WAIT A MINUTE . . . WHOSE BIRTHDAY?

September 23 was the birthday of the ruler of the world.
In his lifetime, he was called Imperator, the Greatest, and the Son of God.

He was born Gaius Octavius in the year 63 BC.  His mother was a niece of the most famous Roman of the day, indeed, according to many scholars and his contemporaries, the greatest Roman who ever lived - Gaius Julius Caesar.  Young Octavius - also called Octavian - caught the eye of his famous great-uncle when he was in his teens, and Caesar named him as his conterburnalis (junior military aid) when Octavian was 19.  By that time, Caesar had defeated the Gauls, conquered three new provinces for Rome, and defeated his enemies in the Senate.  What was left of that august body of legislators had proclaimed Julius Caesar as dictator for life.  Caesar had implemented a huge slate of reforms for the city of Rome and the Republic's government and was preparing to march east, to bring down Rome's last remaining rival, the mighty Parthian Empire.  His friend Crassus had died fighting the Parthians, and Caesar wanted to avenge his death and recover the seven Eagle standards the Parthians had taken from the legions they vanquished when Crassus fell at Carrhae.  Before he could depart, though, a jealous band of conspirators ended Caesar's life by stabbing him to death.

   To the surprise and shock of everyone - especially Caesar's cousin and chief military legate, Marcus Antonius - Caesar's will named young Octavian as his chief heir.  No one expected the frail, asthmatic lad to last long in the brutal world of Roman politics.  But within eleven years of his uncle's death, the self proclaimed "Son of the Divine Julius" had vanquished Antony and Cleopatra, driven his enemies from Rome, and united the squabbling Republic into a well-run, centralized Empire with himself as its head of state.  Wielding power with an iron fist concealed in a velvet glove, he restored peace and order and made Rome the greatest power in the world.  Of all his accomplishments, he took the most pride in the fact that he had extinguished the fires in the temple of Mars - which signified that Rome was at war - more often and for longer periods than anyone could ever remember.  The government that he founded would endure till Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 476 AD, and then it would transfer itself to Constantinople and endure for another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire.  Needless to say, his birthday was a great holiday in Rome.

   So why does it pass unnoticed except for a few history geeks like me?  Because of another birthday, one that took place around the thirtieth year of his forty-five year reign.  This baby was not born into a wealthy patrician family, nor was he adopted by a rich uncle.  His youth was so unremarkable that only one story about it survives.  He worked with his hands, supported a houseful of siblings after his father's death, and traveled on foot wherever he went.  He never held a sword, never wrote a book, never took a single life.  Yet today HE is the one we remember as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Son of God, and the most significant life in the history of the Western world.  There is no doubt that Caesar Augustus changed the world, and that those changes were generally for the better.  But it was not his birth that split history in half - it was a birth that took place in a humble barn, many miles from Rome.  That is a birthday that no one forgets!

PIZZA AND POLITICS - Debate Watching With My Students

    I teach Senior Government every year at our little Christian School, and Government class is always more interesting when it happens in an election year . . . or in this case, during the election pre-season.  I had talked with my kids about the debate process, primaries, and the general election, and we've been tracking the average of national polls every week (as found on my favorite political website, www.realclearpolitics.com).  I asked them to watch the GOP debate this week as an assignment, and several of them said something to the effect that they wish they could watch it with me.  One thing led to another, our headmaster was consulted, and so it came to pass that, at 7 PM Wednesday evening, I streamed the debate live from the CNN website onto my projector screen, and some 18 students - mostly juniors and seniors - joined me to watch the festivities!

     Many of them had never seen a political debate before, while others are hard-core political junkies like me.  No one really cared for Donald Trump much, while everyone seemed to enjoy Carly Fiorina's quick wit, Marco Rubio's polished eloquence, and Chris Christie's earnest good humor.  We hung around together for about two hours, but the kids' patience wore out around 9:15, so they filed out one by one while I waited for a commercial break to log off the PC, lock up the building, and drive home, where I was able to catch the finale (Over three hours?  This was the TITANIC of political debates!).  I had also been able to catch the last hour or so of the early debate between the junior league candidates, so by the end of the evening I was politically sated, happy, and ready for bed.  Today I got to listen to the students' impressions in class, and I look forward to reading their post-debate essays Monday morning.  In the meantime, since this is my blog, I'll share my own impressions.  First of all, the "Happy Hour" debate -

