It is both sad and interesting to see the world’s reaction to the execution of Saddam Hussein. I’ve long been an advocate of the death penalty. If carried out with caution and extreme care, it is a proper tool for administering justice and preventing future evils against societies.

There are a lot of good arguments for the abolitionist view of capital punishment, some of which I sympathize with. But I think the arguments for the retentionst view are far stronger, and much more in line with the Bible’s teaching – though retentionsts do have some faults of their own. Clearly, the manner in which most capital punishment is carried out in modern societies does not meet the biblical standards. The death penalty is often assigned on circumstantial evidence – though often very strong. The biblical standard is multiple witnesses if guilt for execution is to be established. This does not mean that a person is not guilty and should not be punished, only that the standard necessary for a death penalty hasn’t been met. The penalty is often carried out too quickly, sometimes within hours or days of a sentence – especially in the Islamic world. But the Islamic world isn’t known for its mercy. In Saddam’s case I think a quick execution was justified. The facts surrounding his nearly 30 years of murders were more than enough to warrant the gallows, even though the actual trial only focused on an incident of 148 deaths.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, the biblical evidence necessary for Christians to support his execution was met, and passed, and circled several times.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was guilty of mass murders, attempted murders, atrocities, and much more. Saddam’s guilt has never been in question. Estimates on the number of people killed by Saddam’s orders range as high as 1 million. No matter which side of the capital punishment debate you hang from, there is no way that any punishment of Saddam, either death or life in prison, could ever pay for those 1 million deaths. Letting a man live who has committed unspeakable crimes and giving him something to pass the time with doesn’t seem just – nor does an execution completely just in this case. You can only execute someone once, and you can’t spend a million lifetimes in prison to pay for such mass murder (unless your a Buddhist—but that’s not reality). That being the case, where is real justice? Can it even be done? Contrary to what my many of my brothers and sisters in Christ may think, Saddam’s torment in hell won’t be for sins he committed on the earth. Man doesn’t go to hell for specific sins he commits. He goes to hell for rejecting Christ. His sins won’t make it any easier for him in hell, but that’s another topic entirely.

The world has reacted to Saddam’s execution with its usual mixture of politics and ideological spew, even a good measure of hypocrisy. The British government condemned the execution, though not in so many words. The Fins, who hold the EU presidency, also condemn the death penalty. The Vatican called the execution “tragic,” making one wonder what it would call Saddam’s atrocities. Russia called on the Iraqis not to execute Hussein, which is hard to take seriously considering the radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. India expressed “disappointment,” which I don’t remember it expressing when Saddam was gassing Kurds. But neither did they send troops to Iraq to put a stop to Hussein’s murders. Except for Kuwait and Iran the Arab world is strangely silent. All but the last two nations protested the execution of a mass murderer – but you know they aren’t shedding any tears over his hanging. They are just glad to be rid of him.

So what is it about the world’s values that the execution of a man like Saddam Hussein brings derision instead of praise for at least some semblance of justice done? It’s one thing to protest or deny a death penalty in the case of a single murderer (we can make a very good case for that in many instances), but when that murderer is responsible for the death of nearly a million, demonstrates no remorse, sorrow, or repentance, but only pride and approval for his murders, then how can people justify allowing that person to live at the expense of the society or societies he so harmed? Where is the justice in that?

Where is the mercy that society needs in such a case as opposed to the criminal of such unconscionable proportions?

At what point do the abolitionists say, “Hey, wait a minute, a million murders and thousands of rapes – yeah, we can kill him.” Two million? Ten million? If Hitler had lived or Stalin had been brought to trial, would you vote to execute in punishment for the 6 million and 20 million murdered or give him a cell, paper and pen to write his memoirs?

Its one thing to say that capital punishment is demeaning to human dignity (in some cases that is true). But can it not be argued that keeping a person alive after he’s slaughtered millions is a far more shameless denial of human dignity? Where does the abolitionist find a balance of dignity between one mass murderer and his 1 million victims? At what human number does a man like Saddam surrender his dignity?

Some people protest that the position that some evangelicals (like myself) take on capital punishment is not in line with the Bible’s teaching on forgiveness and mercy. Certainly not all evangelicals agree on this issue. Some emphasize the teachings of the Old Testament Law that prescribe capital punishment for a limited number of crimes. Some emphasize Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness and mercy, “Judge not lest you be judged” and so forth. Regrettably, I think that neither side really gets the full picture because neither side looks at the issue systematically. The Bible has a lot to say on this topic and it’s not an “either or” scenario. The Old Testament Law allowed judges to exercise discretion in capital cases and families could forgive and not execute punishment. The New Testament and Jesus himself placed an equal emphasis on God’s justice and wrath along with His forgiveness and mercy.

