I know you are, but what am I?

In this nation's 250 some odd years of existence, we've had our full share of war and military expidentures. As with any war, it required from some the fullest measure of devotion and the ulitimate sacrifice: their very lives.

We honor those who have given their lives so that ours might remain secure. We celebrate holidays, establish memorials, and grant them a status of respect in our society.

Yet if you put all of those lost lives together, from all US wars, the number still falls apallingly short of the number of children aborted in the United States every year.

Not surprised? No, I wasn't either. The most recent development is the idea to clone an embryo and then harvest its stem cells.

Of course, fetuses, embryos, they aren't human. Not in the least bit. It's just a small cluster of cells...harvesting stem cells from an embryo is no problem, right?

But let's think about this. An embryo isn't human. It is formed of human tissue, nurtured on human food, and magically transforms into a human at some point after birth. It does not have the capability of setiency. That's got to be what makes it non-human.

Even though the embryo/fetus/child has human characteristics planned into him as early as the moment of conception, it's still not a human.

Is a catepillar somehow less a butterfly for being a caterpillar?

Everyone knows that the catepillar will eventually become a butterfly and will never again be able to fit into that tiny little cacooon. Yet no one suggests that a butterfly is somehow not a catepillar. It's just a name for a particular stage of development.

The same is true of pregnancy and birth. The embryo/fetus within the mother is not only a part of the mother, but the mother acts as a sort of caccoon.

Just as the captepillar stage does not preclude the catepillar from becoming a butterfly, there is no single stage at which a homo sapiens is not a homo sapiens.

Can't you just imagine the child within the womb listening with usually perfectly formed ears as a clinic doctor explains to his mother that he's really just an it. No more, no less than a blob of "itness".



Then, as the doctor prepares for the surgery, the child asks the question: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Safer for democracy?

It was Woodrow Wilson who, in a declaration of war, first coined the phrase "make the world safer for democracy". The phrase became an American institution, unfortunately, and is now touted as one of the many American mottos.

Yet three things must first be established before the literal phrase can be true. First, we assume that the US is a democracy, second, that the world can be made democratic, and finally, that in making the world democractic, we will have made the world safe for democracy.



First, we are not a democracy. I disagree with the rhetoric Wilson uses and every other president thereafter. We are not a democracy. Our founders have doubtless been spinning like tops in their graves with all this talk about democracy. Democracy is rule of the people. Each man represents himself. Our government is one of a representative republic. The people elect one to represent them, and the representatives rule with the people in mind.
So to make the world "safer for democracy" is a rather tough job irregardless of the state of man. Eliminating one man's supremacy over another is always difficult. Someone will always have the desire to be "top dog".

Second, it was not Wilson's intention to take democracy to every corner of the globe, reorganize governments, and inject the world with the serum equality. (unlike Bush). (Yes, WW was very idealistic and he probably had considered the idea, but for this particular war, that was not the intention.)

I do understand what Wilson meant, and I agree wholeheartedly with his intentions. America
was one of the few who could boast of a completely happy people contented with their political situation. If they weren't content, just wait four years. :-P (Someone needs to tell the Dems that. ) America was definitely different from the rest of the world, and we wanted to see that our interests were protected so that our people could continue in the happiness they had achieved.

It's all about America's best interests.

Not that of the world's or even that of our Allies. The American people should come first for our government. Wilson realized that American trade was being hurt, American lives were lost, and Wilson knew that the sooner the war ended the better off the American people would be. We went to war because Wilson and Congress firmly believed that it was in America's best interest to go to war.

Finally:

There was a humanistic trend which said "let's make the world safe for democracy by changing the society and the environment." The other side said "let's make the world safe for democracy by evangelizing, because regenerate man will make the world safe for democracy." In other words, one side seeks a regenerated society, and the other seeks a regenerated man.

The point is a good one, but the question remains.

Does/should the government of country A openly advocate the evangelism of the people of another country just to make the world safer for the government of country A?

Under our government set-up, the people are ultimately the movers and shakers of society. Government merely keeps it under control. The people, if they want the world to be safer period, will be the ones to take charge and evangelize and change the hearts and society of man.

Government is merely the watchdog of freedom and justice.

It is the people who must do the acting. The watchdog should only move if the people are threatened or if the watchdog is abused.

What has become of them?

"First I visited peoples who exist no more. I went and sat among the ruins of Rome and Greece, those countries of virile and brilliant memory, where palaces are buried in the dust and royal mausoleums hidden beneath the brambles."