    The candidates got a LOT of speaking time, because there were only four of them.  Rick Perry has officially dropped out, and I don't know what happened to Jim Gilmore, but he's been polling less than .1% pretty much from the get-go, so I guess he's given up too.  That left the stage to Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and George Pataki.  Bearing in mind that I only heard about half of the debate, here are my rankings -

LINDSEY GRAHAM -  Winner!  The man's knowledge of foreign policy is impressive, and his grasp of the nature of the threat we face is solid.  He also has the advantage of experience, and his comments about working together with Democrats a la Reagan and O'Neill were a welcome break from the constant demonization of the opposition so current in Tea Party circles. Plus, how can you not like a guy who says that, in his White House, "we'll do more drinkin'!!"  Can he be elected President?  Not a chance!  But would he make an incredible Secretary of State or Defense?  You betcha!

RICK SANTORUM - A great performance, eloquent, heartfelt, and inspiring.  He's another who will never be President, but he has many of the qualities that would make him a great one.  Maybe if there was a freak KING RALPH-style accident (1990's comedy with John Goodman.  Check it out!) he'll get the chance.  Otherwise, he may not last much longer.

BOBBY JINDAL - Not that great.  A few good points, and an inspiring biography, but he's desperate and it shows.

GEORGE PATAKI - He really ought to go run as a Democrat.  He would get more support in their party, and he might even get the nomination.

   On to the main event - this was more a WWE brawl than a debate.  The moderators made it clear from the outset that they intended to promote sparring between the candidates, and boy did they!  From Donald Trump's tasteless assault on Rand Paul to Carly Fiorina's magnificent contempt for his shallow compliments, it was "open season on Donald" all night long!  Frankly, I was happy to see it.  The man is a world-class boor in my opinion, and he's been throwing down some pretty ugly rhetoric from Day One.  Obviously, in a debate with 11 people, no one person "wins," so here is my evaluation of the candidates' overall performance.  First of all -

THOSE WHO HELPED THEMSELVES:

CARLY FIORINA:  If I were to name any one person as the winner last night, it would be the lady from Hewlett-Packard.  She dominated the Junior League debate last time, and she pretty effectively dominated the debate last night.  From her initial head-to-head with Donald Trump to her beautiful and eloquent closing remarks, she was cool as a cucumber and smart as a whip throughout.  I've been thinking of her as a great running mate for someone; now I am thinking of her as a viable - indeed a formidable - Presidential candidate.  Well done, milady!

MARCO RUBIO - I have always admired this man.   He is thoughtful, eloquent, with an inspiring biography and some excellent policy ideas.  He avoids the extreme rhetoric and borderline racism that the Donald and his minions have embraced, and he also looked Presidential - poised, calm, and unflappable.  He has been my first choice from the get-go, and while I am also considering supporting Mrs. Fiorina, Rubio would certainly be a fine standard-bearer.

CHRIS CHRISTIE - I am not a huge fan of Governor Christie, but he needed to bring his A-game last night and he did.  Alternating between self-deprecating humor and earnest populism, his performance may well have taken him from the brink of elimination and vaulted him back up to the middle of the pack.

THOSE WHO HELD THEIR OWN:

DONALD TRUMP:  I don't like this man and never will like him.  The fact that he was polling at 30% going into this debate is a discredit to the party.  He is a bloviating, narcissistic windbag with no concrete policy ideas, just cheap shots at his opponents and rhetoric that sells well to angry, low-information voters.  That being said, he handled himself with aplomb, reserving his sole childish cheap shot of the evening for Rand Paul.  Otherwise, he listened, gave decent answers, and managed to not look like a buffoon most of the time.  I'm still hoping he'll have a "Howard Dean moment" at some point and go away for good, but it didn't come last night, and may not come anytime soon.  He's learning how the game is played.

BEN CARSON:  All my students were saying today: "He's so nice."  That is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.  In a field where hardball politics is the rule of the day, he has gained a strong following by being courteous, deferential, and humble while still projecting intelligence and competence.  It's an impressive feat that he carried forward last night, but I just don't think he is aggressive enough to secure the nomination, much less be elected.  They're right, though - he surely is a nice man.