I think Scott B. Rae, Ph.D., associate professor of biblical studies and Christian ethics at the Talbot School of Theology sums up the proper biblical position the best. In his 1995 book, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, he states:

This demand for justice is not inconsistent with the New Testament emphasis on showing mercy and forgiveness, and vengeance belonging to God. However, the abolitionists are likely correct in maintaining that when family members of a murder victim express a demand for justice, they are often masking a desire for revenge that does not reflect the teachings of Jesus. Nevertheless it is true that the victim’s family has personally experienced the imbalance caused by crime, and thus their demand for justice may be a legitimate demand.The problem with bringing Jesus’ ethic for forgiveness to bear on the issue of the death penalty is the way in which abolitionists confuse personal and social ethics. The New Testament teachings on revenge and forgiveness are part of a personal ethic that forbids individuals from taking revenge and that requires forgiveness when wronged. But that ethic cannot be applied to the State. The responsibility of the State is to punish criminals, not forgive them (Chapter 9, “Capital Punishment,” page 186, “Capital Punishment Expresses and Appropriate Demand for Justice in Society.” Emphasis mine).

My favorite story in all of the Old Testament is the story of King Manasseh in II Kings 21:1-18 and II Chronicles 33:1-20. It is an amazing story. Manasseh was the Saddam Hussein of his day, and in many ways he was worse, even offering his own son as burnt offering in a pagan religious ceremony. Manasseh, like Saddam Hussein, embodied the very idea of evil. In fact, the word “evil” is used eight times in these two passages to describe the depth of…well…evil that Manasseh committed.

The Lord did not put Manasseh to death! The Assyrian King Esarhaddon carried him away into exile to Babylon. The Assyrians were exceptionally cruel to their prisoners, especially conquered kings – beyond the kinds of atrocities we hear about today. Manasseh’s suffering woke him up to the evils he had committed while he was king. The scripture says:

“When he was in distress, he entreated the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. He prayed to Him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.”

The Bible records that Manasseh used the rest of his days as king to reverse the evils he had committed. He was truly a changed man. God was merciful to him, so merciful in fact that Manasseh reigned longer than any king of Israel or Judah – 55 years (even longer than David, the man after God’s own heart) – and Manasseh became an ancestor of Jesus Christ. That’s mercy. That’s grace.

Manasseh, for all of his evil, had a trait that Saddam Hussein did not possess – Manasseh had repentance, Saddam did not. Manasseh was truly, from the depths of his heart, sorry for what he had done. A court of men might have dispatched him anyway, but God saw fit to use him, so He restored him, making him a far greater man than he was before. We don’t know how long Manasseh spent in prison, but the time must have been at least a few years. Saddam spent 3-years in prison before his execution. His time was spent defending his evil, not reconsidering it. Perhaps if he had been tortured and abused like Manasseh had been his pain could have made him see the light. Regardless, at the end of his three years he was no different than when he was captured – a defiant old man full of pride in his accomplishments of evil. “What a waste” doesn’t begin to describe it.

It is quite clear that Saddam’s crimes were worthy of death. It is also clear that a punishment of death was not worthy enough of the multitude of crimes he committed. But if some kind of justice is to be done you have to start somewhere. In Saddam’s case, regardless of the faults with Iraq’s legal system and its unholy reliance on the evils of Islamic law, some measure of justice still had to be meted out. The last thing Iraq needed was a Saddam Hussein in prison somewhere, his presence behind bars motivating baathist followers, and waiting for a second chance at bloody glory. For all the justice he denied to the hundreds of thousands of his people through the painful, gruesome, merciless murders he committed, a snapped neck in a noose was an exceptionally small price to pay.

And no one should feel sorry for him.

