Veritas vos Liberabit

conservatism preserved

2008-01-30T10:44:00.000-06:00

It's an understatement to say that there exists an enormous amount of controversy in this year's election over the ideal of conservatism. Should it be preserved intact? Should it change to fit new circumstances? What's special about it to begin with?

The general consensus among those of us who hold to the old school of conservative thought, however, is that conservatism will not be determined by party in this election, but by individual.
I think Russell Kirk put it best when he said:

If they are to lead this country, conservatives must appear to be, and in fact
must be, imaginative but reasonable people who do not claim that they will turn
the world upside down. Genuine conservatives know that man and society are not
perfectible; they are realistically aware that Utopia...means literally Nowhere.
It is one of the conservative's principal functions to remind mankind that
politics is the art of the possible."

That politics is the art of the possible must ever be the successful conservative candidate's message, that we do not operate in a vacuum, and that utopian ideals belong only in a utopia.

Everything from the war and illegal immigration to healthcare and tax cuts are encompassed in this category. If a candidate tries to put forward policies which do not meet the criterion of reality, then that candidate should not be a conservative's chocie.

We must first evaluate the choices set before us on the basis of our conservative ideas, and then determine the leader for the next generation of politics in Washington.

foreign policy and popularity

2008-01-20T15:29:00.000-06:00

Lots of polls show that foreign publics have a poor opinion of the U.S. Some people argue that this means the U.S. should change its policies to make them more popular outside the U.S. Others contend that foreign policy decisions need to reflect U.S. national interests, irrespective of their popularity.

Does the popularity of United States matter and should it affect policy decisions?

The question is definitely a very provocative one, but I'm glad it's been asked. It seems that most of the comments are ignoring all but recent history, and I believe that's a mistake.

With the close of WWII, America faced a decision that every great nation has had to deal with in the history of the world. America proved herself superior to every other nation in the world economically, technologically, and in fighting force. The regimes of Cyrus II, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, or Victorian Great Britain saw the opportunity and had the capability to conquer.
Like those mentioned, the world was ours for the taking. Especially with the power of the atom bomb to enforce our demands.

Yet we said no and chose to assist Europe and Asia and Africa with their rebuilding processes.
We respected the national sovereignty of each nation and refused to control their internal affairs. In fact, we tried to prevent Russia and China from taking advantage of weaker nations and established NATO.

[Ironically, the nations of Europe who received the most of our help nearly sixty years ago (a very brief span of history for Europe) would rather criticize our efforts than help out.]

The reason we said no is because America was never built to become an empire. In fact, it's against our very nature to do so. There was a HUGE debate over the acquisition of Louisiana because the people of that territory did not have a say in the matter. The same debate reappeared during the Spanish-American war, and whether America should retain the spoils of the victor. Our philosophy of government is based upon the principle of "the consent of the governed." As long as this remains the basis of our system of government, we will never attempt to conquer and control.

Now to the present day. There are three very important things that must be understood.
1) We've fought this type of battle before.
2) This isn't the first time we've been unpopular
3) Unpopularity does not mean that we're wrong.

For the first point, I refer back to the war we engaged in with the Barbary powers. For decades, these pirates roamed their corner of the globe and preyed upon cargo ships passing through the water they claimed as theirs.The crew were captured and either enslaved or sold for ransom to the country of their origin. With the exception of Britain, all other nations were in favor of simply paying the ransom. President Jefferson, however, chose to change that policy, and Britain was the only other nation to stand with us. We fought that battle with three countries [Algiers, Tripoli, & Tunis.]

The second & third points are quite self-explanatory. The reason we feel it so much in the present, however, is because communications have become infinitely more global. With the globalization of our communications, the individual citizens of world nations submit their opinions on someone else's philosophy of government without realizing that each nation is individually different. European nations tend to lump together because their boundaries, citizens, and governments have been so very fluid over the last three hundred years. Europe's never really understood the "American Experiment" and likely never will.

