The Air Force made a tough decision this past week. It decided to go with Airbus (based in France) over Boeing for a big contract.

They’re being nailed against the wall for being unpatriotic and for betraying America in its time of need. It’s a time of shock, anger and rage.

Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s Washington headquarters when the mood suddenly darkened.

“Here we are in the middle of a recession and we give this to Airbus?” Dicks added. “That is not going to go down well.”

Honestly, the Air Force is to be applauded for making a decision with their heads and not their hearts. From what I can tell, the decision to go with Airbus was over plane size, fuel capacity and capabilities… rather than heated politics.

To those who decry this decision, I have to ask: how exactly does choosing the second-best plane for the job help America? How does spending more for something that does less good for our economy?

Way to go, Air Force.

I found this article yesterday, and couldn’t help but respond here. The assertion that the war is in perfect order with God and man just is too tempting to cross-examine.

First, just because war is constitutional (I don’t think anyone disagrees there) doesn’t mean that this particular conflict was handled in the correct manner. First, isn’t Article I Section 8 discussing Congress’ power? In the current war, it is the executive branch that is making the assertions. Show me a congressional declaration of war to assuage this concern. I don’t think anyone can really say it was handled correctly. No one is saying that governments can’t declare war. What people *are* saying, is that this wasn’t done right.
I also find it interesting that the “justification” for this war comes from a debated 2006 report on Iraq ground munitions. First, these weapons were confirmed to pre-1991 era weapons found “in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for.” [1] The statement that they *could* be sold on the black market is really just fear-mongering and conjecture.

The WMDs *could* be in the hands of some rabid terrorist outside your door tonight as well.

So, Bush claims that these people are armed to the teeth, ready to kill us all, and we need to take immediate action. The reality is that these weapons have been around for 15+ years, and their usability and potency is in question. Sure: they’ve been termed “lethal,” but even conventional weapons are “lethal.” And if these weapons have been around for so long, why take action 15 years later? If the weapons haven’t found use in the last two conflicts we’ve had in Iraq, it seems doubtful they’ll see any use.

Now do you realize why even the Bush administration didn’t flaunt the report?

Next, your assertion that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war started is loose at best. So if Colin tells the UN Security Council, it must be true? I also fail to see how killing a terrorist leader three years after the war started is proof that Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. Joscelyn’s article seems contradictory as well:

Consider what a top al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, told his CIA interrogators after his capture in March 2002. According to the Senate Intelligence Report, Zubaydah said ‘he was not aware of a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.’

That rather sums it up for me. Top operative, not aware.
I hesitate to address your remaining arguments. I don’t think it’s anyone’s job to define what “good Latter-day Saints” should know, and to put words in the mouth of the prophet. If he says he’s for the war, why does he not say it plainly? It seems to me that he is reaffirming the Church’s position on following our civic leaders, and that above all, we should search for peace.

And while I believe God can turn any human mess into an opportunity, I don’t think wars are the best way to spread the gospel message. I don’t think that members on the ground in Baghdad are any justification for the continuance of this conflict.

I realized something while sitting in class today: why are we always down on the rich man spoken of in Mark chapter 10? I think we’ve got him all wrong, or at least we may not have much cause to condemn him like we often do. In class today everyone criticized this young man, and after reflecting on it some today, I’m not sure why anymore.

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Mark 10:17

Sounds like a good start. Please raise your hand if this particular thread of thought has been part of *your* prayers in the last month or two. I think running and kneeling are also two pretty good action words to describe one’s approach to the Savior.

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Matthew 19:17-20

I’ve switched over to Matthew because of the phrase “what lack I yet?” Again, I’m not seeing any wrongdoing here - it seems to me that this man is basically asking the Savior to take him to the next level: a great example for us all, really.

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Matthew 19:21-22

Now here’s where I think we might want to give this young man the benefit of the doubt. The common assumption here is that the young man spurned Jesus’ offer, and went back to devlishly counting gold coins in his lavish vault somewhere. While he may very well have done that, I wonder about the chances of that.

First, this guy ran and knelt at the feet of the Savior and kept the dialogue going until he found something new to work on. I don’t think many of us do that on a regular basis, so props to the young man. Secondly, this man was faithful “from his youth.” Okay, this guy has enough moral courage to stand in front of God and declare that he has kept the commandments from his youth. I hope he really had, and Christ must have been okay with it because he didn’t cross examine. I find it unlikely that this man would throw all that away for his riches.

Again, maybe he did, but just think about it: maybe he didn’t.

Ever have to lose a friend because you didn’t want to follow them in a wrong decision? Ever sat the bench for a month because you missed a Sunday game? Ever taken the slower career path because of your refusal to work longer on Monday nights? Going away sorrowful seems to be a perfectly human response to the sacrifices we are sometimes asked to make.

I hope this young man made the right decision, and taking on that perspective makes the following sermon from the Savior all the more powerful.