Christmas is one of those holidays that I can take or leave. Perhaps it’s because of the way that we have trivialized what the holiday represents. We hang stockings, decorate trees, arrange manger scenes, and give gifts. Of course no one is fooled, it’s the gift giving and receiving that has become the real focus of Christmas. We love to get stuff. And we get joy, happiness, and a lot of squishy good feelings when our loved ones rip off the wrapping to expose our expressions of love. That’s a form of “getting” too. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself; but we are fooling ourselves if we think that benign gift giving and receiving is really representative of what God gave man in Jesus Christ. God’s great gift to man, in point of fact, didn’t happen on that first Christmas. It happened on Good Friday when Jesus was violently crucified for our sins. Had the crucifixion never happened, and the resurrection, then Christmas would be meaningless.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ – God becoming a man – was an event so powerful and significant that for 2,000 years man has counted his days and marked his history by the birth of the babe in the manger. While ancient kings the world over were positioning themselves to be worshipped like living deities to their populations and remembered like gods, the real Son of God busied himself with becoming an everyday man. And yet that humble event, regarded as a sweet treasured moment that gives hope to mankind was in fact something altogether more brutal and violent than our holiday pageants, Christmas TV specials, and even church services willingly remember. We focus our Christmas remembrances on the coming of “Immanuel,” the God with us from Isaiah 7:14 and the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace,” of Isaiah 9:6. But the Christmas tradition, that is, the belief that God would send a Savior, appears in the Bible long before Isaiah’s hopeful promises. And in these foundational promises of God, from which even Isaiah’s prophesies spring, the seed of Adam, Abraham, and David was planted in blood.

The first prophecy about the coming of Jesus was given, not to man, but to the Evil One, Satan. After persuading Adam and Eve to break God’s law and eat the forbidden fruit, “The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle…I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heal” (Genesis 3:14-15).

That first promise of a coming Messiah to crush Satan marked the beginning of Satan’s attempt to do to Christ, and to man, what God declared would happen to him. At each stage of biblical history, when God’s promise to send a “seed” unfolded, the Enemy made moves to trample that seed underfoot. At each stage when God gave a promise of the seed of the Savior, separation and death soon followed.

Following God’s first promise to Abram of a seed to come after him (Genesis 12:1-3,7), Sari his wife was separated from him by Pharaoh of Egypt, immediately threatening the fulfillment of God’s promise.

Immediately after receiving the second promise of a coming seed (Genesis 15:1-5), Hagar the Egyptian was introduced to become Abram’s concubine. She, along with her son Ishmael were a cause of division in the family and Sarah recognized the potential threat to Abraham’s son Isaac – who was to carry the promise of the seed.

In Genesis 17:1-8 God made his third promise to Abraham of a coming seed. Shortly thereafter Abraham traveled to Gerar where its king, Abimelech, took Sarah as a concubine. The urgency of the text indicates Sarah was in imminent jeopardy, but God spoke to Abimelech and saved her and his promise, from danger.

Just as Abraham his father had a wife that could bare no children, so too Isaac, the child of promise, was given a barren wife. God’s promise of a coming seed seemed in danger again – until He intervened and Rebekah was able to conceive (Genesis 25:21).

Immediately after receiving the promise from God about the coming seed, Isaac was driven from his land and his family’s welfare put in jeopardy (Genesis 26).

After receiving his father’s blessing in the line of succession, Jacob’s life is threatened by his brother Esau (Genesis 27:41), causing him to flee. When Jacob returned years later with his family, Esau rode out with 400 men to slaughter him. But Jacob’s godly wisdom intervened to change Esau’s heart, and he spared Jacob and his family (Genesis 33:1-16).

In II Samuel 7:12-13 God promised to make David a great man and give him a seed to rule on his throne forever. After securing his kingdom and reputation (chapters 8-10), David became lax, took Bathsheba in adultery, and from that point his kingdom and his family endured in chaos, with his sons and servants murdering one another. If not for God’s promise for his lineage to endure, David would have lost all.

THE PROMISE OF REDEMPTION BROUGHT DEATH

Even from these few examples of God’s promises concerning the coming Messiah we can see a pattern. From Adam until Isaac there was a focus on destroying a single family or to separate a single family that possessed the promise of the seed – the coming Savior. The objective was to prevent the birth of a promise-holder, or destroy the lineage. Immediately after each promise was given there was either separation or the threat of death.

Beginning with Jacob, Satan attempted to destroy whole families or a nation of people. Inferred in the text is that when multiple children were born to the possessor of the promise, Satan could not learn which particular person was to carry the seed, so he targeted the entire group. We can see an example of this even during the Exodus period. God promised to Abraham that his seed would be oppressed in Egypt for 400 years before being freed (Genesis 15:13-16). 400 years later as the time of God’s promise was at hand, Pharaoh ordered all baby boys killed in hopes of killing the one child that would lead Israel to freedom. This event was mimicked in Palestine when Herod ordered all boys less than two years of age to die in hopes of killing the promised Messiah (Matthew 2:16).