So as a direct answer to the question, US popularity shouldn't matter and while it's important to know foreign policy implications, the popularity issue alone shouldn't be a deciding factor to changes in our foreign policy.

On Courage

2007-11-14T20:12:00.000-06:00

Courage, as Noah Webster defined it, is:

Bravery; intrepidity; that quality of mind which enables men to encounter danger and difficulties with firmness, or without fear or depression of spirits; valor; boldness; resolution. It is a constituent part of fortitude; but fortitude implies patience to bear continued suffering.

At the end of that particular definition, Webster thoughtfully placed God's encouragement to Joshua:

Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest.
-Joshua 1:7

It's often been said that we usually aren't very courageous or brave until the need arises, or at least, only on rare occasions. When we think of bravery or courage, we think of soldiers, firefighters, policemen, and well, in a broader sense, simply those who protect others regularly.

But from what Webster says, courage is also patience to bear continued suffering.

If that's the case, it means that your grandmother who lives daily with her arthritis and back problems is suddenly much braver than we thought. Your parents, who daily deal with financial issues while striving to create a peaceful and happy home environment, are heroes. The man in the wheelchair who smiles as we pass him in the aisles at Wal-Mart has the courage that is necessary to simply live.

I wonder what it would do for our perspective on life if we saw ourselves as courageous?

Another sample of courage is found in the actions in this video. To declare our faith before the world is something all Christians are called upon to do. Yet you never really hear too much about it nowadays. In the times of our Founders, something like this would have been common and given a few words of encouragement. in today's times, though, it meant the sacrifice of potential political alliances, a few votes, and perhaps a small degree of alienation. This man, however, has single-handedly reminded those present that there is a larger purpose in life, and has certainly encouraged others to do the same.

Commentary on Conservatism

2007-06-04T13:46:00.000-05:00

I have been absent for quite sometime. I cannot say that that will be remedied at this point, but know that I start school in the fall, and somehow, I take out whatever thoughts are left over from classes and deposit them here. Why? Who knows. But I do feel better later.

Anyway, so the thoughts today run along the lines of conservatism.

For starters, I found an amusing and cute post by a blogger on the Washington Post site.

Whiny? Crazy? You Just Might Be A Conservative (Posted 03/21/2006)

You know that one loud, whiny kid in the supermarket yesterday? He's probably the future George W. Bush, according to a Toronto Star article about a study from the Journal of Research Into Personality.

"Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative," says the article. "At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals."

This story goes on to mention another study by John T. Jost of Stanford, one in 2003 that was roundly mocked by conservatives for lumping the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan and Limbaugh together as socially warped right-wingers. (Much of the mocking turned to anger when it was discovered that $1.2 million in taxpayer dollars helped pay for the study.) Whiny, socially warped, borderline insane - if that's true of conservative kids, how do red states ever find good public school teachers?

Of course, we should never question social psychologists in their line of work. They are, after all, professionals. So the idea that perhaps a small number of kids from the Berkeley area may not be a truly representative slice of the American population is just silly. Professor Jack Block, the author of the study, defends his work by explaining to the Star that "within his sample.... the results hold." Surely, his statistics professor is very proud.

Meanwhile, as the academy tells us that social ineptness, insanity, and insecurity can all be motivations for conservatism, the MSM doesn't want us to forget the other side of the scale: hence, Ruth Marcus's column in today's Washington Post. Marcus maintains that the real problem with George W. Bush is that he's too focused on being a manly man's man.

Apparently, this violent testosterone-fueled psychological imperitive - not a coherent and just strategy for defending America in response to the first major attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor - is the real reason for our war in Iraq. Oh, and Condi Rice? Don't worry, women can have manly envy, too. Clearly, Maggie Thatcher did.