JEB BUSH - He really needed to come out swinging after his boring and lackluster performance in the previous debate, and that he did.  Most of his swings were strikes, with a couple of singles scattered through.  He definitely improved on his last showing, but despite his skills at fund-raising, he is a long way from securing the nomination.  His spirited defense of his brother was the high point of his remarks.

TED CRUZ - While I don't have the visceral hatred for this man that all liberals and many mainstream Republicans do, his brand of confrontational, burn-the-bridges and take-no-prisoners politics, as well as his saber-rattling foreign policy, is a turnoff to me.  I don't doubt his sincerity, but he forgets too easily that in our Constitutional Republic, compromise is a necessity to keep the will of the majority from turning to tyranny.

MIKE HUCKABEE - I have always loved this man and still love him, but his grasp of basic civics is pretty weak at times.  The power of judicial review has rested with the Supreme Court for over 200 years, and belongs there.  We can't ignore rulings just because we disagree with them.  That being said, his essential goodness and decency combined with his excellent debate skills made him a strong performer.  He'll continue at the middle of the pack for a while longer, I think.

JOHN KASICH - What an impressive resume this man has!  He took a very active role in balancing the Federal budget for the only time in my life, and then did the same with the State budget as Governor of Ohio.  He also balances Christian compassion with political realism in a way many in the GOP do not.  However, the problem with all of those qualities is that they scream "establishment" in what is almost certainly going to be an anti-establishment year.

Now, finally:
THOSE WHO HURT THEMSELVES LAST NIGHT:

SCOTT WALKER - I like this man and I wanted to see him do well.  While he definitely tried, the fact is that he came across as flat and rather insipid - a pale shadow of Marco Rubio in more ways than one.  He's a young man and I hope he'll be back at some point in the future, because he has great promise.  But tonight was not his night.

RAND PAUL - For once, The Donald was right.  Paul didn't belong on the big boy stage.  I could not help but be reminded of a ten year old tagging along with his teenage brother's gang of friends.  His desperate bids for attention and relevance screamed:  "Me too!  Me too!!"  Go away, Rand, and try again another day.  This one's gotten past you.

   All in all, I enjoyed this debate a great deal.  The biggest missed opportunity of the night:  Given the location of the debate and the mementoes of the last truly great Republican president that were hanging all around, someone, at some point, should have looked at Donald Trump and said:


"There you go again!"


     But for me, the most satisfying moment of all came this morning, when one of my students came up to me and said:  "Mr. Smith, I've never cared about politics before.  But last night's debate party was so much fun, and I'm really interested now."

    My work here is done.

"Of Personal Pronouns and Perennial Pronouncements . . ."

    Is it any wonder that so many Americans hold higher education in contempt these days?

    The University of Tennessee has announced that its faculty and students should stop using traditional, gender-based pronouns in order to "create a more inclusive campus."  Seriously, it's no longer enough that men can call themselves women and can have themselves surgically altered in order to resemble women, now the King's English itself must be modified in order to accommodate the deification of their delusions!  I can't make up something this silly, so here it is in its entirety from the official "Tennesseean" website:

University of Tennessee students have been asked to use gender-neutral pronouns such as "ze."
The University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion is asking students and faculty to use the pronouns in order to create a more inclusive campus, multiple media outlets report.
"Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth," the University of Tennessee's Pride Center Director, Donna Braquet, wrote on the university's website Wednesday.
Braquet requested that teachers, rather than calling roll, will instead ask each student to provide the name and pronoun he or she — or ze — wishes to be referred by. She says it relieves a burden for people expressing different genders or identities.
"The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses," Braquet wrote.
University spokeswoman Karen Ann Simsen said there is no mandate or official policy to use the language.
"The information provided in the newsletter was offered as a resource for our campus community on inclusive practices," Simsen said.
Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use pronouns such as ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask.
"'Oh, nice to meet you ... What pronouns should I use?' is a perfectly fine question to ask," Braquet said.

   So instead of perfectly good words that have been standard practice in the English language for as long as there has been an English language, we get a jumble of letters created by some bureaucrat that mean absolutely nothing! And for what purpose?  Darned if I can tell.  Even if you are a transsexual, don't you want to be referred to by the gender pronoun that you "identify with"?  What is 'ze' anyway?  A straight man who dresses like a woman, a gay man who dresses like a woman, a straight woman who dresses like a man, or someone like my friend Josh who fervently claims he is a dolphin trapped in a man's body?  And what if someone whose personal bent is different from yours steals your pronoun of choice?  Do you fight a duel with rolled up copies of The San Francisco Chronicle on the college green for who gets to be 'ze' and who gets to be 'xe'?