Even during the period of Israel’s exile, in Esther 3:7-11, Haman tried to wipe out the Jewish nation – which would have destroyed the fulfillment of God’s promise of the coming Savior.

In virtually every case when God made a promise about the coming seed (Christ), that promise was followed by separation or the threat of death. And as the promise was accompanied by violence, so too was its fulfillment.

Jesus’ birth was preceded by the promises of salvation from sin (Matthew 1:20-23), and the mantle of David’s kingdom (Luke 1:26-38). Just as the promises held separation and death, so did they also hold the same during Jesus’ birth. His family was forced to separate from the their home and nation, fleeing to Egypt for safety from Herod’s murderous intent (Matthew 2:13-15). At news of Jesus’ birth, but unable to find him, Herod issued sweeping orders to murder all children around Bethlehem aged two and under (Matthew 2:16-18). Separation and death even accompanied the promised infant Jesus into the world.

IF IT’S NOT PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL, THEN WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

At Christmas we give gifts to celebrate the giving of the gift of eternal life in Christ. But when God made promises of a coming Savior, Satan worked separation and death – even at Jesus’ birth. But in God’s foreknowledge and sovereign plan, all of this foreshadowed the reason for Jesus’ coming – redemption from sin reconciling us to God (NON-separation), defeating spiritual death (LIFE in Christ). The birth of Jesus was only the beginning. Jesus’ incarnation culminated in the cross where all of the promises of God were fulfilled – including separation from the Father (Matthew 27:46), and Christ’s death for us.

• The promises of God in Christ were accompanied by separation. Satan’s separation is to separate us from God. But Christ’s separation from God at the cross brought us into a right relationship with Him (Romans 6:5-11).
• The promises of God, while bringing life, are sometimes accompanied by death, or fulfilled through death, such as Christ’s death on the cross – the reason for Christmas.
• All who will attain or live under the promises of God must share in the conditions of both the promises and the fulfillment: Separation from the world – II Corinthians 6:14-17, and death to sin – Romans 6:5-11, Colossians 3:1-3, II Timothy 2:11-13.

We can enjoy the holidays, family reunions, gift giving, and feasting on Christmas. But our joyful celebrations can never truly represent the brutality that accompanied the promises and the first Christmas. Nor can our celebrations contain the real substance of meaning behind the incarnation of Christ. That comes during the other 364 days of the year as we live out what Christ intended – putting to death the deeds of the sinful nature, and separating ourselves from an evil world system in total dedication to the One and Only True Living God.

One wonders why there are so many people in America who seem so offended at a simple greeting like, “Merry Christmas.” While talk show hosts rant about the “Attack on Christmas,” by big chain stores, school boards, and the ACLU, others wonder what in the world is so offensive about a seasonal greeting steeped in tradition like, “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” After all, we’ve been fed many lines over the decades that Christmas is about love, and family, and unity, and peace.

I suggest that our leftist friends have finally realized what Evangelicals have been saying all along – love and family and unity and peace are all well and good, but they have little to nothing to do with Christmas. I think it is for that reason that the anti-Christmas crowd has rushed in its anti-Christian fervor to suppress the holiday – because its real meaning is making a real difference in society the other 364 days out of the year.

The commercial-fed line on Christmas for many years has been “Peace on earth, good will towards men.” (Side thought: If the secularists are right and Christmas really is about “peace on earth and good will toward men,” yet they are trying to minimize or eliminate Christmas, then they have some explaining to do.)

The words “peace on earth” come from the story of Jesus Christ’s birth in Luke 2:14. The problem is that only half the verse is quoted. The full verse actually reads: “Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth among men with whom God is pleased.” The first implication, and later what becomes direct statements in the New Testament is that God is not pleased with most men. The second implication is that God came to earth in the form of a man to do something about it.

Let’s drive this home more directly. Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, is about three things:

1. The Incarnation: God became a man in Jesus Christ
2. The Humiliation: God experienced death as a man
3. The Exaltation: God experienced resurrection as a man

The fact is that there would be no Christmas without Easter. Easter gives Christmas it’s meaning. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, what would his birth matter to us? His claim to incarnation would be nothing more than unproven words. If Jesus really is God in human flesh, if he really did suffer a humiliating death He could have prevented through the exercise of his deity, and if he really did rise from the dead never to die again, then Christmas is a lot more than “Peace on earth,” and a year-end boost for the economy. It is about the reason for His incarnation in the first place.

Christmas is about our sin.