If these columnists and scientists are to be believed, then President Bush is just a real-life version of Dr. Strangelove's General Jack D. Ripper - blustering, impotent and murmuring about conspiracies to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, just another spineless conservative wussyboy who has to prove he's a big brave man in cowboy boots.
This is ridiculous and wrong. It's always better to just let kids be kids and keep the psychologists out of the way - to follow the dictum of an aging hippie couple I know who, despite their pacifist beliefs, still let their boys run around playing army with sticks made into guns. After all, someone has to defend America.

In closing, I leave you with the words of Russell Kirk, who certainly summed up my thoughts on the conservative/libertarian issues. [FYI, in my book of political who's who's, Russell Kirk and Henry Kissinger are pretty close in the top of that list.]

Order, Justice, and Freedom
Yet the fact remains that this conservative movement does not march in lockstep. In one respect, this lack of unanimity is a virtue: it means that conservatives are no ideologues; they believe in diversity and individuality. Utopianism, oddity, and extreme positions, nevertheless, are not conservative virtues. Those failings are easily discerned in various aspects and factions of the growing drift rather clumsily labelled "conservative." Permit me to touch briefly upon some of these excesses.
One of them is the continuing obsession, particularly among some people well endowed with the goods of fortune, with economics. I do not mean to denigrate the Dismal Science. A good economic system has produced America's prosperity; and, still more important, it is closely connected with America's private liberty. Those "civil libertarians" who somehow fancy that we can reconcile an extreme of personal freedom with a servile and directed economy simply do not understand the great mysterious incorporation of the human race. And, as Samuel Johnson put it, a man is seldom more innocently occupied than when he is engaged in making money.
But economic activity is no more the whole of the civil social order than wealth is the sole source of happiness. Economic success is a byproduct, not the source, of America's success as a society. The sort of ignorant understanding to which I refer may be illustrated by one of the inimitable anecdotes of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. On one occasion, that compulsive traveller was addressing a gathering of Catholic businessmen in Detroit. At the conclusion of his remarks, a gentleman in the audience inquired, "Doc, do you know what history is?"
"Why, no," Kuehnelt-Leddihn replied. "Can you instruct me?"
"Sure. History is just economics, that's all just economics."
In the mind's eye, one may see the ironic Kuehnelt-Leddihn replying: "Indeed? Tell me, sir, are you a Catholic?"
"Sure. I just made a novena."
"What a pity, sir, what a pity."
"Why is it a pity I'm a Catholic?"-this belligerently.
"Because, sir, if you were not a Catholic, you might be made a professor at the Marx-Lenin Institute."
To embrace Marxist materialism and determinism in the name of another abstraction called "capitalism" is to deliver up one's self bound to the foe. Conservatives do defend a free economy; they defend it, however, as bound up with a complex social structure of order and justice and freedom, founded upon an understanding of man as a moral being. To reduce ourselves to economic determinists offering sacrifices to the great god Mammon is to ruin the prospects of all of us.
Sometimes allied with this economic obsession is the mode of belief which calls itself "libertarian." I willingly concede that there exist some very sensible and honorable men and women who allow themselves to be tagged with that label. Both F.A. Hayek and your servant reject the term; and we have our reasons, as men who have learnt considerable from Burke and Tocqueville. Those reasons, as applied to current controversies, have been sufficiently detailed recently in National Review by Ernest van den Haag.
Let me say here only a few words by way of general principle. Any good society is endowed with order and justice and freedom. Of these, as Sir Richard Livingstone wrote, order has primacy: for without tolerable order existing, neither justice nor freedom can exist. To try to exalt an abstract "liberty" to a single solitary absolute, as John Stuart Mill attempted, is to undermine order and justice-and, in a short space, to undo freedom itself, the real prescriptive freedom of our civil social order. "License they mean, when they cry liberty," in Milton's phrase.
John Adams and John Taylor of Caroline carried on a correspondence about the nature of liberty. Liberty as an abstraction, Adams said in substance, is either meaningless or baneful: there is the liberty of the wolf, and there is the very different liberty of the civilized human being. We owe our American freedoms to a well-functioning civil social order that requires duties as well as liberties for its survival.
I find it grimly amusing to behold extreme "libertarians," who proclaim that they would abolish taxes, military defense, and all constraints upon impulse, obtaining massive subsidies from people whose own great affluence has been made possible only by the good laws and superior constitutions of these United States-and by our armies and navies that keep in check the enemies of our order and justice and freedom. There is no freedom in anarchy, even if we call anarchism "libertarianism." If one demands unlimited liberty, as in the French Revolution, one ends with unlimited despotism. "Men of intemperate mind never can be free," Burke tells us. "Their passions forge their fetters."
Some momentary encounters become images that fix our future thought. When a college freshman, debating in Indianapolis, I happened to stroll into the great railroad station in that city, with my freshman colleagues; and we watched from high above the intricate shuttling of long trains in and out of the station. Because my father was a railroad engineman, I understood what care, precision, and complex scheduling necessarily were involved below. The functioning of a railway station, like the functioning of the American economic apparatus generally, like the functioning of the whole American society, was dependent upon a wondrously high degree of duty, discipline, and complex cooperation. I pointed out to my companions that ineluctable truth. The libertarians still have not grasped that point. It was well for the safety enjoyed by railway passengers that my father and other railwaymen were not libertarians: they did not permit their private interests, such as a glass of beer, to conflict with their duties. Yet those railwaymen were freemen, not ashamed of the American constitution.
Some of the people who style themselves libertarians, I repeat, in fact do subscribe to the body of common beliefs I mentioned earlier. What's in a name? Actually, they remain conservative enough. But as for those doctrinaire libertarians who stand ready to sweep away government and the very moral order why, that way lies madness. If the American public is given the impression that these fantastic dogmas represent American conservatism, then everything we have gained over the past three decades may be lost. The American people are not about to submit themselves to the utopianism of a tiny band of chirping sectaries, whose prophet (even though they may not have much direct acquaintance with his works) was ~ean Jacques Rousseau.
If they are to lead this country, conservatives must appear to be, and in fact must be, imaginative but reasonable people who do not claim that they will turn the world upside down. Genuine conservatives know that man and society are not perfectible; they are realistically aware that Utopia-including the dream-paradise of absolute, unfettered liberty to act just as the individual pleases-means literally Nowhere. It is one of the conservative's principal functions to remind mankind that politics is the art of the possible.