   Bear in mind, according to Google, parents are paying $45,000 per semester for their kids to attend this university.  Is this what they want them to learn?  What, after all, is the purpose of college? At one time, it was to learn a valuable skill that you could then use to earn a better living for yourself than you could get without the degree.  Or perhaps just to explore a scientific or academic discipline that has always fascinated you, and try to do something practical with it.  But now it seems as if the purpose of many institutes of higher learning is simply to indoctrinate students with a boatload of leftist nonsense that has no practical application anywhere in life.  What's going to happen when these earnest young graduates go to their first job interview and ask the manager to refer to them as 'xim' rather than 'him'?  I doubt the result will be this young applicant being forwarded to the management fast track!

    Once upon a time, I got out of the Navy and attended a fine independent university in East Texas, earning a Bachelor's Degree, a teaching certificate, and a Master's Degree.  I was exposed to every conceivable point of view during that time.  I had professors who were Marxists and one who was an avowed monarchist (he had framed portraits of Louis XIV and Catherine the Great in his apartment!).  I had classmates who were gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, liberal, conservative, communist, and borderline fascist.  The beauty of the place is that we all sounded off on a regular basis, in the classroom and in the coffee shops, in our professors' presence and in their absence, about whatever came to mind.  We debated God and Darwin, Marx and Montesquieu, Locke and Lenin, with passion and force and silliness and all the earnestness that twentysomething adults can muster at that marvelous age when they know the exact solution to all the world's problems, if only someone would put them in charge.

   But today's college campuses have become a wasteland of soul-stifling political correctness and liberal intolerance.  While the movie GOD'S NOT DEAD is indeed fiction, look up the thirty or so lawsuits listed in the credits to see how those who hold traditionalist or Christian perspectives on almost any issue have been hounded, persecuted, and expelled for refusing to toe the line. All opinions are welcome in academia - unless they come from a traditional or religious perspective.  Then they must be shamed into a different way of thinking!

   One of the first things I teach in my government class is that free speech means FREE speech.  That includes speech that we disagree with, speech that disgusts us, speech that offends us.  If the most vile and obnoxious verbal expressions we can imagine are not just as protected as the most innocuous statements, then we are not a free society at all.  I may despise the hate-spewing idiots of Westboro Baptist Church, but I support their right to speak their minds.  Otherwise, the whole concept of freedom of speech is meaningless.  But more and more, our college campuses seem to be dominated by moronic thought police whose sole goal is to shame everyone who doesn't share their "enlightened" view of humanity into compliance.  Sorry, that's not what we are paying $45,000 a semester for our children to learn!

  At any rate, that's all I can make myself write about this nonsense for now.  Excuse me . . . no, sorry!

EXCUSE ZE!!!!

Back to School Days . . .

Wow, has it really been nearly two weeks since I last updated this blog?  Oh no!


I don't know how many of you have been waiting with bated breath to drink up the bon mots that flow forth from this fountain of scribbled insight, but I'm willing to bet that you've worked up a powerful thirst by now!  So, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and know that your long wait is now ended.

  So what to write about?  I've been pretty busy lately . . . to use an old Texas phrase, as busy as a one-armed man with a bad case of poison ivy!  It's the beginning of school - a week of in-service followed by the kids coming back to class last Wednesday.  We're also caregiving for my mother-in-law, who is 87 and increasingly frail these days.  She broke her arm in a fall a few weeks back and needs our help to get around.  My Dad's health has also deteriorated over the summer, so I am checking in on him at the nursing home even more often than I normally do.  That's part of the season of life my wife and I are in right now - our girls are in college and more independent of us than they once were, but our parents need us more than ever.

   But the stress and worry of that situation is alleviated by my wonderful job - and no, that's not sarcasm.  I teach in a small private school, and I single-handedly comprise our History Department.  Once they hit junior high school, our students have me every single year.  I get to watch them grow up from seventh grade until they graduate, and it is a wonderful experience.  I have six regular classes plus one elective that I started teaching this year that meets twice a week.  Let me tell you about them.