It was amazing to me to read that in a short story and then be able to re-live my own traveling experiences.

There is something majestic and proud, and yet, deeply saddening about the ancient ruins of a great people. You wonder if they knew there would come a time when their mighty pillars would crack and crumble. Instead of their cities and citadels being the center of the Western world, it becomes a mere tourist center.

Even though I’ve only been once, I’ll never forget Rome; Rome with its massive columns, great ancient churches, and magnificent ruins.

Every time I remember Rome, I remember it with extreme diffusions of light. The morning sun shone directly in our faces as we mounted the steps to the Museo.


The same sun cast its illuminating rays on the ruins of the Roman forum directly behind the Museo. Proud ruins they were. Not beaten and bent over with age and wear, but tall and erect. Looking just as if nothing had been lost over two thousand years of standing there.

The forum was the very center of Rome. It was the place to go if you wanted food, company, or news; the market-place of the world where people, things, and ideas were bought and sold.


I always remember the Piazza Novanna at nightfall. The three fountains, the high buildings in the square that arose like walls with eyes out of the cobbled road, and the gypsies and artists lent an air of that which is modernly ancient. The nighttime sky was so very close though, to all of the slow activity in the Piazza.

(Ok and yes. If I get to pick, and if it’s possible, I’d love to spend two days of my honeymoon in Rome and the rest of my time in Siena, Italy.)

"O power of nature and weakness of man! A blade of grass will pierce through the hardest marble of these tombs, while their weight can never be lifted by all these mighty dead!"

How ironic it is that man can trample the grass so carelessly, but in the end, all that’s left behind is destroyed by yes, a single blade of grass. Despite all that the Romans worked for, achieved, and enjoyed, all that remains of them are what you see in these pictures. All things great and small, from the Forum and the Coloseum, to the fountains and small hill towns.

Ruins.

What has become of those figures whose fame was so widespread?

Time has taken a step and the face of the earth has been made over.


When you have a bit of time, I highly recommend "Rene", by Chateaubriand.


And no, it’s very far from just a good steak.

On the subject of Romance

I am becoming quite put out with people who either

a) demand to know why on earth it is that I do not have a boyfriend (being in such extreme old age)

or b) think they are completely serious about a member of the opposite sex in a romantic manner when they have not only done the EXACT SAME THING with another just a short time before, but they will likely be completely over said person within a month.



For the type "a" people:

I am not in a relationship with a guy because I firmly believe that relationships should be more than slightly serious.
God hasn’t sent me a young man who is seriously considering marriage just yet, and so there’s absolutely no point for me to cavort about with any other young man simply because I want a boyfriend. It could, just maybe, also be that I am simply not quite ready for a serious relationship.

And this brings me to the second group.

I think the type "b" people frustrate, sadden, and confuse me the most.

Example:

Susie likes Johnny. Johnny likes Susie. Susie and Johnny start dating. Susie calls Johnny her “Johnny Dear” and Johnny calls her his “Darling”. Two months later, it’s over.

Three months later, Johnny likes Mary and Mary likes Johnny. Mary calls Johnny her “Teddy Bear”, and Johnny calls Mary his “Darling”. A month later, it’s over.

Repeat process at least six times.

It confuses me because I wonder how on earth Johnny manages to refer to TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT GIRLS as “darling”. Yes, I realize girls do the exact same thing, but I’m making a point. The term of endearment isn’t so much the issue as it is the fact that Johnny is putting his arm around, holding hands with, and likely kissing Mary the EXACT SAME WAY HE DID SUSIE. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for Mary (and vice versa for Johnny). The party is lead to believe that he or she is completely unique and all the world to a particular person when he/she really isn't. How does a person go from being totally unique to totally non-unique in two-three months???

Anyone else slightly confused?

It frustrates me because it encourages a lack of commitment, a feeding of pride, and a lack of self control.

I mention pride for the following reason: Girls love to be able to boast about the guy who cares for them, guys love to brag to all the other guys about how great his girl is. It’s pride in an ownership. The ownership factor is completely natural.
The unnatural part is the fact that the parties involved have multiple ownerships before the final ownership. It's like buying a used car. The car has already been through mutliple ownerships. Sometimes, scars like a cigarette stain, or a spilled coke stain from previous owners remain on the vehicle despite all the efforts of the dealer to remove them. The same thing happens with people. The scars remain from previous relationships. All because the pride, the need to say somehow that "I am better/loved/needed/etc because I have a significant other" wouldn't be shaken. I say "wouldn't" because it could, and it can be shaken, but the decision was made to permit it.