Killing Time...

2006-12-10T21:18:00.001-06:00

Dear Finals,

In a word: I'm terrified.

You possess the qualities of a tyrant without even trying, and trying to defeat you is a daunting chore. (I think you must have taken lessons from Machiavelli.)

You are omniscient because you often know the answers when I do not. You are omnipotent because you manage to consume at least two weeks of my life without even trying. You are omnipresent because you exist as a looming and impending occurence from August to December, from January to May, and in some cases, from June to August. Always, always always...

You invade my subconscious mind much like the barbarians invaded Rome (which was sacked in 410 BC); slowly but surely deconstructing my cognitive powers and making certain that I will retain absolutely nothing of value or relevance on the day you arrive.

Like the division of Europe during the Religious Wars (from 1562 to 1648) you divide my mind into several pieces and leave me to reconnect them. Once I've sketchily reconnected the thoughts you've scattered here and abroad, I seem to be predestined, elected, and chosen by you to a degree of everlasting tormet determined by the amount of studying I've completed by the time you requre an account of myself.

Finals, I. will. not. give. up.

My efforts for success will not be as futile as those of Guy Faulkes in the Gunpowder Revolution! I shall, like Augustus in 31 BC, piece together my scattered pockets of knowledge and connect them with thoughtful roads of wisdom and insight that will so astound my professors, that my finals will turn tail and run in the face of so formidable a Reformation!

