Observations on Life, Religion, and Chess

Review of "Improve Your Chess Tactics"

2012-01-03T10:46:00.000-08:00

by Yakov Neishtadt. Published by New In Chess, 2011.

Neishtadt has gathered 736 positions and puzzles that provide good tactics practice for club players. I can recommend this book whole-heartedly for any club player that wants to improve his or her tactical ability.

The collection is divided into two parts: a set of chapters devoted to specific tactical motifs, and an "examination" comprising 357 problems with no motif hints. Solutions for all problems are at the rear of the book. Each motif-oriented chapter starts with instructive examples that include a detailed analysis of the principal and alternate variations for each position. The chapter then concludes with problems for the reader to solve. Here are the motifs which get a chapter:

* Deflection
* Decoying
* Eliminating Defenders
* Clearing Squares and Lines
* Pinning and Unpinning
* Interference and Shutting-Off
* Pawn Promotion
* Stalemate

As a player rated about 1800, I found most of the problems in the motif chapters to be relatively easy (but rarely trivial). The "examination" problems were substantially more difficult, although I think lower-rated club players could still benefit from looking each one over for a couple of minutes, then working through Neishtadt's explanation at the end if the right move proves elusive.

Neishtadt's explanations include lucid prose as well as variations, which makes absorbing the material easier. While I had previously seen about 15% of the positions, Neishtadt occasionally presents them a move or two prior to the game situation that others had presented. This allows him to explain how the eventual loser could have avoided catastrophe by a more accurate defense. Too many tactics books (and tactics servers) emphasize the winning shots, while in fact the most important use of tactical ability as you advance in chess is to *avoid* your opponent's winning shots.

I was pleased by the quality of New In Chess' production. The binding is sturdy, the puzzles are easy to read, the principal variation of a solution is in bold to distinguish it from the alternate variations, and analysis diagrams are provided for key positions in long solutions. The answer section always repeats a starting diagram before providing a solution, which spares you the pain of having to skip back and forth.

However, not all is well in paradise:

(1) I do not understand why Neishtadt omitted so many important tactical motifs; double attack, skewers, overloaded defender, zwischenzugs (in-between moves) and discovery should be covered in any book which aspires to provide well-rounded tactics practice for the club player.

(2) Neishtadt short-circuits his analysis too frequently (almost 10% of the problems). For instance, in example #20 Neishtadt concludes "1...Qf3! forced white to resign," and then he goes on to the next problem. He neglects to mention that black must find *another* deflection to win after white defends with 2.Qf1, namely 2...Ra1! After 3. Qxa1 (or 3. Rb1 Rxb1 4. Qxb1) black mates with Qg2#. Neglecting these kinds of details can confuse the less advanced club player.

(3) Finally, his chapter on multiple motifs is a real muddle. Basically every permutation of two or three motifs is presented as a sub-chapter, and gets one or two problems. If I'm looking to practice, say, decoy and interference together, wouldn't I want more than 2 problems to work with? But why I would be looking for specific motif combinations like that in the first place? Neishtadt could profitably move all the examples and problems in this chapter to other chapters, or to the examination.

That said, with over 700 interesting problems accompanied by useful explanations, "Improve Your Chess Tactics" is a good value for the club player.

Full disclosure: The publisher provided a review copy of this book to me. I have endeavored to remain completely unbiased and helpful, and feel confident that the review reflects my commitment to objectivity.

Review of "1.d4 - Beat the Guerillas!"

2011-12-29T18:08:00.000-08:00

by Valeri Bronznik. Published by New In Chess, 2011

International Master Valeri Bronznik has burned a lot of midnight oil to help the 1.d4 player build a good repertoire against offbeat opening responses by black. He assumes that white will continue 2. c4 and 3. Nc3 or 3. Nf3 before black goes off the beaten path, although black can still essay some of these openings (like the Delayed Stonewall) against 2. Nf3. Since the black player in these unusual openings will have the advantage of familiarity with the complications that can ensue from white's sharpest continuations, Bronznik has designed his repertoire to help white obtain a stable, though often modest, advantage while sidestepping the deep complications. If you're the kind of 1. d4 player who likes the chess equivalent of a knife fight in a blind alley, some of Bronznik's suggestions may not be your cup of tea; but if (like most 1. d4 players) you're happy with a stable positional plus, I can recommend it without reservation.

For each opening Bronznik presents a chapter in three parts:
1. Introduction to the opening: what black is trying to accomplish and what possibilities white might consider.
2. Detailed discussion of the suggested white repertoire in the context of model high-level games. A few of the "games" are actually just Bronznik's analysis, although his discussion cites play from recent high-level games to justify his analysis choices.
3. Summary of the repertoire choice(s).

Bronznik's work is both thorough and well-organized. His analysis incorporates the published analysis of dozens of grandmasters, although he is not afraid to explain why he occasionally disagrees with even the most highly regarded (like Avrukh) when a recent game result or better computer analysis is available. His analysis includes plenty of top-flight games from the last couple of years, although earlier examples are not neglected when appropriate. And where black has plenty of choices for seeking to impose his will, Bronznik provides detailed analysis of white's strongest responses.
While Bronznik focuses on white's repertoire choices, he has not written a one-sided how-can-white-not-win-with-this-great-repertoire book. Against sound black openings like the Schara-Hennig Gambit (the von Hennig-Schara Gambit for American readers), he acknowledges that white cannot expect anything more than a slight advantage out of the opening. In his analysis of model games he offers improvements for black as well as for white, too. As a result, I can recommend this book for those who play the black side of any of the 24 openings that he discusses.

So you'll know the scope of Bronznik's work, here are those openings:

Englund Gambit
Soller Gambit Delayed
Hartlaub Gambit Delayed
Felbecker Gambit
Zilbermints Gambit
Dutch Benoni
The Woozle
Polish Defence
Keres Defence
English Defence
Owen Defence
Marshall Defence
Austrian Defence
Baltic Defence
Albin's Counter Gambit
Schara-Hennig Gambit
Delayed Stonewall
Snake Benoni
The Vulture
Fajarowicz Gambit
Budapest Gambit
Black Knights' Tango

With a rating of only about 1800 (based on my online play) I cannot pass judgment on the quality of Bronznik's choices, other than to say that he has obviously read widely and analyzed deeply with computer assistance to arrive at his conclusions. That said, as a player of the black side of the Schara-Hennig Gambit, I have found his analysis to be much more helpful than anything else I have read on the opening.

I can heartily recommend this book for anyone rated 1800 and up who wants a good repertoire against offbeat black responses to 1.d4, although someone rated down to 1500 could probably derive great benefit by using it as a reference. Also, anyone who plays the black side of any of these openings would find plenty of helpful material as well.

Full disclosure: The publisher provided a review copy of this book to me. I have endeavored to remain completely unbiased and helpful, and feel confident that the review reflects my commitment to objectivity.

You can buy the book at Amazon here.

Ron Paul and His Publications

2011-12-20T10:47:00.000-08:00

There's a lot to like about Ron Paul. When he was a full-time medical practicioner, he provided free and reduced-price medical services to the needy. He does not think that America's strength lies primarily in its military power, as so many of his colleagues do. He champions religious liberty for Americans of all persuasions, including Muslims. And I'm just getting started.

But today I must profess that I, like James Kirchick, am deeply troubled that Paul issued, under his name, terrible racist propaganda in the 1990s. Paul disclaimed the abusive statements in 2008, saying that he had not paid sufficient attention to the Ron Paul Political Report that was written and edited by others. But I am not reassured for two reasons:

During his 1998 campaign for Congress, Paul did claim responsibility for the statements, but contended that they had been "taken out of context." (So what was the context for claiming that the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours...and seduced underage girls and boys"? )
Even after his 2008 disclaimer, Paul has continued to spin astonishing conspiracy theories. For example, Paul has continued to make appearances on the radio program of Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist run amok. (Jones has claimed that the US government is adding chemicals to the nation's water to turn everyone homosexual so they don't have children, and that the government blew up the space shuttle Columbia as a "textbook psychological warfare operation.") In March 2009 Jones asked for Paul's thoughts on the alleged conspiracy by NORTHCOM, the U.S. military command for North America, to take over the country. Paul responded that "the average member of Congress probably isn't a participant in the grand conspiracy." Note that Paul did not say that the "grand conspiracy" does not exist! And Paul claimed in a 2010 speech that the CIA had implemented a coup and seized effective control of the U.S. government and military (see it on YouTube here).

Even if we put the best possible interpretation on Paul's troubling newsletters by accepting Paul's disclaimers, I still think they disqualify him from the office of chief executive and commander-in-chief. Here's why:

First, to accept his 2008 disclaimer I must also accept that he lied in 1998 when he did take responsibility for the newsletters.
Second, and most importantly, his utter inattention to newsletters that were going out under his name betrays an inability to act as a trustworthy manager of a political enterprise. How am I supposed to trust him to manage a cabinet and federal agencies, when his utter detachment from a small staff that reported directly to him allowed bitter and reprehensible propaganda to stream forth under his name for a decade?

DeMint's egregious violation of the 8th commandment

2011-12-20T09:54:00.000-08:00

The pro-life movement that Senator DeMint professes to be part of rests on the foundation of traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. The Fifth Commandment--"You shall not murder"--might even be considered the cornerstone of the pro-life movement. DeMint is evidently too busy to continue reading to the end of Exodus chapter 20, though, as yesterday he ran afoul of the Eighth Commandment ("You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"). In fact, DeMint bore false witness against 44 million neighbors: the Americans who are in such economic distress that they receive food stamps.

I was aghast at DeMint's fabrication: "Many Americans are sick of seeing the guy in front of them in the grocery line using food stamps to buy steaks." Maybe his insult against the poor is hitting me so hard because at one time I myself was a food stamp recipient. I couldn't even afford ground round, much less steak! As far as I can tell, DeMint and economic reality are in two separate universes. I have seen plenty of people use food stamps at grocery stores, but never once have I seen them procure steaks. There are members of my church who receive food stamps, and they don't use them to buy steaks either.

Most of you who are reading this have "neighbors" who are food stamp recipients, since they constitute about 15% of Americans. They're the members of your worship community, perhaps, who are struggling financially. Do you think they buy steaks and caviar with food stamps? Nine million of them are elderly and blind who depend on Supplemental Security. About nine million depend on Social Security. About the same number are unemployed and looking for work. And about half are children. Hey kids--stop picking up those packages of sirloin from the meat department!

It is probably easy for DeMint to weave fables like this because the company he keeps does not include food stamp recipients. Recipients are, I imagine, in short supply in the hallowed halls of Congress. Not many of his campaign donors receive food stamps either, I reckon.

But why would he pronounce such reckless slander to the press? It appears that he's trying to demonize the impoverished children, and the blind, and the aged, and the disabled, and the unemployed so he can justify a budget-cutting plan whose burden falls almost completely on the poorest Americans. In fact, $3 trillion of the cuts he proposes affect the poorest Americans, and only $20 billion (one half of one percent) affect the wealthy. And you wonder why there's an Occupy movement.

DeMint is trying to take the easy road by talking tough on deficit spending without addressing its root causes. Something you rarely hear in all the Tea Party talk is that, with the exception of three key programs, federal spending as a percentage of the national economy has not grown at all over the past few decades. And what would those three runaway components of the federal budget be? I'll save that for another post....but suffice it to say that those 3 programs have extremely well-financed lobbyists and vast constituencies. So DeMint would put himself in real political peril if he were to advance an effective deficit reduction plan that aims at the 3 runaway programs. But courage, like food stamp recipients, seems to be in short supply in the hallowed halls of Congress.

Review of "Power Chess for Kids" by Charles Hertan

2011-12-14T12:16:00.000-08:00

I've coached chess kids for many years, and have always sought good material to recommend to students who want to make progress. For the student who is at the appropriate stage in development, Hertan's work is among the best I've seen.

Hertan teaches four "power tricks" to get better:
1. Know and use the value of the pieces.
2. The 'Quick Count' - Count the defenders and attackers to see whether a piece can be safely captured
3. Takes Takes Bang! - Make a trade to set up a winning (bang!) move
4. Check Moves Bang! - Use a check to set up a winning (bang!) move

The last 2 power tricks are a very useful introduction to forcing moves, which every chess player must master in order to become strong.

Hertan then shows how to use these power tricks with 4 different tactical motifs: forks, pins, skewers, and interference moves. The last 4 chapters contain a total of about 150 teaching positions, along with 30 exercises to reinforce the reader's grasp of the concepts.

The book closes with a useful glossary of chess terms (like "endgame" and "perpetual check") for the chess learner. The author references a forthcoming second book, which will presumably cover how to apply the 4 power tricks with other tactical motifs like discovered attack, deflection, and removal of the guard. Keep an eye out for it; it's sure to be worthwhile.

The 4 cartoon characters add zest and quirky humor, making it a fun read. I asked my teenage son, a retired chess prodigy, to read the book and give me his opinion. He said he really enjoyed it and found it helpful; in fact, he wished he had been able to read it when he was playing chess. That, in a nutshell, is why I award the book 5 stars out of 5.

That said, I must disagree with the notion that this is the most complete chess book for kids:

* It is too advanced to serve as a second book for chess learners, who need more grounding in fundamentals like not leaving your pieces unguarded, and not playing with just your queen. It also assumes a mastery of chess rules, and the explanation of chess notation is quite rudimentary.

* It does not cover some important topics, like checkmate patterns, openings, and endgames. I understand the author's desire to narrow the scope of the book, as it provides greater focus on the 4 power tricks. Moreover, middlegame tactics are the single most important topic to learn if you want to become strong. However, you forfeit the right to call the book a "complete" set of chess lessons when you exclude these other important topics. After you finish this little gem, I'd suggest the following reading program --

For checkmate patterns, you'll want to obtain Checkmate for Children: Mastering the Most Important Skill in Chess or How to Beat Your Dad at Chess. For openings, you might try The Complete Idiot's Guide to Chess Openings. And for endgames, you should consider Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner To Master.