Lack of commitment occurs when said guy and girl break-up. They simply don't want to put the time and effort into the relationship to get it to work. I think that's pretty self-explanatory.


Lack of self-control happens because both guys and girls seem to have a problem with keeping a tight rein on what they will and will not do before marriage. When I see young people dating at the age of fourteen, I see serious self-control problems. THERE IS NO POINT!!
When I see college-age and older people dating just for the heck of it, I see serious self-control problems.

Dating, courting, I don't care what you call it, is for the purpose of a culmination. It is intended to culminate in marriage. That IS the point.

If you’re just going to break up anyway, why do it to begin with?

Sure, dating's fun, getting to know a member of the opposite sex with a romantic notion in mind is always fun. It was DESIGNED to be fun. After all, it wouldn't be so common if it wasn't fun, right? But I would suggest that not having a point in dating (or whatever you want to call it) and doing it just for the fun of it, is like going to a dealership and test-driving a brand new Thunderbird just for the thrill of it and not even thinking about buying the car.


Finally folks, it saddens me because when a person becomes so accustomed to being emotionally involved with another person and then terminating that attachment with ease, we cease to treat each other as human flesh and blood. There is no consideration for the other party. I see people deliberately attach themselves to another individual, and then, for almost no real reason at all, they detach. From what I've seen, the first couple of times are really difficult.

But, like everything else in life, practice makes perfect.

Ever wonder why our divorce ratings are so high?


And remember the used car analogy?

What Johnny did with Susie affected the way she treated the guy she dated next, and so forth until she actually got married. What Susie did with Johnny affected the way he treated the girl he dated next, and the girl after that, and the girl after that.


I won't go into the fact that the family is God's institution and that Satan is trying so desparately to destroy it.

It was once said that the way to cut down an entire forrest in a day is to mow them down before they become trees.



Why do we make it so easy??

In the mood...

I walked into Starbuck's around 9:15 or so this morning, and immediately wished for my laptop and Plato's "Republic". (or "Nichomachean Ethics")

It's amazing what a decorating style and music will do for a mood.

From the modernly old walls and soft jazz music, to the presence of prestigious newspapers and chairs that were simply made for reading in, the shop simply radiates scholastic thought. It's like someone hangs out a big sign that says "Enjoy a quiet visit with a friend or study HERE".


And now for one of my pet peeves.

"The doctors, however, they might huff and puff, would not have
anywhere else on earth to go were a system of socialized medicine established in
the US, since socialized medicine has been established in all rich countries and
there are only so many jobs open in Saudi Arabia and the few other rich
countries that don’t have socialized medicine. (Those jobs also are severely
restricted by religion, ethnicity and gender.) "

His basic argument is that everyone else simply has better socialism that the US. Since the US has the worst socialisistic system, we should upgrade.

He definitely has a point.

If we're going to do something halfway, it's not worth it at all.

What he fails to take into consideration, however, (and this is where my peeve comes in) is that the US IS NOT everyone else. 0_o Shocking I know. The United States system of government successfully limits government action and interference with what I (and others) would call the free market.

So we (the govt) stretch ourselves to the very limit in trying to offer medicare systems, and yet still try to maintain a limited balance.

I am reminded of the fable of the boy and father taking their donkey to market. They started out using the donkey right, with the boy riding and the father leading. But then, someone points out that the father should be riding and the boy leading.

And then someone else (who else but a liberal? ;-) ) points out that the donkey was old and sick and needed to be carried.

You simply can't please everyone and definitely can't stradle the fence. At least, not for long.

Either we adopt Mr. Markowitz's propostion wholeheartedly, or a complete rejection is in order.

And now, I'm off to Corpus Christi.

~Rachel

A very wise Patrick Henry once remarked to young John Randolph during a senatorial race: "Young man, seek Justice, seek Truth, and you will live to think differently."

Well now, here I am.

"In vito, veritas"

In this, I see truth.

It is my aim that what I write here will be things that are aimed at truth, and will hopefully hit the mark. And even more importantly, when I write, I will do justice to my subject.

It's a bit late to be posting much along the levels of intelligent thought, but I hope to have something of substance soon.

~Rachel