I shall emerge triumphant, and on Tuesday, at 11:59 pm, I shall shout: IT IS FINISHED!!!!!

Sincerely,

- Rachel

P.S. Be nice to me. Please?

The Lord is "all that?"

2006-11-26T15:41:00.000-06:00

The New Book of Common Prayer
As I was lazily perusing the web on this delightful Sunday afternoon, this caught my eye. Apparently, the book of Common Prayers are no longer so very common, so the Anglican Church has decided to go with a much more "hip" version; specifically, the Hip Hop Prayer Book. To me, the title sounds a bit like something out of Dr. Seuss, but I'm certain no one minds that.

In late 2002, Reverend Holder identified the problem in his South Bronx Parish:
Since men in the South Bronx have a close to an 80 percent chance of being incarcerated at least once before they're 40, it's crucial to train the youngsters. But in the South Bronx, he encountered a bit of a relevancy barrier. It wasn't long before he proposed offering the first hip hop mass to his bishop, who promptly agreed.
According to a Beliefnet article, this movement isn't limited to the Episcopal.

He worked with Episcopal, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic clergy and lay people to create seven Friday masses in the summer of 2004, with the theme, "The word was made flesh and dwelt in the hood," adapted from the Gospel of John.

Dwelt in the Hood?
The Gospel is the Gospel whether it be hip-hop, the New Living Translation, or the King James Version, according to the philosophy of Reverend Holder. Yet I wonder...while I think there's some merit to making the Gospel easily understood, I'm not sure that I believe scriptural doctrine or continuity is going to remain the same when the words used now create drastically different connotations. Take for example, Psalm 23:

Psalm 23 as adapted by Ryan Kearse
The Lord is all that, I need for nothing.
He allows me to chill.
He keeps me from being heated
and allows me to breathe easy.
He guides my life so that
I can represent and give
shout outs in his Name.
And even though I walk through
the Hood of death,
I don't back down
for you have my back.
The fact that you have me covered
allows me to chill.
He provides me with back-up
in front of my player-haters
and I know that I am a baller
and life will be phat.
I fall back in the Lord's crib
for the rest of my life.

Saying that the Lord is "all that," connotates a different meaning than saying the Lord is "my Shepherd." The use of shepherd analogies, parables, and symbols are heavily utilized in Scripture and describe a picture of Christ. The Lord truly is "all that," but the phrase doesn't give you the same image and certainly doesn't tie key portions of Scripture together in the same manner the word "shepherd" does. There's more value in Scriptural diction than mere poetics.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt?
The Reverend's desire to communicate to his audience through all this is admirable, and it doesn't seem to have changed the concept of the passage. But before we all go chillin in God's hood, let's remember to not accept things at face value without first checking our facts. Sometimes, the common is much more extraordinary than we think.

Ya dig it ma homies? :-)

Of Wisdom and Knowledge

2006-08-20T16:16:00.000-05:00

Well, it is that time, once again.

Summer ends August 21st, and as of August 22nd, I will be the proud student in two classes: Theology of the Bible I, and History of the Western World I.

The thrill of random UPS packages showing up on my doorstep with return addresses to Amazon.com has certainly not diminished a bit since I wandered into the realm of higher education two years ago. All of them sound exciting, and I've already started a few of them.
[Yes, many at one time. *nod* That's the way to get 'er done.] One of my books, however, surprised me. just a little.

While reading the introductory chapter of "Western Heritage" by Kagan, I was bombarded with evolutionary statements of fact on the origins of civilizations that recalled images of grunting, half-naked cavemen with clubs. While I can't say that I've been forever scarred, it certainly made me wary of any other statements that made be projected by the author as truth.

Rather than ranting on the evils of darwinistic books in Christian educational institution that prescribes to a literal six-day creation, I'd like to take this moment to comment on truth in academic circles.

Some say truth is subjective, but since I will likely not face that viewpoint for some time, I won't address it here.