Christmas is offensive to some because:

1. The incarnation of Jesus Christ points to man’s need for a Savior
2. The humiliation of Jesus Christ proves man is sinful and in need of a Savior
3. The exaltation of Jesus Christ proves the incarnation and requires submission to that Savior

As long as Christmas was regulated to gift-giving and good feelings, saying “Merry Christmas” wasn’t really a big deal. But as Evangelicals have gained greater influence in the last 20 years, so has the more important historical meaning of the Christmas season. That meaning is written clearly in the text of the Bible (which the same crowd wants kept out of schools). As the meaning of Christmas, and its year long relevance has become clearer in American society, so has the need for some to regulate any reference to it. If its meaning can’t be obscured, then it must be absconded.

I leave you with a passage from the Bible about Christmas. It is not a traditional passage about the Christmas season, but it is the passage that gives us the meaning of Christmas in what may be the plainest language. This passage not only explains the meaning of Christmas, but what is expected of us when we understand that meaning.

”Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Jesus Christ, who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason God also highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11 NASB)

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year – which is also another celebration of Jesus’ birth.

I finally got around to reading the USAID’s report, Mongolia: Trends in Corruption Attitudes. Here are a few tidbits from the report:

• 90 percent of the public reports that corruption is common
• The higher the income the greater the reported inclination and incidence of bribe paying
• Respondents claiming that some corruption is acceptable increased from 14.3 percent to 19.5 percent – almost one-fourth of the population.
• Those who make more money have a greater inclination to pay bribes
• Teachers, doctors, and civil administrators are the top three recipients of bribes, with bribes to teachers making up 39.3 percent of reported incidents

The USAID report helps put some concrete to what was already known – Mongolia is a society steeped in corruption. The report helps to shatter at least one myth about corruption, and also sets off a loud alarm about Mongolia’s future.

First, there is a long-held myth that corruption, or the need to engage in corruption is primarily facilitated by poverty (or in the worldview of some: suffering). Low income and high unemployment, it is thought, are the primary motivator for bribe-paying and taking. Yet the report would seem to indicate something more sinister. According to the report, when it comes to recognizing corruption in its various forms, Mongolia citizens know what they are facing. “Not surprisingly, the higher the income and the better the education, the greater the awareness. And as unsurprisingly, the higher the income the greater the reported inclination and incidence of bribe paying” (“Awareness and Understanding,,” Page 2). It might be argued that it is only natural for those with higher income to pay more bribes because they are more often targeted as having more money. Yet the report also indicates quite clearly those who have a higher standard of living also have, “The higher the inclination to pay a bribe to overcome regulation and bureaucracy, and to accept corruption” (Ibid, Emphasis mine). The fact of the matter is that according to the report, nearly 20 percent of the population views “some degree of corruption” as “acceptable.”

Rising income, status, and quality of life, it seems, have not done anything to stem the tide of corruption. One would think that if poverty or suffering facilitated corruption that getting out of poverty would weaken or eliminate it. The trends show otherwise. Poverty and suffering are not the cause of the corruption problem. It’s more basic than that, which I will address shortly.

Second, it is hard to see how Mongolia will be able to successfully battle corruption when those who hold the responsibility for raising, nurturing, and protecting the next generation routinely practice it. When westerners living in the west think of corruption they usually think of government agencies, elected officials, etc. And while Mongolians also think of such people as synonymous with corruption, on a practical day-to-day level they report having to pay bribes most often to teachers (39.3%), doctors (37.6%), government clerks (34.1%), and policemen (22.7%) in that order. If teachers who are training our children are among the most corrupt, then what can be expected of the next generation? Worse yet, Mongolians report paying bribes to teachers because they have “no choice.” Don’t pay the bribe and your kid will be flunked, or suffer other setbacks. If teachers are giving parents “no choice” but to pay bribes like a form of educational protection money, then one can’t help but wonder what kids are learning from these same corrupt educators.

Mongolians face a two-fold problem. They are vulnerable to the most corrupt who hold the power of the services they so desperately need, but they also give corruption a free pass, with an increasing number of people believing that corruption in some form is “acceptable.” Add to this that greater affluence does nothing to solve corruption, but only presents more opportunities to exercise corruption’s evil, and you wind up with a society so steeped in corruption that only something radical has any hope of changing the status quo. Some thought that passage of Mongolia’s new anti-corruption laws would make a dent, but the statistics indicate otherwise.

A friend of mine regularly repeats a rule he applies to his business: “You can never make a good deal with a bad person, and you can never make a bad deal with a good person.” How simple, and how true! Good people, that is, people with good character do not need a set of rules or guidelines to enable good behavior. And rules and guidelines won’t necessarily prevent bad behavior (though they can have a helpful restraining influence). No one ever had to pass a law to prevent a good man from doing the right thing.

