to earth until they do. In contrast, those who master love will finally leave this world and move on to higher planes of existence.