Like pretty much every chess book, the work under review has some minor flaws:

* The terms "interpolation" and "hook-up" are used without definition, and do not appear in the glossary.

* A few examples have unexplored alternative solutions.

* Chess mastery is gained more from practice than from conceptual understanding, and this book is light on the exercises that would provide practice opportunities.

So it has a couple of warts and limitations...who cares? It's still a fun, instructive and helpful book for anyone--kid or adult--rated 600 to 1400 who wants to get better at chess.

Full disclosure: The publisher provided a review copy of this book to me. I have endeavored to remain completely unbiased and helpful, and feel confident that the review reflects my commitment to objectivity.

Review of "Joys of Chess"

2011-11-29T11:05:00.001-08:00

Published by New in Chess, 2011. Author: Christian Hesse, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Stuttgart

Hesse's labor of love is the perfect antidote to all that hard work you've been investing in tactics puzzles and rook endgames. Crack it open and grab a breath of refreshing chess air for a few minutes; you're bound to find something to make you smile. It's like getting one of the world's top grandmasters to read you Tarzan comics. (Which, I learned from this book, was Bent Larsen's chief duty as Bobby Fischer's second at the 1959 Interzonal tournament!) It's the first chess book that's given me a feeling of guilty pleasure: how can chess be this much fun?

To give you a taste of what you can expect, here are a few of my favorite moments from the book:

In "Retreats of Genius," Dzindzichashvili retreats almost all his pieces back to their starting squares...and wins decisive material.

A disgruntled Garry Kasparov calls chess website publisher Frederich Friedel and says, "You are a dead man, Fred. You have put me in a very embarrassing situation." Friedel, you see, had posed a simple little problem to Kasparov, and when Garry's students couldn't solve it, the world champion spent a day on it and couldn't solve it either. For your edification, here is the possibly the world's most difficult chess problem: "A game begins 1.e4 and ends on move 5 in mate with the move knight takes rook. What was the game?" (The book has the solution, of course.)

In the chapter on chess dreams, we see a theoretical novelty in the Sicilian Defense that came to Larry Christiansen as he slept. We also get to see a Nimzo-Indian that David Bronstein dreamed in its entirety. After a white blunder on move 14, black mates in 3, and "Bronstein can do that in his sleep." And with one hand tied behind his back, no doubt!

Hesse puts a novel spin on chess sacrifices by comparing them to Einstein's e = mc2, which is the equation that explains how a tiny bit of uranium can yield a massive explosion. A sacrifice, after all, can also translate material into incredible energy--on the chess board. Hesse illustrates this with a couple of spectacular sacs, including a 2-piece offer by the inimitable Mikhail Tal.

In "the butterfly effect," we see a study in which white can give up a passed pawn on either h6 or h7. It looks inconsequential, but 9 moves later we see that the difference of just one square is the difference between a draw and a win. The catchy chapter title is a useful reminder that, in a possibly critical situation, you need to be careful about selecting between moves that look very similar.

Several studies caught my eye. In the chapter on symmetry, we see a problem with all eight of white's pawns on the 4th rank and his king on f1, while black's pawns are all on the 6th rank with his king on f8. White to play and win. In the chapter on parity arguments, a problem has 31 pieces on their original squares--except white's h1 rook, which is missing. What was black's last move? Clever stuff.

Hesse suggests an amusing parlor game for chess players: "the conqueror of the conqueror of Fischer." The goal is to see how many degrees of separation exist between you and Bobby, counting a victory over a difficult opponent as one degree. Count your victory over a strong player as one hop, then count his/her victory over a stronger opponent as the next hop, and so on, until you finally get to a grandmaster who defeated Fischer. Count the hops, and there's your Fischer number.

I don't mind the rare moments when Hesse inserts himself into the book, as it illustrates how a patzer not unlike me can have a ton of fun exploring chess. I find his attitude to be charming and infectious.

While the book is mostly just for fun, there's actually a fair amount of instructional value here: more guilty pleasure! If you're a chess player, this is a great book for your wishlist; or if you're looking for a Christmas gift or birthday gift for your favorite chess geek, wrap this book with a bow. It easily rates 5 stars out of 5. You may purchase these 417 pages of rollicking chess fun on Amazon here.

Full disclosure: The publisher provided a review copy of this book. I have endeavored to remain completely unbiased and helpful, and feel confident that the review reflects my commitment to objectivity.

Review of "Invisible Chess Moves"

2011-11-19T21:29:00.001-08:00

Israeli International Master Yochanan Afek and French FIDE Master Emmanuel Neiman have analyzed hundreds of high-level international games to discover what kinds of moves are difficult even for the masters to see. The result is this extremely useful collection of positions, game fragments, and puzzles that illustrate the most common causes of chess blindness.

Light bulbs kept going off in my head as I worked my way through the book. "Queen circuits" are hard to see? No kidding, my only tournament loss to a non-expert this year was the lamentable result of not seeing a diagonal queen maneuver clear across the board, followed by a horizontal check to the opposite wing. Anticipating a probable result can lead to blindness? Absolutely! In two drawn rook endgames this year I've missed opportunities to punish critical blunders and collect the full point, simply because it didn't occur to me that a winning opportunity might suddenly and serendipitously appear. Best of all, shortly after I had read the section on backward attacking moves, I invested a knight in a kingside attack because I saw that a critical defense would not prevail because of a quiet, backward attacking move available to my light-squared bishop.

Take a look at the invisible moves Afek and Neiman have classified and see how many you might have overlooked recently:

Part I - Objective Invisibility - 21

Chapter 1 - Hard-to-see moves - 22
A: Quiet moves - 23
B: Intermediate moves - 27
The desperado - 31
C: Alignment - 36
D: Forgetting the rules - 53
E: Quiet positions - 57

Chapter 2 - Geometrically invisible moves - 71
A: Horizontal effect - 72
B: Circuit - 74
Rook circuit - 74
Bishop circuit - 75
Queen circuit - 75
C: Changing wings - 77
D: Backward moves - 83
E: Backward knight moves - 86
F: Pin and self-pin - 89
G: Geometrical moves - 96

Part II - Subjective Invisibility - 111

Chapter 3 - Invisible moves for positional reasons - 112
A: Pawn structures - 113
B: Weakening of the king's defences - 118
C: Unexpected exchanges - 123
D: Unusual position of a piece - 126
E: Anti-developing moves - 133
F: Residual image - 135

Chapter 4 - Invisible moves for psychological reasons - 151
A: Anticipation of the probable result - 152
B: Blunders in World Championship matches - 163
C: Forward moves in defence - 167
D: Backward attacking moves - 176

Test - 191
Test solutions - 205
Explanation of Symbols - 237
Index of Players - 238

In addition to 30 exercise positions sprinkled through the text, the book concludes with 53 test positions graded in difficulty from 1 to 5 stars. My online ratings and recent OTB results indicate that I'm about FIDE 1800, yet I found the 2 star puzzles reasonably challenging. I learned a lot from working through the solutions of the harder ones, though, so don't shy away from this book if you're rated 1700 or above. Below that rating, though, you are probably better off just working through a conventional tactics book; if you have difficulties seeing knight forks and X-ray attacks, you should get those under your belt before you attack these more advanced themes.

Excellent tactics books have flooded the market, but excellent books dedicated to hard-to-see moves have been, well, practically invisible. Thus I am willing to give this unique work 5 stars in spite of some minor flaws that I hope will be corrected in a future edition:

* The authors do not apply their criteria for game selection consistently. They state that they will generally not use examples that involve rapid time controls or time pressure, but almost 10% of their examples (15) come from rapid games or zeitnot situations. Moreover, in several of the examples the players actually saw and played the putatively hard-to-see winning continuation. Why are they in a book about moves that masters don't see?

* About a dozen of the 53 concluding test problems have hints that are too obvious. "Long diagonal" will definitely draw your attention to the winning skewer on the a8-h1 diagonal, don't you think?

* The first set of 6 exercise positions do not include a discussion of why the winning continuation should be considered hard-to-see.

* The English translation occasionally falters, using phantom words like "automatical," "profylaxis" and "devaluating."

As these flaws detract little from the book's overall impact, I heartily recommend it to anyone rated 1700 or above who wants to improve their chess vision. You may purchase it from Amazon here.

Full disclosure: The publisher provided a review copy of this book to me. I have endeavored to remain completely unbiased and helpful, and feel confident that the review reflects my commitment to objectivity.

A Question of Honor: An Italian-American Reviews Manhattan Mafia Guide

2011-09-06T20:20:00.000-07:00

My beautiful bride Linda read an interesting book recently, and I wanted to share her thoughts....

Italian pride is a fierce and inscrutable thing. It drives a man of said heritage through six years of active research to document the history of the powerful New York Mafia. It also causes a second-generation Italian-American woman to devour his findings with morbid fascination. My eighty-four year old father read Eric Ferrara's Manhattan Mafia Guide, and passed it along to me. The subsequent discussion was an exercise in self-definition for which I was not entirely prepared.

I learned that in 1938 a young Italian boy sat red-faced in an American history class while the teacher decried the immigrant influx of “undesirables” from Southern and Eastern Europe. In Manhattan Mafia Guide, Ferrara cites an August 1931 Time magazine article describing the scene of a murder in an East Harlem Italian neighborhood which corroborates with my father's humiliating school experience:

[After the dinner hour,] fat, oily women, some without shoes, rattle dirty dishes. Their men sit smoking [...] their litters of children play and quarrel shrilly all through the street. Into this babble and filth and smell one evening last week came Terror.

According to my father, the Mafia arose when some vilified and unscrupulous Italians organized to gain social strength, and most especially, protect their honor. While not entirely disenfranchising this view, Ferrara chooses to emphasize the flagrant Machiavellian opportunism through which innumerable widows were made and untold thousands were held in a grip of fear and blind loyalty for generations. His work is a careful delineation of the facts of this woeful notoriety, peppered with sketches of colorful characters such as Vincent “Chin” Gigante, who wandered the streets in ratty pajamas, feigning mental illness for the benefit of police surveillance, but was also regularly seen navigating high society handsomely decked, meticulously coiffured, and fully in his right mind.

At first glance, Manhattan Mafia Guide seems to aspire to nothing more than an interesting assortment of names, dates, locations and events. But dig deeper and you find a portrait of pride in the way these infamous men threw off the dehumanizing wretchedness of the slums to gain power, wealth, and prestige. Dig deeper still and you catch a glimpse of those Italian immigrants whose honor caused them to resist the extortion and intimidation of the Mafia at great personal cost.

Letter to my Congressman on the national debt

2011-07-25T22:24:00.000-07:00

Honorable Representative Scott,

I voted for you last November, trusting that you would represent the best interests of my family, my district, and indeed my nation. You represent *all* of us--not (just) the Tea Party, not (just) Republicans, not (just) Democrats, not (just) businesses, not (just) union members, not (just) natives, not (just) immigrants, not (just) Christians, not (just) Muslims. I'm confident that you believe this and do your best to put this into practice.

My foremost concern is coming to a viable strategy for dealing with the national debt. I must confess that I am *extremely* concerned by your statement that that the federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling at all. Such a statement is the height of irresponsibility. When businesses get into serious financial trouble, do they announce that the only strategy they will consider is to cut expenses? NEVER. Here's the common business plan:

1. Cut expenses

2. Increase revenues

3. Secure new financing for short-term debts so that creditors and employees get paid while #1 and #2 (expense management and revenue enhancement) take place.

It would be the height of irresponsibility for a business to ignore 2/3 of the solution. And in so doing, the business would be irresponsible in its commitments to those to whom it currently has obligations.

I'm not asking you to support a plan that has only revenue enhancement. Or a plan that only raises the debt ceiling. I'm simply asking you to show courage, and to be a responsible leader, by taking every measure that needs to be taken: cut expenses, enhance revenue, and make provisions for short-term borrowing.

Second, as a representative of all of us--not just those who share your philosophy--I want to encourage you to take the high road of compromise. That's right, it's a high road. It's called win-win in the business world I live in. Those who insist on not negotiating don't get very far in real life. Believe strongly, but also act wisely. Be willing to help our nation to work out a deal that everyone of every political persuasion can support. That means that no one gets everything they want, and frankly...that's a good thing. When my children were young, they believed they could get everything they wanted. Helping them realize that was not the way life worked helped them to grow into effective, productive citizens. I'm sure it works the same way in Washington, DC as it does in American families like mine.

Finally, I want to bring to your attention a couple of facts that cut against common political philosophy in the United States. I trust you will not say, "What are you going to believe? Your hard data or my philosophy?" Instead, I trust you will ponder the data and their implication for policy. So here are the facts:

Fact 1. When taken as a percentage of the gross domestic product, US tax revenues are quite low compared to the taxes of most industrialized nations.

"The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product. By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration...."

Source here

Of the 33 OECD countries, only 3 have a lower total tax burden (federal, state, local, and corporate) as a percentage of GDP than the US. The OECD average is 34.8%; the US percentage is only 26.1%. Source here

Fact 2. Corporate tax burden in the US is the *lowest* among industrialized nations.

"The United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development....The statutory tax rate [is not relevant because it] applies only to the last dollar earned ... the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains."

Source here

Fact 3. The percentage of US national revenues devoted to cash entitlement programs, though they are certainly growing, are actually quite low compared to most industrialized nations.

"Cash transfers — for unemployment insurance, pensions, benefits for children and the like — amount to only 9 percent of household disposable income in the United States. Among the industrialized nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Korea provides less."

Source here

Thanks for listening. Rest assured that you and our other national leaders will be in my prayers these next few days.

Respectfully yours,

Chris Falter

Silver Wedding Anniversary for Don and Donna Gaudette

2011-07-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

We met Don and Donna because they opened their home to a community group meeting organized by our church. We always enjoyed the amazing artistry that Donna invested in their home, along with their sincere friendship. Don has recently begun competing in triatholons and road races, hence this tribute to them on this wonderful occasion...