Mongolia’s efforts at implementing anti-corruption legislation are good. A good law is like a dog, it needs a set of sharp teeth. But if the person holding the leash lacks good character, the law can often be unleashed with bad results. Worse yet, it may simply be left in a cage.

Mongolian society has primarily been informed by the worldviews of Atheism and Buddhism; but they don’t seem to be able to affect the kind of character in society that makes corruption a source of personal shame. If these worldviews actually had that ability, then one would expect with such a long history here that corruption’s acceptability would not be on the rise. The same is true in other nations primarily informed by these worldviews.

The Scriptures regard corruption as sin – a moral problem. This means that corruption happens first and foremost because the heart of man is naturally corrupt and wicked. We have a natural propensity to want to do the wrong thing – especially if we think we will benefit from it. The affluent and the common are equally corrupt, though the corruption of the affluent tends to have wider and deeper effects. Since we are all corrupt people, societal corruption cannot be finally solved with the band-aids of new regulations and punishments. They can help put up a few roadblocks, but they can’t prevent the driver from looking for a new route. They cannot solve the problem. Corruption can only be solved when people make a personal decision that corruption is so morally offensive that they will not participate in it at any cost. When we view corruption as personally offensive and destructive to personal character, then we will take pains to avoid it and consistently condemn it in deeds as well as words instead of the situation we have now – excusing it and finally accepting it as so much of Mongolian society seems to have done.

So…

I’m chatting on Skype with my oldest daughter. She’s home with a big group of gals, teens and adults, having a girl’s night while Dad is away. The house is filled with females. So she decides to poll the group about whether or not talking for a woman is like taking drugs. Does talking “get you high?” Stefani is referring to my blog entry from November 11th about research showing that there’s a reason why women can’t shut up – they get off on flappin’ their lips.

Stefani polls the room.

Yup. Women get high when they talk. In fact, the research shows it’s like a heroin addiction. They can’t help it, and they all agree.

I even polled some of the gals at work – yes, they agree, talking makes them high. One person told me, “When I need to feel better, I just talk.”

Of course most husbands say, “When I need to feel better I need her to just shut up.” Alas…the differences between men and women.

Talking with Stefani on Skype I could hear the raging sea of progesterone impregnated voices bouncing off the concrete walls. The echoes and reverberations must be like extra-refinement of the dosage. Someone might O.D.!

Be careful ladies. It may be legal, but it ain’t right.

It was with some degree of dismay that I learned that a number of Mongolian journalists – competitors of Eagle TV – have been putting significant pressure upon our journalists because of our live coverage of the fake hijacking of a Mongolian Airlines (MIAT) plane. These competitors have ridiculed our journalists for their handling of the coverage, saying of the hijacking which assaulted innocent people and victimized their families that, “It was only a test.”

In a communal society like Mongolia peer pressure can be a powerful incentive, or in this case, a disincentive to pursue truth – much more so than in Western cultures. Worse yet, when you work in a small industry in a small country where everyone seems to know everyone else, the pressure to conform can be intense. As an American living in Mongolia I can say that Americans don’t really understand this because Americans have never really experienced it. Even I, as an American am immune to this level of pressure since I can never experience it in the same way a Mongolian can – though I can understand it through the observation that comes with living here.

I include this in my analysis of the media’s coverage of the hijacking because it has a direct impact on the quality of Mongolia’s journalism. That in turn has a direct impact on the development of Mongolia’s democratic freedoms as they continue to build a more transparent society. The reaction of Mongolian media to Tuesday’s hijacking was exactly opposite one would expect from real journalists.

At every step of the events of this Tuesday there were ample and obvious opportunities for Mongolian journalists to demonstrate the necessity of their profession as part of a free and open society. At virtually every step Mongolian journalism fell flat. This was not a top down reaction where some political force lowered the boom. This was a peer-level reaction that has as much of a potential to facilitate censorship and media repression as if it had come from higher up the food chain. The result of this peer-level abandonment of journalistic principles in the face of this important story is that the abuses and violation of human rights that occurred on Tuesday may have already been swept under a Mongolian carpet and the floor called clean. To be sure we understand why this is so, let us briefly review the facts.