First of all, there is Seventh Grade Texas History.  This is the "Happy Meal" of history classes - predictable, simple content that is still enjoyable and informative, with a great "toy" thrown in - the annual trip to the Sulphur River to collect fossils and Indian artifacts.  We cover the maps of Texas, the Indians, the Spanish, the Alamo, and Texas in the Civil War . . . it's always fun.  I'm still getting to know my Seventh Graders, but they seem to be a bright, fun-loving bunch with an interesting mix of personalities.

  Then there is 8th Grade U.S. History.  One of my favorite courses, content-wise, and this year's 8th grade class is lively, fun, smart, and sassy.  The girls are all well-read and belong to various TV show fandoms, and most of the guys love Star Wars - it's neat when you have a group of young people who are unashamedly willing to embrace their inner nerd.  What a cool group of young men and ladies!

   Ninth Grade is World Geography, a relatively new course for me (this is my 4th year to teach it).  I've learned a lot about the world these last 4 years and am having fun sharing it.  The freshmen are another great bunch to hang with - they are smart and full of questions about everything from politics to movies to why the Middle East is so messed up.

   Tenth Grade World History is probably my favorite content area of all.  I'm an absolute sucker for the ancient world, especially "the splendor that was Greece, the glory that was Rome."  And I get to share it ALL with them this year - from the campaigns of Julius Caesar to the tyranny of mad Caligula, and then we move on to Mohammed and Buddha, the Byzantines and the Han Dynasty, Henry VIII and his half dozen spouses to Peter the Great and his penchant for amateur dentistry.  Plus we watch some great movies this year - GLADIATOR, Kenneth Branagh's HENRY V, and the wonderful LUTHER with Joseph Fiennes in the title role.  Not to mention this is a very sharp, funny, and eclectic young people that keep me on my toes every day!

   Eleventh grade is Dual Credit U.S. History, a super-accelerated course that offers six hours of college credit by the end of the year.  I re-cover all of 8th grade history in the first semester, then in the spring we do a whirlwind tour from Reconstruction to the present.  I require the students in this class to write me one book review per quarter; I have a huge library that they can check out titles from.  It's always fun to watch as a student picks up David McCullough's 1776, or Barbara Tuchman's THE MARCH OF FOLLY, or perhaps Doris Kearne Goodwin's magnificent TEAM OF RIVALS, which I consider to be the best book ever written on Abraham Lincoln.  My juniors are a big class, full of life and fun, with some marvelously quirky personalities - and some amazing talents as well.

  Last of all, there is Senior U.S. Government.  It's a one semester course, but it's always more fun to teach in an election season.  I have a huge Presidential Election Leader Board drawn up, and I adjust the poll numbers once or twice a week to show who's up, who's down, and who's dropping out.  We cover everything from the Constitutional Convention to Roe vs. Wade in this class, and it's fascinating to watch as these now young adults form the political convictions that will guide them for a lifetime.  This year's group is a special bunch, and it's going to hurt to let them go - we've had a great journey together, but this last trip promises to be an entertaining ride.

  But wait!  There is one more class, something brand new, so much so that I am writing the curriculum as I go along this year - it's called MODERN AMERICA: Pop Culture, History, and Politics from 1980 to the Present.  I've lobbied for this course forever, since in teaching U.S. History 2 in the spring I very rarely get much past Viet Nam and Watergate.  Now at least some of my students will be instructed about the world their grandparents built and their parents grew up in.

  My days are full but joyous; the sound of "learnage" carries out my door and down the hall as we daily declare war on ignorance and come forth leaving a little bit less of it in the world.  On any given day, my students might discuss anything from the Trump phenomena to how crowded Japanese trains are to how three cigars may well have determined the outcome of the Civil War.  I tell them every year: "You may like me or not, you may like history or not, but I promise you one thing - you will never forget me!"  And for 20 years now, none of them have.

"And Now For Something Completely Different . . ."

Yes, I know, Monty Python said it first.
But I have put up a bunch of posts this summer about serious, heavy, and divisive topics.
Let's just have some fun this week!  Here is a review I wrote two years ago for one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.  So read my comments, then do yourself a favor and check out this hilarious film.  What film, you ask?  Read on:



Saturday night.  I am shuffling along the shelves at Hasting's, desperately seeking the kind of movie that restores your faith in humanity, revives your soul from the post-holiday doldrums, and fills you with that same wonderful sense of anticipation you get as you are about to pop a kitten into the microwave. Title after title went by - action flicks, same-o same-o slasher flicks, mindlessly stupid spoofs, romantic comedies that can drain every drop of testosterone from the room before the opening credits have finished rolling . . . I was near the end of the aisle, with no movie crying out to go home with me, and despair was filling my soul.