Dear Don and Donna –

I was thinking about the excitement and joy we all feel because of your 25th wedding celebration, and I realized that it’s a lot like coming out of the water in a triathlon and realizing you’ve set a personal record. All of a sudden you’re confident, knowing that—although there’s still a long race ahead of you—you’ve got what it takes to finish well.

This is our prayer for you: that you will receive encouragement from the Lord to press on toward the goal. As we have seen since the beginning of our friendship, the Holy Spirit is truly at work in you, and He who promised is faithful, and will bring to completion the good work He has begun in you!

With best wishes,

Chris and Linda Falter

Should I Get that H1N1 Vaccine? Or Should I Believe Dr. Leonard Horowitz?

2010-02-25T10:38:00.000-08:00

Before I rolled up my sleeve two days ago, I decided to research the warnings from Leonard Horowitz, the "humanitarian, clinician, prophet, scholar and natural healer" who produced a 2.5 hour video entitled "In Lies We Trust." His ideas are certainly provocative! I didn't have time before my vaccine to watch the whole video, but with some research I did find documents he has published on the emergence of HIV and the emergence of H1N1. I also did a little background research on Horowitz.

In this post I share with you, dear readers, what I have unearthed regarding Horowitz and his theories. I also hope that you will share some comments about any further information I should have considered (on either side of the question)

An Examination of Horowitz' Qualifications to Speak on the Origin of Viruses

My research on Horowitz himself turned up the following:

1. Horowitz claims multiple PhDs on the video; however, as far as I can tell, he does not possess them.

A. The designations he claims are not Ph.Ds

People usually think of a Ph.D. in a scientific field as something you earn after spending several years of studying peer-reviewed papers, performing years of laboratory research in collaboration with other scientists, and getting that research published in peer-reviewed journals.

The titles that Horowitz claims (DNM and DMM) do not involve anything of the sort. In fact, there is massive confusion surrounding the DNM designation; according to Vitality magazine, a source certainly not indebted to big pharmaceutical companies,

"a DNM may have some weekend or on-line courses, some mentorship from another DNM, and no experience....a DNM might be a medical intuitive or energy healer."

Thus the DNM designation cannot be equated to a Ph.D. Please note that I am not saying that there is no value in DNM studies, which covers the areas of nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathic medicine, oriental medicine, lifestyle counseling, natural medicine diagnostics, and manual therapy. I'm just saying that a DNM is no more relevant to the subject at hand than a DMD (dentistry) or MS in Computer Science.

And as for the DMM Horowitz claims...what is it, anyway? I have googled hard for an explanation of the title, but have only found "Doctor of Music Ministry" as an academic title associated with the acronym.

B. Horowitz may not even hold DNM and DMM titles he claims

On his bio page, Horowitz gives great detail about his studies in dentistry and his MPH (which is a policy degree, as opposed to a science degree). However, he states nothing at all about the institutions and dates of study associated the supposed DNM and DMM titles he claims. The World Order of Natural Medicine Practicioners maintains a list of accredited institutions; at which of them did Horowitz study? If he can't provide basic information like this in the biography that he himself has written, I have great difficulty believing his claim to the designation is valid.

Think of it like this: suppose you are a manager hiring for an open position that requires a B.S. in Computer Science. A candidate submits a resume in which he claims to have the degree, but does not provide any information about what institution awarded it or when. Are you going to accept the resume at face value, or discard it and move on to the next candidate's resume? I don't know any managers who would accept a resume without basic background information.

C. Horowitz has little or no background in the pertinent subjects

To speak with scientific authority on the origin of a virus, you would need a background in virology or biochemistry. Horowitz' verifiable background, however, is in dentistry and in public policy regarding health. Worthy fields, but insufficient to claim scientific authority. And as discussed above, the DNM and DMM credentials are not pertinent. In view of his claims regarding musical notes at 528 Hz, perhaps Horowitz is in fact claiming the Doctorate of Music Ministry for himself. Clearly such a degree would not bolster his credentials to speak as a scientist, however.

2. Horowitz habitually makes truly bizarre claims on a variety of subjects

Like Dave Barry says, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried! In the world of Horowitz:

* "528Hz is the Central Broadcasting Channel of LOVE in the Living Water that carries the Message. FAITH is the power button that turns this hydrosonic creationistic technology on. For you personally, the 'Music of the Light,' universally transmuting the 'Music of the night,' is available by FAITH, choice, and heart-felt prayer.... This system is free to enjoy (not manipulate or destroy) for the benefit of producers (not consumers)-- powerful co-creators; not destroyers-- those who choose to listen to this 'Sound of Silence' and calling from the Most High." (Link here)

Except that it's not really free; you can, however, purchase it from one of Dr. Horowitz' sites for $19.95.

Not only that: "Dr. Horowitz's simple, yet powerful water energizing technology, the '3E,' [is] based on his research into the Perfect Circle of Sound and the 'frequencies in harmony with the universal symphony.' 3E stickers and 'cling ons' can be placed on glassware and elsewhere to structure water." (emphasis mine; link here)

Price to change the molecular structure of water from your pipes: $19.40 at one of his online stores. (I trust that all my readers will understand that changing the molecular structure of water is not something that you can perform by putting a sticker on a flask.)

And do not forget: "You are a digitial, bioholographic, hydrosonic, precipitation, crystallization, miraculous manifestation, of divine frequency vibrations."

* Horowitz has cracked the real Da Vinci code! "The Real Da Vinci Code reveals the secret set of numbers and symbols from which all creation flows." Available for $22.85 here.

* Horowitz markets a powerful potion that contains superconducting silver! "In this 'Age of the Great Plagues,' the doctor's most important advancement is the 528Hz frequency resonating silver hydrosol called OxySilver, that Dr. Horowitz describes as 'a combination of God/Water, LOVE/528Hz energy, and superconducting nanosilver bonded to oxygen.' He predicts OxySilver will put BigPharma out of business as people learn how simply and powerfully this mineral Water works energetically. .." (Link here) He markets it as a substitute for vaccines and antibiotics. Just $49.40 + shipping/handling per 8 oz. bottle, sold here.

Never mind that, in order for silver to act as a superconductor, it must constitute approximately 75% of a solid. So, contrary to Horowitz' claims, it is utterly impossible for his potion to contain superconducting silver.

* Horowitz also claims that MRI uses sound waves, and that 97% of DNA has the function of capturing divine light and sound transmissions. Such assertions are 100.0% rubbish.

You will notice that Horowitz' claims are frequently used to support the marketing of products from his website. Caveat emptor.

On to the Presentations

Now I turn to Horowitz' actual publications. We start with his theories regarding HIV:

Horowitz on HIV

He contends that HIV is the result of a 1970s conspiracy between Merck and Henry Kissinger to wipe out the populations of Africa and African-Americans. His evidence is basically this:

1. Kissinger was on the Merck board.
2. Kissinger had an insurance policy against charges of genocide
3. Merck distributed vaccines in the areas where HIV/AIDS first developed in the 70s. Some of those vaccines even contained substances derived from the cells of chimpanzees.

However, there are completely reasonable interpretations of these facts that have nothing to do with a conspiracy:

1. Politicians and corporate boards have been having fun together for centuries. This is completely normal behavior.

2. I have been able to find no substantiation whatsoever to Horowitz' claim about a Kissinger insurance policy. Scanning the first 100 results returned by Google from "Kissinger genocide insurance" turned up nothing. Wikipedia mentions nothing of the sort. But even if he did have such a policy, Kissinger had reason to fear genocide charges due to his involvement in US military campaigns, some secret, in southeast Asia. That's why he would have had such an insurance policy (if indeed he had one).

3. Merck was distributing vaccines basically everywhere on the planet during the period in question. No matter where AIDS might have emerged, Merck could have been accused of complicity. Plus, remember that correlation does not equal causation.

Moreover, there is very strong reason to disbelieve Horowitz' conspiracy theory:

4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At a minimum, I would want to see some emails or documents from Merck scientists, or interviews with Merck scientists, before I could give Horowitz' extraordinary theory any credence.

However, Horowitz has produced no documentary evidence of conspiracy whatsoever...nothing but pure speculation. Elsewhere, he points to an interview with Dr. Maurice Hilleman in which Hilleman cracked a joke about importing AIDS (the interview team had a long laugh), but documenting a wisecrack among scientists is not the same thing as documenting a conspiracy. He has also produced documentation that USAID was funding population control programs in Africa (which he erroneously refers to as "depopulation" programs). He has documented that the US military requested funding to study the feasibility of creating biological agents in 1970, but has failed to note that studying the feasibility of something and actually doing it are very different things. He has documented that there was a program to study the relationship between viruses and cancer that went so far as to distribute primate viruses to various research programs. To which I say: so what? There is no documentation that the program was, or even could have been, used to concoct deadly retroviruses and distribute them via vaccines.

5. Real PhDs have studied the emergence of HIV infection, and trace it to a leap of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) from chimpanzees into human populations via the bushmeat trade in Africa. Among the factors in the NIH-funded analysis is that "the natural habitat of these [infected] chimpanzees directly coincides with the pattern of the HIV-1 epidemic in this area of Africa." This study was published in the February 1999 edition of the peer-reviewed magazine Nature.

6. Scientists did not possess the information necessary to participate in a conspiracy until well after HIV/AIDS had appeared. Thus it was impossible for any scientist at "BigPharma" or any government agency to commit the horrific deeds of which Horowitz accuses them.

A. HIV infections were occurring in Kenya in 1959. Applying a molecular clock analysis to the diversity in HIV strains existing at the time indicates that HIV had been circulating among humans since "near the beginning of the twentieth century." Bottom line: HIV infections predate the supposed conspiracy by several decades.

B. AIDS was first noted in the US in 1980; however, HIV was not even discovered until 1983. The Center for Disease Control, a government agency, played a major role in funding and coordinating the success search for the pathogen that causes AIDS. The important point here is that, since scientists did not even know HIV existed until 1983, they could not possibly have tried to distribute HIV among any populations via vaccines prior to 1983.

D. Scientists have traced the origins of HIV to zoonosis by the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV). However, SIV was not even discovered until 1985. Therefore, it was impossible in the 1970s for any scientist to have the idea that vaccines created from processes using chimpanzee cells could be used to start an autoimmune disease pandemic.

Horowitz on H1N1

Now I turn to Horowitz' claims regarding the emergence of H1N1, which he attributes to a conspiracy among government agencies, scientists in the area of biochemistry and virology, and "BigPharma" (especially Novavax). According to Horowitz (and I quote at length):

"As the first cases of the 2009 Mexican flu outbreak were being reported, clamoring journalists began calling the doctor, requesting his commentaries. A few hours later, after investigating the government officials and vaccine makers involved, the Harvard-trained emerging diseases expert uploaded the above 10-minute SPECIAL REPORT to YouTube--a classic 'scam buster.'

"Within a day of posting the above YouTube video, thanks to prompt reactions from dozens of faithful activists who mailed this clip to thousands of others, more than 90,000 people in less than 30 hours watched Dr. Horowitz, an award winning author and filmmaker, perform a mass media exorcism, commanding Google's top search listing throughout the flu fright that virtually ended on May 5, 2009, when CDC officials who had been hyping the virulence of this germ from its emergence, suddenly announced, 'It is not as bad as we first thought.'

"Suddenly and quite amazingly, as quickly as these demons had been exposed, the virus' lethality was downgraded."

So in summary:

* By spending a few hours going over the list of officials and companies who were involved... Again, Horowitz provides no documents--nothing that could possibly be considered as evidence in a court of law, or even in normal journalism. Just by spending a few hours enumerating the organizations that are interested in combatting H1N1, Horowitz divines a conspiracy among them to actually spread the infection. This is quite near a claim of omniscience.

* He conducted a media exorcism that resulted in a reduction in the virus' lethality. Hmmm... need I discuss this any further?

Final Thoughts

As a final point on the whole question of the emergence of "new" viruses: this frightful phenomenon was happening long before Merck and Novavax existed. Witness the sudden and deadly Spanish flu of 1918, which then disappeared almost as soon as it appeared. In nature, viruses can recombine their genetic material in a common host, resulting in the potential emergence of "new" and lethal viruses. While this process has long been suspected as the cause of the 1918 Spanish flu, it is perhaps more likely (according to Oxford scientists) that the 1918 flu was the result of normal mutations in the HA1 gene of human flu viruses. Bottom line: we can be very confident that the emergence of "new" and even recombinant, deadly viruses does not require a laboratory. So why should we feel the need to hunt for a conspiracy of governments, scientists, and pharmaceutical companies to explain the emergence of HIV and H1N1? Scientific study has given us a natural explanation based on virology, and we need look no further.

Please don't be afraid of viruses: the just shall live by faith. And don't be afraid to obtain flu vaccines, either! At least that's what I did. My arm's a little sore, but otherwise I'm in great shape. Thanks for listening.

A Notorious Islamic Extremist Renounced His Childhood Christian Faith Because Of Creationism (In Part)

2010-01-28T14:32:00.000-08:00

Omar Hammami, son of Syrian Muslim and Southern Baptist parents, has been playing a leading role in the Al-Shabbab militancy in Somalia. The New York Times magazine has just chronicled his journey from Southern Baptist (baptized at age 6) to Islamic extremist. One stage of the process involved dealing with creationism:

"When he was 12, Hammami wrote in his journal, 'Sometimes I get confused because the Bible says one thing and our textbooks and Darwin say another.'"

There were of course other issues in the journey--among them his father's Muslim faith and a mile-wide rebellious streak. But if he had been taught that the inerrant Bible is in complete agreement with the concepts of a billions-years-old earth and a providential (theistic) view of evolution, perhaps he would have become a rebel for Christ (instead of an al-Qaeda sympathizer)!? It's impossible to say for sure, of course. And as long as he lives and breathes, he can always return to his childhood faith.

I just wanted to point out the effect that creationism had on Hammami to reinforce the idea behind my previous post: the apologetics we use, and the way that we handle issues of science and faith, can have a huge impact for good or for ill. We need to think very carefully about these issues, and not just think the way we've always thought, and speak the way we've always spoken, just because it's more comfortable for us.