At 11:45am a MIAT plane from Umnugobi Aimag landed at Chinggis Khan International Airport in Ulaanbaatar with 32 passengers. Passengers on the plane reported that the flight went without incident except noting that four men appeared to be drinking significantly – the four men who would play the part of hijackers.After most of the passengers had deplaned, the four men assigned by the Mongolian CIA to stage a fake hijacking, jumped up, brandished at least one firearm (others indicated there may have been more), and attacked the remaining passengers and pilot. One pilot who was let off the plane warned the leaving passengers to run and that the plane was being hijacked. Witnesses reported hijackers acting violently, injuring at least one woman, abusing the remaining pilot, tying him up.

The hijackers closed the plane door and it stayed on the tarmac for the next 90 minutes. The remaining passengers were escorted to a holding area for their safety. When the deplaning passengers made it to the holding area, word managed to leak out to the waiting families and friends that the plane had been hijacked and the free passengers were being held for security reasons. At this point someone began calling local media to report a hijacking. The hijackers aboard the plane continued to abuse the remaining passengers and made demands, including ordering the pilot to take off.

Some passengers were checked by a doctor after the ordeal. Immediately after the incident as passengers were released to the waiting crowd of family, friends, and media, many were interviewed by TV stations, including Eagle TV, about their ordeal. Multiple passengers reported that they were hijacked and scared. They reported witnessing physical abuses and that no one on board the plane or ground knew that the hijacking was an exercise. The pilots were obviously terrified, to the point that one witness said one of the pilots was unable to speak correctly.

During the hijacking, the media was trying to get a spokesperson from the airport or MIAT to clear up the confusion – was this a real hijack or an exercise? No one would speak until almost 1:30 when an official from the General Office of Civil Flight confirmed to an Eagle TV journalist by phone that the hijack was an exercise. Throughout the day as more details became known, including the name of the woman attacked, and various offices claiming responsibility, two government offices issues statements.

First, the Deputy Director of the CIA held a press conference (holding back the information from Eagle TV) declaring that the hijacking was a “planned action” and not a training exercise. The DD declared that weapons and possibly explosives were smuggled aboard the plane by their operatives and that it was “easy to hijack” a plane in Mongolia. Just before 10:00pm I received a fax from the Prime Minister’s office declaring the hijacking to be an exercise and that no normal citizens were involved. As a courtesy to the Prime Minister’s office we read that state three times, without journalist’s comments.

Now to the point: When the hijacking was declared to be a security exercise, as far as the Mongolian media was concerned, the story was over. In fact, even the initial reaction at Eagle TV was similar and by 2:00pm we segued into other programming. However, stopping the story at that point was an enormous error, in fact, the story was only beginning. That is why after realizing what we had in our hands we resumed our coverage less than 15 minutes later. Even by this time there were still many unanswered questions:

• Why was it necessary to attack real passengers for a security exercise?
• Who was the injured woman?
• How did the authorities handle what they thought was a real hijacking?
• What was the human drama going on behind the scenes, in the holding area, on the airplane?
• Who authorized the hijacking of a plane with passengers on board?
• Why did the four hijackers begin their exercise while passengers were still aboard?
• If this was an exercise, who was being trained?
• How did the hijackers get a firearm on board?
• What was the reaction of the airport authorities in Umnugobi when learning firearms had been smuggled aboard the plane?
• In fact, the CIA Deputy Director indicated that explosives may have been smuggled on board – who authorized smuggling explosives onto an airplane?

I could fill this website with questions for an investigative journalist or analyst, so could our viewers; in fact, THEY DID! While journalists from our competitors were busy with live criticism of Eagle TV’s coverage on their stations, our viewers were positing some of these and many other questions about the hijacking.

Isn’t that the journalist’s job?

The point that I wish to make here is very simple. It does not matter that the General Office of Civil Flight, the Mongolian CIA, or the Prime Minister’s office declared that the hijacking was just a test. Yes, we all acknowledge that all of these offices told the media and the public the truth – this was a test of the airport authorities to gauge their reaction to a terrorist hijacking. The first and most important question is, “Why was it necessary to assault real passengers, and victimize real families for the sake of a test?”

I already know the reaction that some will have to that question – because I’ve already faced it in internal discussions. “The authorities said that no normal citizens were involved.” Yet according to eyewitnesses that assertion is a lie. From the witnesses caught on tape at the airport, to those interviewed live on Eagle TV, to the accounts given by three MPs from Umnugobi Aimag, normal citizens were victimized, believing they were being hijacked. If multiple eyewitnesses assert the official line is an official lie, then why are you giving it an official pass?