Then I saw it.  A shaft of heavenly light poured through the ceiling, and angelic voices sang a magical tune in my ear as the title glistened before me.  I fell to my knees at the sheer awesomeness of the concept.

What title, you ask?

ZOMBIE HAMLET!

I rushed to the front counter, clutching the precious DVD in my hand as I fumbled for my Hasting's card.
My hands trembled when I got home as I powered up the DVD player and prepared myself for the emotional and artistic experience of a lifetime.
But - could the actual film possibly live up to the awesomeness of the title?  Would it not be better for me to place it back in its case and merely bask in the imagined perfection of the concept, rather than hit the "Play" button and set myself up for the same kind of cruel, warped disappointment I experienced that time I mistook a garlic stuffed mushroom for a chocolate cupcake at a dimly lit dinner party?

NO!  I must see it!  Surely the filmmaker could not be so cruel, or so devoid of talent, as to make a movie unworthy of this magnificent title!

Vindication!  That is what I felt as the saga unrolled before my eyes.  Oh no, this movie was not merely a re-telling of Shakespeare's HAMLET, set during the Civil War, with zombies thrown in as a cheap marketing tactic to snag the youth demographic.  Oh no!  That would be clever, but not life-changing.  What the director of ZOMBIE HAMLET did was much bolder, much braver, much more daring - he made a movie about the MAKING of a movie version of Hamlet set in the Civil War with zombies thrown in as a cheap marketing ploy!
But this movie was more than that - it was so much more!

It has June Lockhart of LASSIE fame!
It has John De Lancie ("Q" from Star Trek!)
It has beloved African American character actor John Amos!
It has Shelly Long!
It has snoopy small town reporters and a sheriff with acting ambitions!
It has killer alligators!
It has voodoo loan sharks!
IT has cross-dressing, and disappearing dead bodies!
Romance! Action! Thrills!  Bad Checks!

For a bad movie lover, this was a life altering experience.  I am shaken.  I am stirred.  I am Bond . . . James Bond.
Or maybe I'm just turning blond! Who knows!

What I am saying is that this is the most amazing cinematic experience since SUCKER PUNCH.
YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE.

Do it for the zombies.
Do it for the children.

Post-GOP Debate Impressions . . .

(Normally I update once a week, but being a hard-core political junkie, and having watched both Republican debates yesterday, I thought I would share my impressions of the GOP field.)

OK, overall reaction to Round One. (For those who don't know, since there are 17 Republican candidates running, they split them into two debates rather than one interminable one. The 10 front runners aired at 8 PM on FOX; the 7 bottom contenders aired at 4 PM yesterday CST.)
No one killed themselves verbally. No huge gaffes, and a few home runs. Here is my impression of the bottom seven in no particular order:
Lindsay Graham - totally unelectable. The man is smart and says many things that I agree with, but he is boring, uninspiring, and just looks tired, like a preacher who quit believing long ago but still mounts the pulpit out of habit.
Carly Fiorina - Probably the most solid performer overall. Intelligent, articulate, with actual proposals and not just talking points. She may bump up from this one.
James Gilmore - who? I had not heard of him before this week and he said nothing particularly memorable. I doubt he'll make it into December.
Rick Perry - a very weak start, but he got stronger and more confident as he went along. I think his hour has passed, but he said some things that were motivating, and he is still quite charismatic.
Bobby Jindal - He had some very strong moments and a few weak ones. I like him on a lot of issues; I just don't think he has the charisma to inspire the masses.
George Pataki - he put up a solid performance, but he is probably too liberal overall for the GOP base. Still, he had some good moments.
Rick Santorum - I love this man. He is passionate, articulate, and unwavering in his core beliefs, many of which I share. I just don't know that he can win - but I think he would be a fine President if he did.

So that's my summation of the lower tier.