Scientific Creationism Nearly Wrecked My Faith

2009-11-02T20:28:00.000-08:00

As an enthusiastic young evangelical decades ago, I devoured the scientific creationism literature written by the likes of Duane Gish and Henry Morris. Did you know that, based on the erosion rate of silicon, it only took 8000 years for the oceans to reach their current concentration of silicon? So how could the earth be billions of years old? I filled my mind with dozens of such factoids, held intense debates with my atheist friend Shawn, and scoffed at unbelieving scientists.

Then I entered the Ivy League, where respect for the scientific enterprise flowed like a deep, irresistible current. As it carried me along, I felt like I had to abandon my Christian faith or drown. The scientific consensus was that the earth was indeed billions of years old, but the Bible taught that the earth was less than 7000 years old. I had to choose between the two...and I chose science.

I considered myself to be an agnostic, I guess because I didn't want to adopt the label of atheist and give up all hope of ever rediscovering faith. I was adrift; just what was life supposed to be about anyway? If everything boils down to baryons and the forces of physics, then there is no free will, no design, no purpose.

I resolved one evening that I must nevertheless live a life of love. But this left me with a terrible problem: how was I to accomplish that? I was no saint, nowhere close. In fact, I would have to describe the 19 year old Chris Falter as just another selfish, arrogant Ivy Leaguer hungry for success. I gazed up at the stars in anguish, looking for an answer. Suddenly a vision of Jesus on the cross came to me. The message was unmistakable: Jesus demonstrated how to love truly when he offered his life on that cross. If I wanted to love others, I had to follow Jesus. With newfound hope I prayed, "Lord, if you're really there, make your power and love known in my life!"

I re-embarked on the journey of faith, eager to resolve the bitter dispute between faith and science. Dr. John Suppe, an astonishingly gifted geologist, was acting as a mentor to many Christian students at Princeton. He didn't openly repudiate the "scientific creationists," but the theory of plate tectonics that he was helping to develop clearly could not be squared with an 8000 year old earth. I began to believe that the word of God and the works of God did not have to contradict. Then my dear friend Jerry Roth, a Christian student in geology, pushed me over the line one day by talking about some field studies he had participated in. His team had drilled into a mountain to obtain rock samples, and dated them by the potassium-argon method. Sure enough, the deeper the samples, the older the dates, just as predicted. And yes, the dates were in the tens of millions of years.

So Dr. Suppe and Jerry showed me that I could be a Christian of both deep faith and scientific rigor; I didn't have to choose between the heart and the mind. (Indeed, Jesus commanded us to love the Lord our God with all our minds as well as with all our hearts.) From the writings of Hugh Ross, I discovered that the use of the word "day" in Genesis can also mean "era" in the original Hebrew. Thus, we are not tied to a 168-hour interpretation of the creation account. This exegesis is supported by Hebrews 4: 7, which indicates that the seventh day of Creation continues as the present age of grace--a "day of rest" that we enter by faith in Christ.

I also came to realize that the so-called scientific evidence that Gish, Morris, and others in scientific creationist camp had cited was completely in error. For example, silicon does not just erode into the ocean; it also leaves through a process called efflux. Once we take efflux into account, we see that the silicon concentration in ocean water is in equilibrium. So oceanic silicon actually supports the view that the oceans are billions of years old, and contradicts the view that they are only a few thousand years old. I will review some of the other young-earth creationist "evidence" in another post, hopefully very soon.

For now, I just want to leave you with this thought: if you are a Christian parent, why should you expose your child to the danger that he or she will read the scientific literature and conclude that the Biblical account of creation is just wrong--and that the Bible must therefore be wrong? If you are a pastor, why should you expose your flock to this danger? How I wish that a pastor had taught me the day-age view of Genesis 1 - 3 in my youth! I could have been spared a lot of darkness, despair, grief, and emptiness.

Please, please, please: spare our children the darkness that I experienced! Teach them that they can explore the whole body of scientific evidence with an intellectual integrity that befits someone who desires integrity in every area of life. Teach them that the scientific enterprise and the Bible do *not* contradict, because a reasonable exegesis of Genesis points not only to an ancient universe, but also to a God who is pleased to reveal Himself both through personal encounter and through His creation.

[Thanks to my editor, the beautiful Linda Falter, for her help with this post.]

Stupid Jokes

2009-06-12T19:40:00.000-07:00

They say that those who approach life with humor live happier, healthier, longer lives. Does that apply to those who have a jovial demeanor but whose jokes have a...shall we say inconsistent...quality?

The time when my lovely wife Linda was most worried about my well-being was when I stopped telling jokes. We were living among the poor overseas, the challenges were unbelievably difficult, and I got so focused on just trying to suvive that the puns, word plays, and self-deprecation ground to a halt. My teenagers would say that everyone must have rejoiced! But in fact Linda was deeply worried. Perhaps more so than when I got malaria...twice. More than when I got typhoid. More than when I suffered unemployment for a year.

But now I'm making it up as I go along, and Linda is happy, most of the time. The teenagers less so, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Your own kids are a tough crowd, to be sure. A 10 year-old girl in White Plains was overheard scolding her dad for singing out loud. The father? Billy Joel. If the guy who commands $100 per ticket in sold-out stadiums can't please his progeny, what hope do I have? Of course, I love my kids so much that it doesn't matter anyway. And that's no joke!

Congratulations to Daniel and Mary

2009-03-29T18:54:00.000-07:00

My eldest son Daniel has been a constant source of pride and joy for us. This past August he moved to Louisville to pursue a masters degree in music performance (jazz percussion), and the wonderful surprises have not ceased. He met a wonderful young lady, a fellow grad student named Mary Goff, and they fell in love. She is a delightful, creative, godly future daughter-in-law. You are reading that correctly; Daniel proposed on Valentine's Day, and she said yes.

We have great confidence that their relationship will go the distance. They encourage one another in faith, they have fun together, they strengthen one another. So why does my heart harbor a mild sensation of misgiving?

It's not about them, it's about me. Can I really be ready to be a grandfather?

I'm not old enough yet! (I might not feel old enough in another decade, either, but that's not relevant.)

Stop laughing at me, kids. I'm too weak to fight back and too senile to think up a clever riposte. Sigh.

But it's beautiful. As long as I focus on the wonderful things I see God doing in Daniel and Mary, I think I'll be okay.

Congratulations to Melody!

2008-12-11T21:06:00.000-08:00

My wonderful daughter just turned 16, and she is sweet. She also works very diligently in her studies, and practices music all the time. (It is a great pleasure to hear the wonderful tones waft through the house from her french horn or piano.) So it is not surprising at all that Melody is in the top 10 out of roughly 700 students in her class...or that she was invited to perform with the Governor's All-Star Band at this year's Carolighting. Unfortunately, the event was rained out...but the honor remains. Yeah, Mel!

Congratulations to Benjamin and Archelle!

2008-12-11T21:01:00.000-08:00

I have been blessed to stay in touch with my dear friend Benjamin Lincoln, even though he moved to Atlanta almost 10 years ago. He has had great success as a software developer, which surprises no one who is familiar with his smarts, friendliness, and integrity.

A young woman named Archelle has also noticed his admirable qualities--and he, hers--so they will be tying the knot at their A.M.E. church in March. A round of applause!

Congratulations to Benjamin!

2008-12-11T20:58:00.000-08:00

My hulk of a 12-year-old, Benjamin Falter, recently earned a green belt in karate. He has manifested enterprise, persistence and humility in his approach to karate, so you can rest assured that I will be making plenty of posts about his success in many other endeavors.

The Inevitability of Booms and Busts

2008-12-11T20:01:00.000-08:00

It seems that the Mises Institute is tilting at windmills in its hope to end economic booms and busts by reenacting the gold standard and outlawing fractional reserve banking. As long as human beings are making decisions about the prices of goods and services--i.e., as long as you and I, dear readers, are investing and consuming--we will be experiencing the crazy ups and downs. We can turn back the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act, but we can't outlaw human nature.

This month's Atlantic Monthly published a couple of very impressive articles about how our wonderful, wacky humanity is the root of the problem. "Pop Psychology" describes experiments done by economists where a dozen participants are each given a certain amount of "securities" (for example, a certificate that yields a 24-cent dividend every 4 minutes) and cash (the real stuff, negotiable instruments). The experiment is limited to 15 rounds of dividends, so after an hour of trading the participants get to keep whatever money remains from their trading activity and dividends.

It is a trivial exercise to calculate the economic value of the security: during the first round it is $3.60 (15 times $.24), in the second round it is $3.36, etc. Anyone who believes that the trading price of the securities for these 60-minute securities in the 12-person market will largely reflect their apparent economic value, though, does not understand human behavior. (And truth be told, I must count myself among the misinformed/astonished.) What drives the market price of the securities is not their apparent economic value, but the desire of the participants to buy low and sell high. So what happens 90% of the time in these experiments is that the profit-seekers drive the price of the securities skyward--until the 15th round, at which point the market crashes.

Sound familiar?

So now you know why reverting to the gold standard will never end the cycle of booms and busts; we can change the banking system, but we are powerless to stop the tide of human behavior. I pointed out in a previous post that the cycle of expansion and contraction has occurred both when currency has been pegged to the gold standard and when it hasn't. I would be overstating the case to see that good banking policy is inconsequential; good policy might reduce the amplitude of the swings. At the same time, we do need to recognize that there is no policy that can relegate booms and busts to the dustbin of history.

In the second article, Henry Blodget (of Wall Street notoriety) examines the conduct of participants in the recent real estate and credit bubble, and finds it to be completely unremarkable. Of course home purchasers kept bidding up the price of real estate; they wanted to keep making profits. Investment bankers wanted to keep earning their bonuses. Politicians wanted the good times to keep rolling. Mortgage lenders wanted to keep earning origination fees. It takes a village to raise a child, and I guess it takes a village to cause a stampede in the real estate market.

In the wake of the inevitable bust, there has been much finger-pointing, but far too little self-examination. Perhaps we will learn our lesson for a generation, but eventually people will start saying "It's different this time, prices really can keep spiraling upward" and the next boom and crash will happen.

"Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve"

2008-11-11T21:59:00.001-08:00

I just finished viewing a youtube video produced by the Mises Institute that gives an interesting explanation of how money and banking works. Every freshman in Econ 101 needs to watch this video to learn why berries or wampum could be the currency of choice, rather than reserve notes, and what fractional reserve banking is all about. It also covers a good bit of banking history, although as I will discuss in a bit, it is highly selective in its coverage of the subject.

Then the video engages in a long rejection of central banking, and calls for a return to the gold standard. There are several related themes that the Mises Institute cites:

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors (FRB) is not accountable to anyone. No one audits their operations; they can buy and sell assets as they please. You cannot obtain a transcript of their deliberations; they only publish a brief summary.
Inflation is baked in to the current banking system--300% in the 25 years after Nixon ended Bretton Woods! But you don't want a low inflation environment; you want the currency you own to gain value over time. Only a deflationary environment can provide the confidence that investors and entrepreneurs need to do their part for economic growth.
Central banking is the cause of all economic booms and busts. It leads to booms and busts because the presence of a "lender of last resort" removes the need for banks to lend prudently during the good years.
History shows that a return to the gold standard will stabilize the economy; for example, sound money was the impetus for a pleasant 18-year expansion from 1879 to 1896. On the other hand, the video implicates central banking as the ultimate cause of the Great Depression.

The video's analysis ignores so much history, so much about how banking operates, and so many serious pragmatic issues, that I scarcely know where to begin my critique. For now, since my time is limited, I'll just list some semi-random thoughts:

The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Opinions vary as to whether this provides enough accountability for the Board, but the appointment/confirmation process certainly mitigates the problem. In addition, the video is dramatically wrong about the availability of transcripts for the FRB's meetings; they have been available since 1994. The video was produced in 1996, so there is no excuse for this misleading argument.
Central banking's promotion of monetary inflation is not the only cause of the boom/bust cycle. Any time investors believe that outsized profits can be gained from some new resource, technology or business practice, they stampede into the capital market and produce a rush of new lending. This is a boom cycle, and it doesn't need the assistance of central banking. The Holland tulip craze, the 19th century railroad boom, and the 21st century housing boom were driven primarily by investors' appetites for enormous and easy returns. The video praises the reliability of a market-regulated currency, but in point of fact the rush into the housing market by Wall Street lenders and Main Street borrowers that we saw during W's early years is but the latest example of how the market can drive a currency boom. An earlier example, provided by the video itself, is how the long expansion after the Civil War was followed by a decade's worth of instability that culminated in the Crash of 1907. That crash in turn led to the birth to the Federal Reserve during a 1910 meeting of Wall Street titans on Jekyll Island. Of course, the fact that 18 years of boom followed by a decade of instability and bust occurred when the Fed did not yet exist is an extremely strong refutation of the video's argument, but the producers rise to the challenge of completely overlooking this inconvenient fact.
While few are happy during the bust after a boom, Daniel Gross argues that the boom/bust cycle is critical for a healthy economy. Booms often give us infrastructure (like telegraphs, railroads, and fiber-optic cable) that can boost production for decades. Of course, not all booms are of equal value (think tulip bulbs and vacant housing), but you've got to expect some chaff with the wheat. At the risk of redundancy, I again point out that booms are what happen when investors get excited about emerging opportunities; history has proven that you can't have marvelous new opportunities without a boom/bust cycle.
Do not believe the video when it states that you want your money to gain value over time. The years 1929 - 1940 saw the greatest increase in the value of money in American history; this period is also referred to as the Great Depression. The link between increasing money value and severe economic depression is quite obvious. If the value of goods I can buy with money will increase over time, I have no incentive at all to invest it; I can get a risk-free increase in value just by stuffing my money in a mattress. So from the viewpoint of society, when the value of money is increasing, investment naturally falls sharply. Furthermore, this fall in value can be a vicious circle: as the value of money increases, investment drops; as investment drops, economic activity drops; as economic activity drops, the value of money in hand goes up; as the value of money in hand goes up, investment drops more, etc. This, in a nutshell, is how the Great Depression happened.
The video attacks fractional reserve banking from pillar to post, but it is impossible for a conversion to the gold standard to eliminate fractional reserve banking. Here's why: the world's outstanding gold reserves are but a tiny fraction of the world's economic output. As long as the reserve assets on hand are but a fraction of the lending in the economy, there will be fractional reserve banking. It is mathematically impossible to have any form of banking other than fractional reserve banking when aggregate reserves are lower than aggregate deposits. "Well, we'll just revalue gold so that banking reserves and demand deposits are in equilibrium," Ron Paul might reply. While that is possible, I'm not sure I want to give a windfall profit of $15 trillion to a handful of mining companies.
The video proclaimed (in 1996) that the federal budget had been in deficit every year since Nixon ended Bretton Woods. Of course, just like it seems you have to wash your car to enjoy a rainfall, no sooner was this video released than our country enjoyed a string of impressive budget surpluses from 1996 to 2001. Of course, the Republican Congress and President put an end to that with a huge tax cut and out-of-control military spending in the years 2001 and following, but that's a different story.
The video proposes that investors will lend their gold to banks for (negotiated) fixed periods of time at a fixed interest rate, and the banks will in turn will lend to creditworthy borrowers. Congratulations, Mises Institute, you have just invented the Certificate of Deposit (CD).
The video proposes that banks will charge fees to depositors for holding their savings and demand deposits, instead of earning profits by lending a portion of the deposit money. In other words, the Mises Institute proposes to kill fractional reserve banking. Of course, this would decrease the availability of capital dramatically, which would starve our economy of the resources needed to pursue new investment opportunities. In other words, the Mises Institute's proposal would provoke a downturn so colossal that we would rename the 1930s as the "Mild Disappointment."
It is true that deposit insurance and the Fed's discount window serve as a "lender of last resort," which can encourage private lenders to take some imprudent risks. However, the alternative is not some nirvana where all investors and lenders are perfectly rational. Rather it's a system where you and I will be afraid to put our savings in a bank for fear that some crazy loan officer will lend it to his visionary cousin Marvin's real estate company, and we'll lose the capital we painfully gathered for decades as we raised our families. And if you and I are afraid of putting our money in savings accounts, it will be the 1930s all over again.

EDIT: I have corrected the inadvertant misspelling of the name of Mises Institute. Thanks, Thom!

Analyzing the Republican Pro-Life Case

2008-11-03T20:31:00.000-08:00

As readers of the comments on my previous blog are aware, it is impossible to support a Democrat for pro-life reasons without stirring up controversy. A lot of controversy. In addition to the published comments, I have received many emails and even letters from passionate Christians and family members who implore me to consider further arguments.

I do appreciate the sentiment and thoughts. I have very carefully considered these arguments, and at one point seriously contemplated the possibility of voting for Bob Barr. (Sorry, Senator McCain--I could never vote for anyone who labels a Palestinian peace activist as a "neo-Nazi.") The arguments are as follows:

Abortion restrictions such as parental consent/notification laws actually do reduce abortions, according to a 2006 analysis by Prof. Michael New.
Obama plans to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (if it is passed), which would eliminate any restriction of any type on abortion. Doctors, nurses, and hospitals could no longer refuse to provide abortion. Partial-birth abortions could no longer be restricted. State parental notification and informed consent laws would be nullified.

As I examined the data as carefully as possible, though, I think my original public policy analysis was sound. A vote for Obama is vote to improve the economic and societal situation of expectant mothers, and thus is a vote to reduce abortion. Let's see why:

1. New's analysis is faulty because it fails to control for the correct variables. Prof. New only controlled for income growth and racial demographics in his analysis of the effects of abortion restriction policies. The Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) analysis, however, controls for 16 economic and welfare policy factors, in addition to the abortion restriction policies. Once these additional factors are considered, the effect of abortion restriction policies becomes immaterial. As Wright and Bailey report in the CACG paper:

Using the nationwide data, we also analyzed the effect of state-level laws that are designed to prevent abortions. In the Appendix, we show that laws concerning parental and informed consent had no significant effect on the number of abortions in the United States. We tested for the effect of both passing and enforcing parental and informed consent laws, and find that the net effect on the abortion rate of both passing and enforcing these laws was very close to zero. While we did find that partial-birth abortion laws are associated with decreases in the abortion rate, this result was not statistically different from zero and was not consistent across different specifications. These results stand in contrast to earlier research, but that research did not control for important socioeconomic factors such as government assistance and employment rates by gender.

Thus the primary policy factors to reduce abortions are economic assistance programs that can help expectant mothers, although the elimination of Medicaid funding for abortions also helps.

2. The Freedom of Choice Act appears to be little more than lip service to the pro-choice movement. I urge my readers to go read the actual Act, rather than rely on what I or anyone else says. You will see that it basically enacts as a matter of federal legislation the policies already propounded by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

It does not prevent medical professionals from exercising their conscience--a right which does not rely on state abortion restriction legislation.
It does not prevent states from restricting partial-birth abortions; in fact, the effect of the Act does not extend beyond the 22d week of pregnancy, since it states
A government may not...deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose...to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman
This balancing of the unborn child's right to life with the woman's life or health is no different from today's law.
And I do not believe that the law will affect state's choices not to fund abortions with Medicaid dollars. The Act is spectacularly vague on the question of Medicaid funding, and even if it could be interpreted to override state funding choices, it would never survive a state challenge based on the 10th Amendment ("the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")

A Pro-Life Evangelical Votes for Democrat Obama

2008-10-26T11:56:00.000-07:00

Starting in 1984, I have never voted for a Democrat for President, primarily because the Republican candidate expressed a pro-life stance, and had the backing of a party with a pro-life platform. 2008 is different. Here's why:

1. Valuing the dignity of human life goes far beyond opposing abortion. I've decided that being pro-life means:

You care about the world that you are leaving to future generations.
You care about the dignity of the most vulnerable--the poor, the oppressed, the elderly, the unborn.
You care about the eradication of injustice and inequality.
You recognize that Americans have no special dispensation from God to act as they please, since all human beings are created equal, whether they are Iraqi, Zimbabwean, French, Chinese, or American. This doctrine leads to a real humility with regard to choosing to invade other countries militarily. I salute the men and women who serve courageously in our armed forces, but I cannot abide the Bush Doctrine and those who uphold it (most notably McCain and Palin).

So my previous view of pro-life policy was far too narrow, because it focused on just one (albeit important) aspect of life. And here I might add that influential Christian thinkers, both Catholic and Protestant, have been preaching this broad view for some time. In fact, the seven principles of Catholic social teaching, as declared in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum ("Of New Things"), are:

* Life and Dignity of the Human Person
* Call to Family, Community, and Participation
* Rights and Responsibilities
* Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
* The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
* Solidarity
* Care for God's Creation

As I look over this list, I see a lot of areas where Democrats, in my view, hold the upper hand. They do much better in the "option for the poor and vulnerable," especially as this pertains to tax policy. They support the rights of workers to organize and earn a living wage far more strongly than Republicans. They have more consistently expressed a concern for stewardship of God's creation. They have earned my vote.

2. The Democratic emphasis on pragmatic policies to reduce abortions holds greater promise than the Republican emphasis on the ideal of making abortion illegal.

First, the Republican approach of restrictive legislation is preordained to fail due to the legal doctrine of stare decisis (adherence to precedent). Short of a constitutional amendment, Roe v. Wade and other decisions that allow a woman to give preference to her health as determined by her and her physician rather than her unborn child will remain the law of the land. In other words, our next President and his judicial appointments, whether they be pro-life or pro-choice, will have very little influence on the legality of abortion, because the issue has already been decided on constitutional grounds.

Second, access restriction legislation is far less effective at reducing abortion than liberal welfare policies. The "Reducing Abortion in America" public policy study released by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good concludes that abortion restriction policies such as parental consent laws have had a negligible impact on abortion rates. On the other hand, "social and economic supports such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States over the past twenty years." Here I will let the report speak for itself:

"[A] two standard deviation difference among states in the reported level of economic assistance to low income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate. Across the entire United States, this translates into 200,000 fewer abortions. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 allowed states to impose a cap on the number of children eligible to receive economic assistance in low-income families. Removing this family cap would decrease abortions by about 15% or 150,000 nationwide. The findings also suggest that, in the 1990s, states with more generous grants to women, infants and children under the age of five as provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program had a 37% lower abortion rate. Finally, higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 29% lower abortion rate."

In other words, if you truly desire to reduce abortions in the US,

Remove family caps to welfare assistance (which have been enacted primarily in Republican strongholds like Mississippi and South Carolina [my home state]).
Increase welfare assistance to the poor, especially in the WIC program. Follow the Democratic California and NY assistance model, not the Republican Mississippi and SC model.
Help poor men gain employment skills, and employment.

So which of the major parties, and which of the Presidential candidates, will be more supportive of liberal welfare assistance policies? If you care about reducing abortions, this is the question you should be asking. If you want my vote, stop talking about welfare and tax policy in terms of supposedly promoting socialism and income redistribution, and start talking in terms of compassion and bringing children into the world. This is how the Democratic Party is choosing to frame its policies, and it is quite clear to me that the Democratic policies are dramatically more conducive to reducing abortions.

The great irony of the abortion debate is that some of the most vociferous voices against abortion have, through their conservative welfare policies, contributed to hundreds of thousands more abortions each year. I will grant that this promotion of abortions has been unwitting. Now that you and I know the truth of the matter on what really helps to reduce abortions, though, we need to vote November 4 on the basis of what really happens as a result of policy decisions--not on the basis of a political party's rhetoric. Deeds, not words, are what count.

3. The Democratic Party's new language about the importance of reducing abortions and its embrace of pro-life Democrats such as Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey appear to be genuine. For the first time that I can remember, the Democratic Party has this year recruited dozens of pro-life advocates to run for Congress and has actively supported them with millions of dollars in campaign funds. Pro-choice elements of the party may not be happy with this shift, but they have not prevailed.

Will the Democrats go the distance with this new-found approach to reducing abortions and supporting pro-life candidates, or will it turn out to be a cynical ploy designed to garner votes in 2008? It's impossible to predict the future, but I'm willing to give the Democrats a chance to demonstrate their sincerity. Part of the reason I'm willing to give them this chance is that I have not been particularly impressed with Republican leadership on the issue over the past 24 years; the gulf between Republican talk and Republican action has been quite acute. Even this year, McCain's attempt to select Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, staunchly pro-choice friends, as his vice presidential running mate do not make me think that a McCain administration would really care about the issue. For that matter, Sarah Palin never took any notable action on pro-life concerns during her tenure as governor of Alaska. She has behaved in an exemplary fashion in choosing to lovingly raise a Down's Syndrome baby, but this personal virtue has not had any corresponding public policy action.

My decision is made. Because I have concluded that an Obama presidency will be more pro-life (as properly defined) in action, he has earned my vote on November 4.

Making Sense of Worship

2008-04-27T20:33:00.000-07:00

[This post is courtesy of my beautiful wife, Linda]

A few nights ago I awakened at 3:30am and found that Chris was not next to me. I groaned and pulled myself out of bed to rescue my husband from the Taskmaster, again. He had said he would only work until one, and here it was more than two hours later. As I trudged down the hall, my resentment grew. Clearly, I’d have to cover his take-Melody-to-school shift early in the morning, even though he’s supposed to drop off and I’m supposed to pick up. Sitting in that line twice in one day was definitely too much.

After assurances from Chris that he was “just about done,” and his insistence that the deadline couldn’t wait, I crawled back to bed. Of course I couldn’t really sleep until he came in at about four, which gave me ample opportunity to stew…and develop some major crabbiness.

As expected, the morning found me waiting in the parent line with time to think. And repent. I had been focusing on my frustration, and hadn’t even really thought about the pressure that Chris must be under at work. By the time I got back, I had decided to fix him a really nice breakfast and to apologize. Fresh fruit, made-from-scratch bran muffins, eggs, and coffee—everything turned out perfectly. Chris basically never gets a hot breakfast because of the mad rush to get out the door, but this morning he chose to go in a bit late (after all, he’d worked nearly all night!), and we ended up having a very nice time together. Despite having had poor sleep the night before, I was in a pretty good mood all day.

Maybe you’re wondering what my story has to do with worship. You see, I’m at the place in my life where I’ve had to simplify my idea of what worship is really all about. I’ve been in a pretty fair number of situations, and I’ve seen many kinds of worship. When I was in the Catholic church I thought the essence of worship was piety, the strength of tradition, and the beauty of a solemn and meaningful liturgy. Then my Catholic mother became interested in the charismatic movement, and I saw worship full of ecstatic experiences in the Holy Spirit—very joyful and emotional. When Chris and I lived for a while in a Muslim country, we saw worship that took the form of zeal in a creed and way of life that was literally shouted from the rooftops of mosques five times a day. After that we joined Vineyard Christian Fellowship, where worship was all about intimacy, surrender and commissioning to do the works of the Father, such as healing and deliverance. I was even Presbyterian for a short while, where worship was tied with in-depth study and reverence for the Word of God. All of these expressions taught me many valuable things, but I also experienced the pain of witnessing some that fell prey to the danger of prideful legalism, overemphasis on the power of spiritual gifts or self-focused emotionalism. Many were confused or hurt by division between denominations. There had to be a simpler way to understand worship, some common ground, and a way to make sense of it all.

I’ve come to realize that underneath it all there is only one thing that really matters. Worship is simply this: drawing near to touch the heart of my God with the beauty only I can give. It is turning from my selfishness to bring something precious to my beloved – like a warm muffin and gourmet coffee for my husband after a long night of toil and struggle. Like a song of thanksgiving that brings comfort and pleasure to a God who continually suffers grief over many lost souls.