The questions can (and should) go further. For instance, if the CIA successfully smuggled firearms and explosive on board the airplane, why was it necessary to proceed with the hijacking exercise? Did the CIA operatives smuggle explosives onboard? That’s seems unclear from the press conference. Wasn’t the successful smuggling of terror weapons enough to make a security evaluation? Did you have to hold real people hostage and assault them?

CIA Deputy Director Jargalsaikhan said quite clearly in this press conference, “We can say that explosives and weapons could be smuggled into Mongolian passenger planes without a problem. Therefore it is possible to hijack a plane using firearms and even explosives” My journalist friends, do you not see the opportunities that lie before you when confronted with even just this small statement out of a whole day’s news coverage? Why are you not asking the most obvious and important questions? In the case of Tuesday’s hijacking, every time an official opened their mouth, they were presenting you with numerous opportunities to hold them to account for one of the most ill-conceived and ill-managed security exercises in recent memory.

Imagine if these questions were posed to the Deputy Director:

• If you know explosive are sold at the Black Market and are a threat to national security, then what is the CIA specifically doing about it?
• You indicated that it is easy to steal explosives from the mining company’s warehouses. Which companies present the highest risk? What steps has the CIA already taken to tighten security around volatile materials at warehouses?
• Why are you giving public details on how easy it is to steal explosives and hijack a plane? From the perspective of national security, is this level of public detail really necessary or wise?

I haven’t even addressed other important angles: Was the operation legal? How will this botched exercise be evaluated and policies on such exercises changed? Will the hijackers be held to account for injuring citizens and being drunk on the job while using firearms on a fueled aircraft? Journalists: Who will call upon the mining companies to talk about security? Will you send video crews to the mining warehouses? The list goes on, but not – apparently – for the majority of Mongolian journalists – and that is a professional tragedy. This story is rich with opportunity, not just for journalism, but also for journalists to make a real difference in the nation’s security as well as government transparency by doing nothing more than asking a few probing questions, and keep asking and investigating until the answers become clear. For much of the day, as one foreign journalist told me, the facts of the story were unclear – and the majority of journalists did not pursue the angles necessary to make it clear. They only focused on being a conduit for official statements and criticizing the sole entity that was asking even a few of the more probing questions.

Journalism is not the practice of imitating a parrot, or taking the word of a spokesperson at a press conference and rewriting his words into your own words. Journalism is about getting to the truth. If the person behind the mic is telling the truth – verify it, then report it. Confront the speaker during the press conference. Don’t ask the question once. Rephrase it; ask it again. Summarize it and give it a new angle then ask it again. Don’t simply give someone a free pass when every eyewitness on the scene gives a contrary account to the official line as we saw on Tuesday. And when the eyewitnesses suddenly change their story – radically – later in the day, don’t give them a free pass either.

Investigate. Find out why.

To be journalists we must have more than a professional passion about reporting events. We must have a personal love affair with the truth. The lack of passion for truth is the first failing of all journalists. Without a clear and ambitious desire to discover the truth of a matter, and disseminate that truth to the viewers, listeners, and readers who depend upon us, then we cannot be trusted – period. Tuesday’s failure of journalists to pursue the hijacking story wherever it would lead was a demonstration of professional laziness. That many of them have turned to pressuring other journalists to drop the story reveals a lack of understanding of the issues presented, and a lack of journalistic passion for truth. It does not matter that it was a “test.” The journalist must ask, “Was it right?” And in case you think that journalism isn’t about this all-important question, then you must not be paying attention to the world at large. Isn’t that what journalists around the world are doing right now?

• Was the Iraq war a right decision?
• Does Iran have a right to nuclear arms?
• Is North Korea a global menace?

Visit any news site on the Internet and scour the headlines. The most important stories and controversies of our day always revolve around issues of right and rights, truth and corruption.

In the Bible, Jesus Christ is recorded as saying, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32). While Jesus was specifically referring to the testimony about himself, he was also presenting an important principle equally applicable to us all.

Truth brings freedom. It is imperative that the journalist pursue truth in his craft above else. It is for the discovery of truth that so many have worked so hard for freedom of press in the first place. Shall we let truth fall by the wayside now that we have freedom? If we do, will not freedom follow it?

The hijack story has been put to bed. All of the new stories that could come out of it, waiting to be told – most will never see the light of day. They will rest like a quiet bump under that thick Mongolian carpet, stepped over, but never quite noticed enough for anyone to wonder, “Why does the carpet bulge like that?” Why not peel it back and see what is there? Follow the trail of dirt where it leads – no matter where it leads – and then go find out who is supposed to clean up.

You may discover that in part, that’s the job of the journalist.