OK, after watching the big show, here are my thoughts:
Trump hurt himself tonight. Not with the hard core Trump Chumps, but his snarky, petulant attitude was a turnoff to independents, and his not-so-veiled threat to run as an independent and throw the election angered the audience. His refusal to apologize for his unconscionably rude treatment of women, and his ugliness to Megyn Kelly, will alienate women overall (a constituency that the GOP desperately needs to win!)  Bottom line, he is not a likable man and his constant insults to those he disagrees with are going to be his political death. I think he may have already peaked.
Rubio did a great job and had some real shining moments. He may have gotten the biggest bump out of this.
Cruz was better than I expected - I'm not a fan, but he had some great lines.  His passion is undeniable, but he's burned a lot of bridges.  Can he unite the party behind him after that?
John Kasich was very solid, and I think he is angling for either the VP slot or possibly Secretary of Treasury - either of which he would perform quite well.
Huckabee is a wonderful debater and had a solid night. I like this man, I always have. But he may be yesterday's news.  That being said, his closing remarks had everyone chuckling, even as he made a very serious point.
Walker got in some solid licks but didn't really shine.  He may be too bland for the job.
Rand Paul came across as testy and combative and I think Christie owned him on the exchange over NSA surveillance.
Chris Christie surprised me; I don't care much for him, but he gave some great answers and vigorously defended his record.
Ben Carson started off slow and soft-spoken, but really nailed the last question and gave the best closing statement of the night. I was favorably impressed with him.
Bush was rather bland most of the time, except for his "I'm my own man" speech, which was well done. He neither helped nor hurt himself.  He has a lot of money and has laid the groundwork carefully, but I don't think he can win.

    Overall, there was no one clear winner, but I think that both Trump and Bush damaged themselves a bit.  Fiorina may well be in the top 10 next time; if so, she will have earned it.  I will say it was a very solid, well-moderated debate, with some hard-hitting questions and nearly everybody had one good line or one shining moment. I will be very curious to see what the polls say over the next few weeks.

Another One Bites The Dust!

     On October 9 of last year I sat down and began writing a story that I entitled LOVER OF GOD.  Usually, when I begin a novel, I have a pretty fair idea of where the story is going to go.  At least, I have a vague idea of how it will end, or what the major story arc is, or something.  This one, though, this story was elusive.  I had a great prologue, which was set much later in the story arc - but I had no idea how I would develop the characters, or what all would take place along the way. 
     But I set out on the journey anyway.  I knew who my main character was - Marcus Quintus Publius, a junior member of the Roman Senate during the reign of Claudius.  I envisioned this story as a loose sequel to THE REDEMPTION OF PONTIUS PILATE, my first novel of the New Testament era.  It begins about ten years after Pilate's death.  I knew that Publius would wind up being an advocate for Paul and the rest of the Christian community caught up in Nero's persecution after the Great Fire of Rome - that's where my prologue began.  But how did he wind up in that position?  How did he become a Christian sympathizer?
   But, as I wrote, Marcus' career came together.  A young Roman aristocrat, his family murdered by the mad Caligula, Marcus winds up befriending the Emperor Claudius, who wants to atone for his nephew's horrible crime by helping Marcus rise up the cursus honorum, the chain of offices that all Roman noblemen were expected to occupy in their public career.  Marcus, a skilled legal advocate, winds up going on a mission from the Emperor to inspect the provinces which had been sorely neglected during Caligula's reign of terror.  In the course of his travels, Marcus meets and befriends the leaders of the early Christian movement, including Peter, John, and Paul of Tarsus.  He also meets Paul's companion, a Greek physician named Luke, who is composing an account of the life of Jesus.  Eventually, Luke dedicates his Gospel to this powerful Roman who has become a benefactor to the Christian community - albeit addressing him by the nickname Paul has given him, Theophilus - "Lover of God."  Once Nero becomes Emperor, however, Marcus is placed in a difficult position, and must choose between his place in Roman society and his love of God.
    All told, I am very proud of the way this one came out.  It provides the reader with a tour of all Rome's provinces and a fascinating look at an early stage of the church's development, when the Apostles were mostly still alive and preaching the Gospel throughout the Roman world.  I also spent a good bit of time developing the characters of Claudius and Nero, two of Rome's most fascinating rulers, relying heavily on the historical sources of the era.  The Roman world has always fascinated me, and I think I did full justice to both characters.
    As I usually do, I will now wait a month or so and let the story sit.  Then I'll start over from the beginning, reading and editing as I go through, until I get it into satisfactory condition.  Then I will sent it off to my publisher and hope they like it as much as I do!
    Look for my next novel, MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH, coming out in December!