The day that I sat in the parent line twice for Chris bloomed with gorgeous springtime weather. The sun was shining, the birds were singing, and as I took my usual afternoon walk it seemed as that the wildflowers had sprung up overnight. It nearly took my breath away. All of this beauty—like a lover’s gift of a dozen red roses—for me, for us. God’s mercy is amazing: His compassion that brings redemption, the power of the Holy Spirit that crowns us with the beauty of loving-kindness and gives us a holy passion as majestic as the eagle. He clothes us with the shining splendor of His righteousness. He invites us into His glorious presence, and there fills us to overflowing with His joy and peace.

Romans 12:1, paraphrased, says this: “I beg you, brothers and sisters, to open your eyes to God’s unfathomable mercy. Let it inspire you to present yourselves as a sacrifice on God’s altar. Live your lives in such a way as to make sure that your sacrifice is holy and acceptable to God. This is true worship and a fitting response to His great kindness to you.”

It just makes sense.

Creation

2008-03-02T11:24:00.000-08:00

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So the Bible begins, and for good reason. The Genesis account establishes several critical themes in the relationship of man with God, and man with man:

1. God has given each human being tremendous value. According to Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." You are created in His image, so you bear the imprint of divinity. You are important. And so are all the men and women around you--of every ethnicity, every cultural background, every gender.

Apply this teaching to the people around you: if you want to live according to the Bible, you cannot allow even the tiniest hint of racism, or xenophobia, or discrimination, to dwell in your heart. Too often the church has justified these practices, rather than casting them back into the pit of hell, whence they came.

Apply this teaching to yourself: in spite of all your failings, you have great worth in God's eyes. He created you in His image, so you bear the mark of nobility and greatness, whether you are a janitor or a CEO. Even if you are on Death Row for a horrendous crime, you can receive God's gracious gift of salvation and life renewed. If you feel useless because you have spent the past year unemployed, remember that your greatness does not depend on your economic output. God has already established your worth, by creating you with His imprint.

2. We are accountable to God for the conduct of our lives. According to Genesis 2:16-17, "the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.'" Contrary to the message we get from advertising, we are not created to maximize the pleasures of the moment. Our Creator has set limits for us, and if we do not respect them, we will--in the end--fall tragically short of our calling.

It has become popular of late among anthropologists to try to anchor an ethic in our conjectured evolutionary background. Chimps groom each other, show loyalty in the family group, and have at least a rudimentary sense of fairness, so we humans (their nearest living relatives) manifest similar behaviors. This theory is supposed to be not only explanatory, but prescriptive; we are supposed to be fair to one another, for example, because that sense of fairness must have provided some value in the competition for survival of the fittest. However, this theory ultimately is quite unscientific, as it emphasizes certain favored traits like fairness--traits that are highly valued in the Biblical heritage of our culture, I hasten to add--over other equally observable traits, like treachery and warfare. The behavior of Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler strongly resemble the behavior of chimps engaged in a deadly fratricidal brawl. So basing an ethic on evolution ultimately results in not being able to divide between good and bad, right and wrong. Love and lust, generosity and genocide, helpfulness and hatred: all must have their roots in our evolutionary past, if the evolutionary past is to be given its full meaning.

It is not necessary to claim that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days 6000 years ago and that evolution never occurred in order to accept our accountability to God. Godly scholars like Augustine of Hippo believed that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken in the most literal fashion. The key point is that somewhere in the recent past, God stepped in and stamped His image indelibly on homo sapiens. Because of this, we can readily distinguish between Mother Theresa and Saddam Hussein; the one obeyed her Creator with all her being, while the other chose instead to engage in unspeakable cruelty.

3. God has charged us with the stewardship of His creation. According to Genesis 2:15, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." We have a responsibility to take care of the environment as best we can. Too often, Christians have thought that if we preach the gospel, we can ignore the environment. I respectfully disagree. In today's American economy, of course, I have little choice about owning a vehicle. However, I can choose which vehicle to drive based on God's command to take care of the environment. I have been driving my little Mitsubishi Mirage for 8 years now because I want to minimize the amount of greenhouse gases I am spewing into the air. If you see a champagne-colored subcompact with a "What Would Jesus Drive?" sticker on the back bumper in the vicinity of Columbia, SC, beep and wave hello!

If Truong Values the USCF Members' Interests Above His Own, He Should Resign

2008-01-26T21:26:00.000-08:00

Just 2 months after Paul Truong was elected to the US Chess Federation Board, a USCF system administrator, Brian Mottershead, released a report that stated that Truong had posted a variety of ugly, inflammatory USENET comments while posing as Sam Sloan or other figures in US chess. Mottershead documents that over a period of several months, the IP address of the inflammatory USENET posts was identical to the IP address of the computer from which Truong was simultaneously logged in to the USCF forums. In the wake of this report, Sam Sloan filed a civil suit against the USCF, Truong, and other individuals associated with the USCF, essentially charging them with a vast conspiracy to thwart his 2007 re-election campaign for the USCF Board.

Mottershead's report rests on a sound technical basis, according to two leading authorities in Internet security who have examined it closely. Supporters of Truong have advanced some rebuttals that have yet to persuade me:

1. Argument: The IP address of the USENET posts could have been spoofed.

True, it is not hard to spoof an IP address. However, how would the culprit have known what IP address to spoof?

2. Argument: A hacker could have taken control of Truong's PC, observed his behavior, and posted to the USENET from Truong's PC at the appropriate moments over a period of several months.

This supposed behavior is completely uncharacteristic of hackers, who generally use compromised computers to host bots (automated programs) that generate spam or participate in "Denial of Service" attacks. In addition, a compromised PC does not explain the USENET posts/logins to uschess.org from a mobile device in Mexico, at just the time that Truong was traveling in Mexico for the world championship.

3. Argument: Mottershead violated his Non-Disclosure Agreement with the USCF when he released his report.

The fact that someone else may have misbehaved is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Truong misbehaved.

I do think that Mottershead should have given the USCF ethics committee time to perform their work before going outside the normal channels as a whistle-blower. Again, this does not have any bearing on the veracity of Mottershead's report.

This controversy in and of itself does not justify a request for Truong's resignation, though. However unlikely it may seem at the moment, it is possible that Truong will be able to persuade us of an excellent alibi, as he claims he will do, and I am willing to wait for that time to make my final judgment. Rather, the reason Truong should resign is that his interests and the USCF's interests have suddenly diverged in a sharp manner. Here's why: It is in the USCF's best interests to resolve the issue as quickly as possible, and this means releasing all facts pertaining to the issue as expeditiously as possible. There is no other way for the USCF to get past this issue. At the same time, Truong has declined, on the advice of his attorney, to release any information to the public about his connections to the internet during the period in question.

It is Paul's right to conduct his defense as he and his legal team see fit, and I do not question that right. However, it is the right of the USCF to have Board members who will uncompromisingly attend to the interests of the organization first and foremost. Since Truong feels he cannot release any exculpatory data, he is not able to put the interests of the USCF ahead of his own. Thus his one and only honorable course is to resign immediately as a member of the USCF board. In my view, this action would not be an admission of guilt; rather, it would enhance his credibility as someone who cares about the promotion and good governance of chess in our country.

I Think, Therefore I Am a Quantum Fluctuation

2008-01-16T20:44:00.000-08:00

The dominant theory among astrophysicists assumes that every property of the observable universe is, at root, the result of a random, quantum fluctuation. According to this view, the ultimate quantum fluctuation (from our perspective, anyway) has been the Big Bang, which gave birth to the universe as we know it.

Recently scientists have been pushing this theory to its logical limits. The results, according to an article in this week's New York Times science page, are quite startling:

1. An infinite number of universes can (and will) be created. This is referred to as the "megaverse" theory. These universes may not have the same physical laws as ours, though. In fact, we cannot know what laws they obey, since we cannot observe them from inside our universe.

This leads to the obvious question: how would you prove this megaverse theory to be correct? Scientists are supposed to be all about experimental proof, but you cannot even begin to design an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes.

2. In a megaverse where an infinite number of quantum fluctuations can occur, the odds are infinitely great that eventually another version of Chris Falter will appear, complete with a corny sense of humor and chess aspirations that outstrip his ability. And another version of you, dear reader, will also appear. Astrophysicists have thus been trading emails, journal letters, and articles that discuss whether this should be considered reincarnation.

3. It is easier for a random fluctuation to produce a smaller, simpler object than a larger, more complex object, much as shaking a box of Scrabble letters is more likely to produce a word than a complete sentence. As a result, in a megaverse of infinitely many quantum fluctuations, it is infinitely more probable that a disembodied brain with your memories, thinking ability, and observations will appear, rather than a brain connected to a body. The disembodied brain (referred to as a "Boltzmann brain" for reasons too arcane to discuss here) may possess the illusion of being connected to a body (and a society and a planet, and so forth), but it is nevertheless disembodied. Given that the disembodied brain is infinitely more probable to exist than an embodied brain, you who are reading this blog post (and I who am writing it) are, to a near mathematical certainty, just disembodied brains experiencing the illusion of conventional life on a planet called Earth.

So physicists are having quite a fun discussion here: starting with a theory of origins that cannot possibly be proven empirically, they end up talking about reincarnation and life as a chimera.

Now let us suppose that someone with an alternate view enters the discussion. She or he states that the odds of random events creating DNA-based life in our universe are infinitesimally small. Therefore, this universe, the only one we can explore empirically, shows evidence of design. And maybe we should think about the origin of that design, as in maybe we are created with a purpose to fulfill.

The discussion stops. The physicists band together, and in unanimous voice, they banish the stupid non-scientist. "You can't talk about intelligent design in science! You are trying to turn this into a religious discussion, and there is no room in science to discuss religion!"

And then the Boltzmann brains return to their discussion of unobservable universes and reincarnation.

Does anyone else find this ironic?

Modern-Day Marcionites?

2008-01-06T09:43:00.000-08:00

In our 3-year Bible study plan, we spend the first year studying the Old Testament, the second studying the Gospels, and the third studying the Epistles. In week one, we started with the question: why study the Old Testament?

Let's take a look at what Jesus said:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
- Matthew 5:17-19

Jesus states that he stands squarely upon the foundation of the Law (the Pentateuch) and the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the so-called "Minor Prophets"). His purpose is to fulfill them. How can you understand his ministry unless you really grasp the Law and the Prophets?

Paul also weighs in on the question:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:14-17

Christians often use this verse to encourage each other to read the Bible, which in practice often means reading a Psalm and a passage from the New Testament. But Paul is not talking about the four Gospels or any of his letters; his admonition is about what we call the Old Testament. The "holy Scriptures" that Timothy had known from infancy could only refer to the Jewish Bible! Paul states that the Jewish Bible makes us "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"; it teaches us what we need to know about ourselves and our world so that we know how much we need Christ. For now, I won't elaborate on what it is we need to learn from the Jewish Bible, since I'll be blogging on that for the next year or so. Paul also points out that God uses the Jewish Bible to reshape our attitudes, to correct our behavior, and to make our righteousness grow. We neglect the Old Testament at our peril.

And so many of us Christians are living in peril. I know from my own experience that an evangelical Christian can attend church for years without hearing a sermon based primarily on an Old Testament passage. And even what we do hear presents an incomplete picture; many are the sections of the Old Testament that we neglect. When was the last time you heard a sermon about Habakkuk? When was the last time that you read a chapter from Habakkuk? Can you even find Habakkuk in your Bible?

We are too much like Marcion, the second century heretic who taught that the Old Testament--full of works, law, and wrath--stood in contrast to the Gospel--full of grace, faith, and mercy. This is similar to the way many Christians think; based on Paul's jeremiad against law and works, we often associate Judaism and the Old Testament with a harsh legalism. Marcion accepted only the gospel of Luke and 10 Pauline epistles in his canon, and condemned the reading of the Old Testament. In contrast, we tolerant moderns (who regard the Old Testament as Scripture) just ignore it. You have to give Marcion some credit, though; at least his view of the canonicity of the Old Testament and his behavior toward it were consistent.

When we fail to study the Old Testament, we cannot realize that it is as full of grace and mercy as the New. Paul's warning against legalism was not a warning against the Old Testament, per se, but rather a warning against pharisaical pride. Paul's view of the Jewish roots of grace, hope, and mercy are worthy of an entire post. In fact, scholars far more capable than I have written tomes on the subject. For the moment, then, I will simply repeat the observation that Paul heartily commended the study of what we now call the Old Testament.

When we fail to study the Old Testament, we can miss its strong concern for social justice. In America, abolitionists and civil rights leaders have drawn their inspiration from prophets like Hosea and Isaiah, and have quoted from them liberally. For decades, though, many evangelicals have acted as if Jesus were the first anti-tax Republican. If we don't pay attention to the prophets, we cannot hear his echo of the prophets' call for social justice.

When we fail to study the Old Testament, we may undervalue the role of ritual. True, there is such a thing as empty ritual. But there is also such a thing as empty praise and empty rhetoric. The Old Testament reminds us that God authored a set of rituals for His people. So maybe we evangelicals shouldn't be so suspicious of liturgy.

Finally, when we fail to study the Old Testament, we ignore the history of hope. Hope is everywhere in the Jewish Bible. Ezekiel has a vision of scattered, dry bones taking on new life; Isaiah speaks of a day when the lion will lie down with the lamb, the swords will be beaten into pruning hooks, and the crooked roads will be made straight; Jeremiah looks forward to the day when the Lord will establish a new covenant with His people, a covenant in which God renews their hearts. If we do not ponder these passages, the message of the gospel can seem like a glib formula, when it is in fact God's loving plan finally unleashed in a dark and despairing world.

I am looking forward to this next year. I hope you will come back often to share this journey with me.

Blogging Through the Bible in Three Short Years

2008-01-06T09:15:00.000-08:00

Our church (New Life Community Church in Irmo, SC) has just started a 3-year "Walk Through the Bible" course, and I'm happy that we are engaging in an organized study plan for the entire Bible. Well, almost; the plan does not really require that everyone read the entire text of the Bible. The week that we study Job, for example, we will just hit a few highlights, rather than read over thirty chapters of Job and his friends' wrestling back-and-forth with the problem of theodicy. Of course, a lot of Christians never even crack open the book of Job, so I am not inclined to criticize the study plan. And frankly, my Bible study intellectual muscles have atrophied a bit of late, so I welcome the training regimen.

In order to maximize the spiritual benefit of our group study, everyone is supposed to keep a journal of their thoughts; since I love to blog, I'll be keeping mine on-line. Roughly once a week I'll be posting my thoughts about the latest stage of our 3-year journey through the Bible. I know that I will find this encounter with the Bible to be both encouraging and challenging; the Scriptures have always moved me. My prayer is that at least a few readers will also be moved by these forthcoming meditations.

Phenylethylamine, Adrenaline, and Romance

2007-10-27T21:22:00.000-07:00

Have you ever felt a rush of excitement when you meet someone attractive? You feel happy and nervous; you find it hard to draw a breath. What's happening? Are you in love?

Let's examine what's really happening behind the scenes. That handsome guy or pretty gal just tripped the phenylethylamine (PEA) switch in your brain. In turn, PEA causes a flood of neurochemicals like adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) to wash into your brain. These make you feel excited, on edge, ready to take risks...as in introducing yourself to this new object of your attention and perhaps gathering up the courage to ask for a date.

Truly love is a four-letter word spelled R-I-S-K, so it's a good thing God put this circuitry in us. When you give yourself completely in love, you of course run the risk of being disappointed, perhaps even deeply wounded. If we could not overcome risk aversion, we'd never be able to enjoy love. Now the love that a man and a woman share in the covenant of marriage, and the love that they pass on to the world through their children, are the pinnacle of His awesome creativity. If you don't believe this, check out the scene in the Garden of Eden; after creating everything else, God created a man, Adam. Yet it was not good; Adam needed a love to share, so God created Eve.* Yes, love is wonderful. But it's so risky that we'd never go for it without a boost from PEA and its neurochemical companions. They're good stuff.

Like any good thing in creation, though, we humans are fully capable of handling it badly. Let me illustrate this with an example: suppose that you meet someone who makes your knees weak, but has significant problems that would caution you against a long-term relationship. For example, that Tom Cruise look-alike might not share your faith, leading you to weaken it or even abandon it if you pursue him. That curvaceous knockout might be self-centered and catty, promising you decades of misery if you don't turn away. Yet PEA and its companions are working hard to overcome your better judgment and make you fall head over heels. Too many folks, young and old, just go with the neurochemical flow--and live to regret it.

So how do you deal with this conflict between powerful feelings and good judgment?

1. Remember that this powerful rush of chemicals will soon pass. Scientists tell us that after a few months of dating, the tide of PEA and epinephrine that overwhelmed you when you first started dating will start to ebb. Within a period of 18 months to 4 years, it will have run its course. That seven-year itch you've heard about is really a 2-to-4-year itch, and the divorce statistics bear this out. The husband or wife (or both) will say "I'm not in love any more"--because the adrenaline is gone.

Now before you start questioning God's interest in our joy, let me point out that God has designed us with another powerful neurochemical circuit to help a couple stay together even after the adrenaline passes. Oxytocin is sometimes called the "cuddle chemical," because it is released in your brain when your lover is affectionate with you. In the same way that PEA kicks off a reaction, oxytocin will trigger the release of endorphins that can give you a sense of well-being. So the trick is to cultivate a solid marriage relationship that leads to a mutual and lifelong enjoyment of the oxytocin circuit.**

2. Remember that you should learn how to deal wisely with a PEA rush before you get married. The PEA/adrenaline circuitry doesn't die just because you get married. So it's quite possible that at some point after your PEA circuitry stops working with your spouse, it will suddenly kick in when some other attractive adult acts interested in you. If you have not learned how to cope with this situation wisely, there's a good chance you'll follow your feelings all the way to their end: the destruction of your marriage and of your children's sense of security.

3. Stay away from the person who causes the rush, if he or she does not seem likely to be God's choice to be your spouse. If you're single, and this lovely person who triggers your PEA circuitry is godly and compatible, it could be OK to prayerfully see where things might lead. Indeed, you might be on your way to the greatest blessing this side of heaven. But there are several situations that would call for you to stay at arms length:

You're married.
You're single, but not ready to seriously consider making a lifelong, covenant commitment.
Mr. Wonderful or Ms. Lovely will not be ready to make a covenant commitment in the foreseeable future.
Mr. W or Ms. L does not share your faith, which is foundational to the health of your marriage.
Mr. W or Ms. L has a character flaw serious enough to require remedy before he or she can forge a successful, happy marriage.

Going nowhere near the temptation is the strategy that kept Joseph from succumbing to the charms of Potiphar's wife, and kept Daniel and his friends from giving up their faith in Babylon. But remaining at arms length is not always easy, of course. It could easily be the subject of another post, perhaps even many books. Here are a few tips:

Talk with a friend whose judgment you trust. There is power in numbers.
Talk with God in prayer.
Bear in mind the inevitable and severe consequences of letting a rush of feelings overcome your good judgment.

I welcome any comments from readers who have been working out how to handle the PEA circuitry, and its accompanying feelings.

Notes:
* Whereupon the first man uttered the first palindrome ("Madam, I'm Adam").
** I hope to elaborate on this in another post soon.

Bragging on My Yellow Belt

2007-09-20T20:45:00.000-07:00

...not that I study martial arts, though. I was too geeky as a kid to study martial arts, although I played plenty of baseball and sandlot football. I also wrestled a lot with Larry Pollard, my next door neighbor. He couldn't take a second derivative, but he could take me down in under 2 minutes, every time.

But now I have a yellow belt. His name is Benjamin Michael Falter, age 11. In the past 2 months he has learned a lot of discipline, not to mention self-defense, through his activities at Earwood's Karate Studio. He has worked hard, and now he has earned his yellow belt. I am so proud of the young man!

Another Dad and His Excellent Legacy

2007-07-12T20:08:00.001-07:00

My friend Tammy Carwell is a business analyst at Seibels Bruce, and I have many times had the pleasure of collaborating with her on some project or another. A few days ago her dad passed away, so she and her family are cherishing his memories this week. Although I never met him, I can confirm that he has left an excellent legacy. Why I am so confident of that? Every day at work I see his legacy in action. Tammy is gracious, smart, compassionate, hard-working, and full of faith. Her life is an aspect of his legacy, and it is a good one.

My prayer is that I, like Tammy's dad, might leave an excellent legacy.

The Miracle of a Life

2007-06-29T20:53:00.000-07:00

Today my father-in-law Dominic Francese celebrates a significant milestone--his 80th birthday. Our family has been greatly blessed by his presence in our house for these past several years, so I'd like to honor him by publishing this tribute composed by my wife Linda. Enjoy!

I want to tell you all a story: the story of Domenico Antonio Pietro Francese. Born in 1927 of a marriage between a bold adventurer and a shy peasant girl (my grandparents Nicola Francese and Fortunata Pagano), he was raised in an Italian immigrant community in Poughkeepsie, NY. Domenico was a boy “made of tomatoes, olive oil, pork fat, and pasta,” as he is fond of saying--a hard-working carpenter’s son, with a quick mind and a sensitive nature. As a child he lived under a dark cloud of hard times and Old World superstitions. As a young man he struggled to prove his abilities and satisfy his intellect. His dream was to become a professional musician, but practical considerations got in the way. Nonetheless he played his trombone in bands throughout the Hudson Valley and in the local philharmonic for many years. In time, Domenico made his parents proud by attending college and becoming a skilled professional in the printing industry. At the office he was known as “The Professor” because of his probing mind and thoughtful ways; in fact he was the only one of his peers to have studied past high school.

One day, he was told of a beautiful, intelligent woman who was also college-educated. She worked at the same publishing company, but in the factory—a gifted Mexican immigrant with no hope of career advancement. Dominic became her Prince Charming; as she told us later, their honeymoon together in Washington, DC was a Cinderella’s dream. They joyfully became both parents and teachers of five children. Despite the financial difficulties of raising a large family, Dad provided more than enough to feed our dreams—dance and music lessons, and instruments of all types, including violins, pianos and electric keyboards, trumpets, flutes, acoustic and electric guitars, bass, percussion instruments, saxophone, French horn, clarinet, lots of sound equipment for my brothers’ rock band—and throw in some harmonicas. Then came college for all of us, graduate studies for three, and, oh yes, the weddings. As a widower Dad eventually came to live with us, and for many years now he has blessed our home with humor, wisdom, love and service.

I don’t suppose, Dad, that you have ever thought of your life as a miracle. But consider this:

From simple beginnings, your life has blossomed and borne fruit like Aaron’s staff. Your life has been an offering multiplied, like the loaves and fishes. Most importantly, your good works have caused many to rejoice and to give thanks to God.
You prepared your children for success at great personal sacrifice, and now our whole extended family is abundantly blessed.
You gave up your dream of a musical career for your family, and yet through your children, grandchildren and others you have mentored, you have given the world more music than you ever could have alone.
The good works of your life have been far-reaching; you have often been generous to the poor, you have been a father to the fatherless and a counselor to many troubled youth.
You never stood in the way of your daughter’s call to missions, even though it cost you a great deal in worry and the sadness of separation.

For all of these reasons and more, I see your life as one touched by the grace of God—truly a miracle. And I thank you, Dad--once again--for everything. Happy birthday!

Paul Truong Has a Question to Answer, However...

2007-06-15T14:11:00.000-07:00

In my last post about Paul Truong, I explained how a 1986 Chess Life interview with Life Master Kenneth Clayton acted as confirmation of his Vietnamese chess career and national titles. Recently, however, USCF Issues participant "Theodulf" dug up strong evidence that Paul has, in the past, publicly claimed an academic honor that he does not possess.

By searching at the Internet Archive, Theodulf found a page that had been part of the http://hometown.aol.com/paultruong site. This was the home site for AOL's paultruong user--which is most definitely Paul Truong, candidate for USCF Executive Board. We know this because Paul has publicly listed his paultruong AOL inbox as the place to contact him by email in his capacity as Polgar Committee chair. The page was archived 8 times between November 2001 and January 2005, and each time, the heading of the page is "Paul Truong, Ph.D."

The problem here is that Paul has never (as of this date) received a Ph.D. It is quite possible that he has pursued graduate studies with the goal of earning a Ph.D. However, I consider the possibility that a future USCF Executive Board member has at any time falsely claimed qualifications to be troubling. One important quality we desire in a leader is unquestioned integrity.

The heading of "Paul Truong, Ph.D" also shows up on a page that bills itself as the "Personal Chess Page of Paul Truong, Ph.D." While it is not impossible that the page could be a spoof, all the available evidence points in the direction of authenticity. The comments page shows that it has been in existence from September 2001 until today, and that lots of commentators have begun their messages "Hi Paul" or "FM Truong" and the like. Many comments speak of recent games played on internet chess sites with Truong:

Robert from Las Vegas:
"I have had a lot of great games with you, and i hope to have a lot more."

Chris "Blacksheep" Jones from Greenville, SC:
"Dr. Truong, I just wanted to thank you for challenging me to those lightning games on Monday. Many players of your strength would not bother with someone as low rated as me. "

John Panther D. from Pennsylvania:
"Hey Truong! its Panther from USChesslive!"

Of course, a mitigating factor is that Paul has never during his campaign for an Executive Board post claimed a Ph.D. Still....

As soon as I post this article, I am going to ask Paul to respond via a comment. I look forward either to convincing proof that he never authored the pages in question (although that appears to be highly unlikely, especially the AOL hometown page) or to an expression of deep apology. Either would restore my confidence in Paul's ability to provide capable leadership for the US Chess Federation.

Note: It is possible for site owners to ask the Internet Archive to remove their content from the Archive's database. It is also possible for whoever administers the nationalyouthchess.homestead.com site to alter it. Therefore, I have preserved images of the relevant pages below.

Training for the Last Transition

2007-06-15T11:05:00.000-07:00

Recently I have come to the conclusion that I must stop frequenting the USCF Issues forum. There is nothing wrong per se with reading the discussions and occasionally (or in my case, often) jumping in. It's just that visiting the forum instead of putting my kids to bed or spending time with my wife or completing my work for the day is not a good thing. And forum participation has been supplanting the more important things far too often.

I have asked the forum administrator to revoke my access at his earliest convenience after midnight tonight. Telling him to do that has made me feel a bit like a hospice patient who has just asked the doctor to stop heroic measures so he can pass on from this life. There are so many interesting things going on in this world I've been in, and I'm not going to be able to learn about them or participate in them any more! I will be cut off from so many friends! I will lose work I've enjoyed doing! What's going to happen to me now?

When I think about my situation, though, I realize that the old is about to give way to something better. I very much look forward to taking more walks with Linda, to putting my kids to bed earlier, to wrapping up my work earlier. I might even blog more about life and religion, not just chess. It's a good change.

So this act of leaving an old world and entering a new one has been a kind of training for that last transition--when I'll be leaving this old world behind and heading on to my destiny with the elect, in God's presence.

Here's what I wrote in my farewell post to the USCF Issues forum:

"For the past week or so I've been trying to cut back on my time spent in the USCF Issues forum because I have other things in my life that should be getting more priority. Exercise. Relaxed dinners with my family. Helping Mike Nolan with USCF programming issues (to the extent that my contribution might help him). But like a moth drawn to a flame, or an alcoholic to a bottle, I just can't stay away. The only way I can see to deal with this is to ask Mike to revoke my access to this forum. Mike, please do so at your earliest convenience after midnight Friday evening (the interlude will allow me to go through my inbox and retain PMs from friends that I wish to keep).

"I initially considered just quietly walking off, but I didn't want anyone to speculate as to my motives.

"I want everyone to know that I have valued our interactions, even when we have disagreed. I have concluded that, basically, everyone who is participating in the forum has the best interest of the USCF in mind. As a result, we should view ourselves, and each other, as a community of USCF members who care about the well-being of our organization, and are interested in talking about it.

"Maintaining this perspective, however, can sometimes be difficult when participants use terms like 'Polgar supporters' and 'Polgar haters' or 'Polgaristas' or 'Sloan supporters' or 'Sloan haters,' and so on. This type of language implicitly divides our community into 2 groups:

* the reasonable and well-informed people who agree with me, and
* some other group of misguided souls who are not keeping the best interest of the organization in mind.

"If we allow ourselves to indulge in this kind of language, we are losing the battle to make ourselves a community of participants who can collaborate for good. Instead, we are selfishly turning the discussion into a battle to see who can win an argument. I cannot say that I have always and everywhere avoided this temptation, but I can say that I have tried very hard to avoid it.

"So suggestion #1 is:

"Do not use language (like "Polgar supporters" or "Polgar haters") that divides us into warring camps. Instead, use language that simply addresses the particular issue (and if necessary, individuals) at hand.

"I have also noticed that we often want to resume battles that we might have previously had with a fellow participant, should he or she disagree with us on another issue. "You always say XYZ" or "You're consistently rude" or "Joe Schmo keeps saying dumb things" are not constructive statements; they are invitations to combat. Such statements alienate us from one another.

"So suggestion #2 is:

"Don't deal with yesterday's faults today. Don't try to drag a previous conflict into today's discussion. Restrict yourself to the current issue. If you must address a continuing lack of manners or some other interpersonal conflict with someone, take the discussion offline by exchanging emails or PMs.

"Finally, I have been especially impressed by the genuine humility that Steve Owens and Harry Payne have demonstrated by openly apologizing for momentarily straying across the line of civility. They are setting an example for all of us. In addition, it is no sin to advance a viewpoint, and then to revise it based on the feedback and perspectives of others. If we are only trying to start and win arguments, then we have transformed ourselves from a community that cares about the USCF into a debating society.

"So my final suggestion is:

"Show some humility. If you momentarily lose your composure in the heat of argument, move toward reconciliation by apologizing. Value the perspectives of others, and acknowledge any contributions that influence your opinion.

"I hope that my circumstances might some day change so that I may rejoin this most interesting community. Until then, I wish you all Godspeed and great fruitfulness in your continuing endeavors."

1986 Chess Life Interview Confirms Truong's Early Career

2007-06-12T10:53:00.000-07:00

While most of you were busy living productive lives, a storm was brewing in the USCF Issues forum over the legitimacy of candidate Paul Truong's claim to have won several Vietnamese national titles prior to his flight from that country at age 14. Since documentation from the period is hard to come by, some observers speculated that Paul was fabricating, or at least distorting, his Vietnamese chess career. (This is not to say that all questions are illegitimate, or that everyone who was asking the questions was doing so out of ill motive.)

This morning's blockbuster revelation is that in 1986, Chess Life Assistant Editor Randall Hough (yes, that Randy Hough, the sitting USCF Executive Board member) interviewed Life Master Kenneth Clayton about his encounters with Paul Truong in Saigon. According to the article,

At age eight, Paul won the closest thing that Vietnam had to a national championship by finishing behind only Clayton in a tournament at the sports club.

It appears that the Vietnamese members of Saigon's National Sports Center Chess Club considered the top finisher at a particular annual tournament to be their national champion. Clayton's account confirms what Paul stated elsewhere: he created an uproar on the Vietnamese chess scene by becoming their national champion at the age of 8. (Not that it was a big or important chess scene as the world of chess goes, of course.) Furthermore, I see no reason to question Paul's account of becoming national junior champ a few years earlier, and of retaining his title for 4 consecutive years following.

Some people are claiming that the lack of a formal Vietnamese sanctioning organization casts doubt on Paul's title claim. But I think we should view Paul's title in the light of other title claims in chess history. There was no formal world chess organization until 1924, but chess players everywhere consider Wilhelm Steinitz (1866-1894), Emmanuel Lasker (1894 - 1921) and Jose Capablanca (1921 - 1927) to be world champions. If you consider Steinitz, Lasker, and Capablanca to be world champions, why can you not consider Paul Truong to be a Vietnamese national champion?

If the South Vietnamese chess community saw fit to anoint the top finisher at one of their annual tournaments to be the national champion, I see no reason to dispute their view.

My Recommendations for the US Chess Federation Board

2007-06-01T22:16:00.000-07:00

I thought I ought to go ahead and share my thinking on who the best 4 candidates for USCF Executive Board are.

1. Susan Polgar - Susan is an organizer par excellence of scholastic events. She has invested herself like no one else in the present and future success of the US women's chess program. She has been successful like no one else in getting sponsors for promising junior players. She brings unparalleled energy and ideas to the table.

2. Randy Bauer - Randy served as the budget director for the state of Iowa. He brings great expertise in aligning corporate structure with an organization's mission, and in managing budgets. He participates actively in the USCF Issues forum; he always listens well and speaks well.

3. Mikhail Korenman - Korenman did terrific work in Lindsborg, KS, by establishing the Karpov Chess School and staging a "Battle of the Genders" (Karpov vs. Polgar) as part of the Chess for Peace initiative. These activities generated $2 million in revenue for Kansas and a nice article in National Geographic. Korenman is intimately familiar with the scholastic chess community, and has some excellent ideas on how to strengthen scholastic chess.

4. Jim Berry - Jim and his twin brother Frank have invested a lot of money and energy into organizing some of the leading events for US chess professionals. Jim has enjoyed a successful career in financial services and serves on the board of an Oklahoma bank.

Paul Truong, Stephen Jones, Joe Lux, and Don Schultz would also do our organization proud if they are elected. I can only vote for 4, though, and I think that Polgar, Bauer, Korenman, and Berry are the best of the bunch.

We Need New Leadership in the US Chess Federation

2007-05-31T11:06:00.000-07:00

It will not be long before USCF members will be voting to select 4 members of the Executive Board from among 10 candidates. The candidates have all submitted statements for publication in Chess Life magazine, and in 90% of the cases, the statements reflect the candidates’ accomplishments and priorities. I urge all USCF members to read the statements and vote for candidates whom they feel will help the USCF to have greater positive impact for our pastime, our professionals, and (especially) our scholastic programs. But please read this before you vote; and if you share my concerns about the 10^th candidate, please pass this information on to fellow USCF members.

Candidate and sitting Board member Sam Sloan has never disclosed a critical conflict of interest—namely, the fact that he has posted a large amount of extremely offensive material on his personal website that compromises the USCF’s mission. Here are the titles of a few of his web pages:

* “How to Rape a Woman” (instructions on how to commit the crime in such a way as to make prosecution difficult)

* “Still Even More Proof That Girls Can’t Play Chess”

* “World’s Worst P**n” (shockingly lurid artwork that young children have discovered while looking for materials related to the Pokemon card game)

There is an abundance of material even more shocking than this, but it is so offensive that I simply do not want to mention it.

Concerned with the impact that this repugnant material might have on potential sponsors and on the scholastic chess movement, members of the Board and other USCF members have asked Sloan to remove these pages. Sloan has decided he does not care what anyone else thinks; he has continued to publish this material, regardless of its effect on our organization.

According to Bill Goichberg (USCF President) and John Hillery (member of the US Open Committee), a major corporate sponsor was poised to provide significant funding for the 2007 US Chess Championship—until they ran across Sloan’s internet postings during their due diligence, and as a result decided not to associate with our organization. Sevan Muradian of the North American Chess Association also stated that 2 potential sponsors withdrew their interest in funding the same event when they discovered Sloan’s website.

Does the USCF really need to have Sloan’s website tied like an albatross around its neck as it tries to forge partnerships? Why should we continue to lose partnership opportunities worth tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because one of our Board members wants to post provocative material on his personal website?

But the ability to alienate sponsors is a stubbornly persistent trait in Sloan:

In October he denounced the motivations of the American Foundation for Chess (longtime sponsor of the US Championship, as well as of fantastic scholastic programs in the Northwest). In fact, Sloan even copied the head of the AF4C on the email to make sure he would read it! The Executive Board censured Sloan for this email.
Sloan has ridiculed sponsorships offered by Texas Tech University for national scholastic tournament winners, posing the question: “how many, who do not live in Texas, really want to go there?”
He has deemed the Susan Polgar All-Star Girls Team to be a fundraising “scam” with no worthwhile objectives. The fact that the Susan Polgar Foundation is providing memorabilia, positive publicity, and coaching for a week-long training camp for honorees is not relevant to Sam Sloan.
He publicly linked the AF4C to the dissemination of illicit, prurient materials on the web. The Executive Board almost immediately censured Sloan (again!), but it was too late--the AF4C withdrew its offer of $25000 in sponsorship money for the 2007 US Championship.

As the USCF continues to try to forge partnerships with individuals and organizations, do we want Sam Sloan to continue sitting on the Board, vilifying those who are trying to invest in the future of US chess?

In addition, Sloan’s campaign statements are full of puffery that does not stand up to scrutiny:

Sloan on His Censure: “When I demonstrated that a board member had rigged his own rating by submitting fraudulent rating reports involving fictitious players, causing him to resign, and when I notified the membership that the USCF had no money and no sponsor to hold the US Championship, the board voted to censure me the next day for telling the truth. It is up to the voters to decide whether they want the Official Secrets of the USCF to remain secret.”

The Facts: Sloan filed his accusations against former Board member Robert Tanner long before he took office, and in any case Tanner resigned soon thereafter. In the same October 2006 email in which Sloan insulted the AF4C, he mentioned the Tanner case. The Board has openly stated that its censure motions were the result of Sloan’s insults, and published (in our membership-only forum) the text to prove it. Sloan is trying to pull a fast one on the USCF membership by linking his censure to his Tanner accusations. The second Board censure came as a result of Sloan’s linking of the AF4C (and its predecessor, the Seattle Chess Foundation) with the dissemination of highly illicit materials. The censure motions are available for view in the USCF Issues forum, which any USCF member may read.

Sloan on Our Financial History: “I have started an investigation into how the USCF lost two million dollars. I have exposed payments made by board members to their political allies. I have in most cases (but not in all cases) stopped wasteful and ridiculous expenditures.”

The Facts: Since taking office, Sloan has made literally dozens of accusations of wrongdoing in the USCF Issues forum. Without exception, every single accusation has proven to be baseless. Here is a small sampling of the nonsense he has been foisting on the USCF membership:

1. Sam alleged that the USCF paid Susan Polgar $14,000 to be present at the 2003 US Open, where she did nothing. But in fact the fees and expenses were only $3000, just 21% of what Sam reported, and Polgar did give a simultaneous exhibition and lectures.

2. Sam stated that USCF President Bill Goichberg wasted $4788 in membership dues money by consulting an attorney with the intent of preventing Sloan from taking office. In reality, Goichberg consulted the attorney primarily for 2 other issues. In addition, he had used the attorney’s findings on election rules to dissuade delegates from attempting to unseat Sloan at the USCF Delegates meeting in August 2006.

3. Sam charged that GM Polgar has never paid any money to the USCF for items such as affiliate fees and rating fees. The reality, however, is that the Polgar Chess Center has paid its fees. USCF staffer Judy Misner has confirmed this.

4. Sam alleged that Chess Life has been giving Polgar free advertising for the past year. But in fact, the ads were the USCF contribution to a contractually agreed joint venture with the Susan Polgar Foundation (a 501(c)3 organization) to establish the Susan Polgar All-Star Girls Chess Team. The SPF is contributing memorabilia, positive publicity, and coaching for a week-long training camp to be held at the New York City Athletic Club July 24 – 27.

5. Sam contends that 3 Executive Board candidates favored by the sitting EB were allowed to run for office without paying their filing fee. Grant Perks, member of the USCF Finance Committee, has demonstrated that their filing fees were commingled with other payments that were deposited on January 31, 2005, and the 'Executive Board' account was credited $750 ($250 each) on the same day. The USCF routinely makes photocopies of checks prior to depositing them, and Perks has even provided photocopies of the checks to the Board. Sam claimed that they had not been cancelled, so it was all a fraud--but in doing so he only revealed his ignorance about how the banking system works (or perhaps his propensity to fabricate ridiculous allegations). Anyone who understands banking would recognize that after the USCF’s bank processed the checks, the cancelled checks were transmitted to the banks where the check-writers maintain their accounts. So it is impossible for the USCF to be in possession of the cancelled checks.

Sloan on Our Current Finances: “We completed the fiscal year on May 31 and there has been another huge loss. Other board members are now telling you that we are in the black.”

The Facts: Sloan published this statement in the USCF Issues forum on May 24. How could he possibly know that there was a huge loss? The year-end accounting will not be completed until mid-June at the earliest! And how could he possibly know what other Board members would say? Furthermore, Sloan provided not one shred of analysis in support of his notion; he simply asserted there was a huge loss. He did not provide any line item analysis; this suggests that he did not perform any line item analysis. (And how could he, weeks in advance of the existence of data?) Sloan appears to just make stuff up as he goes along.

We don’t need any more reruns of Sloan’s embarrassing show. Sloan contends that he has been good for the USCF because he keeps the Board accountable. This is ridiculous: firing off baseless allegations one after another does no one any good. In addition, any member--whether he or she be a small-time scholastic organizer like me or just another wood-pusher--who is truly interested in the good governance of the USCF, has the ability to make a positive impact. Our financial reports are published monthly. Virtually everything that the Board sees, members can also see by searching through the publicly available BINFO system. And if you want your voice to be heard, login to the USCF Issues forum and make a post. Members of the Board actively participate, and are genuinely interested in what we have to say. Members like Donna Alarie, a Massachusetts delegate, have been raising important issues for our organization in a positive way. We need more of Donna and others like her, not of Sam Sloan.

The USCF has been embarrassed and hindered by Sam Sloan long enough. It is time for us, the members, to say “no” to Sloan and his attempt to turn the USCF into a circus of absurd accusations. Instead, let’s vote for qualified individuals who hold the best interests of our organization at heart, and will work to make the USCF more successful in promoting American chess.