See, in this book, truth is an absolute. In fact, it assumes that I have been familiarized with the terms: paleolithic, neandrathal, and primordal soup and that I have already accepted the veracity of these very terms. Assuming that the author of this book were teaching my class, he would likely raise his eyebrows sympathetically at the naivette of the young lady who dared to comment on the lack of evidence for this primitive state of man. It is likely that he would not take the question seriously, for hasn't he been carefully perpared for it in his classes leading up to receiving his doctorate?

O the arrogance of a man who would assume that his words are truth because that is what he was taught!

Perhaps I seem over-hasty in condemning the author of our textbook to mere arrogant ignorance.

Yet put the situation to the test! The proud owner of a certificate proclaiming his status as a P.H.D. has undergone careful conditioning by the institutions he has graduated from. He has been taught to question all; to not place his confidence in what others know, but to know it himself. In short, he has been taught to be confidence in his own knowledge.

Of course, there are many exceptions to this rule. These are the men I fondly call the Moses of the academic world. Why? Because even in their education, they remembered humility, and that they are not to be confident in either the knowledege of others, or their own knowledge.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
-Psalm 111:10

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
-Proverbs 1:7

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
-Proverbs 9:10

Of course, this is not to say that we should all go off to seminary. No rather, we should seek first a knowledge that is higher than the ordinary, and apply the principles we learn there to the knowledge gained from college or the "higher" education.

Moses obtained his degree in the backside of a desert and was qualified to confer in diplomatic talks with one of the most powerful rulers of his day.

David obtained his degree while at the Shepherd's School of Hard Knocks and became one of the most well-known kings in history. Who doesn't know who "King David" was?

In the end, it doesn't matter how many initials you have after your name. What matters most, is how that head knowledge is applied. Will it be applied in arrogance? or in humility?

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Of resumes

2006-04-13T15:21:00.000-05:00

So I was thinking about what it would take to accumulate an impressive enough resume to get away with working good job in Washington DC without having a degree. Whimsical thinking, I know. But it's something I want to do before I die. At any rate, the resume.

I was reading through the brief biographies we had and then I saw JQA's. It's defintely a source of inspiration...and motivation. The kid was an ambassador to Prussia at MY AGE!

John Quincy Adams (1767-1848; Massachusetts) Son of John and Abigail Adams; accompanied his father to France (1778) sent to St. Petersburg as Secretary to the Minister to Russia (1781); served as Secretary to John Adams during the peace negotiations ending the American Revolution (1783); U. S. foreign ambassador under President George Washington to the Netherlands (1794) and Portugal (1796); under President John Adams to Prussia (1797-1801); under President James Madison to Russia (1809-14) and England (1815-17); a member of the Massachusetts legislature (1802); U. S. Senator (1803-08); Secretary of State under President James Monroe (1817-25); member of the Massachusetts Bible Society (1818); vice-president and long time member of the American Bible Society (1818-30); sixth President of the United States (1825-29); member of the U. S. House of Representatives (1831-48) where he was known both as “Old Man Eloquent” for his defense of the antislavery cause and as “the Hell-Hound of Slavery” for his intense opposition to slavery.

I don't know that I have any hope...

Google rules the world...

2006-03-19T21:33:00.000-06:00

My favorite? "Your Brain."

Impeachment isn't just peach fuzz

2006-03-18T21:13:00.000-06:00

It all makes sense to make sure we have an independent judiciary. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have had rulings like Marbury v. Madison, or even Nixon v. US.

Yet I think that this must be an entirely separate issue from the "impeachment of civil officers" for a few reasons.

First, as we've seen discussed in the fed papers, the founders were definitely concerned about the separation of powers and the balance of powers. They were aware that if any one branch received all the powers, the result would be tyranny. Hence, the concept of checks and balances is adopted. Adopting a system of checks and balances in turn, means that each of the branches have a horizontal rather than vertical relationship with each other. In other words, no one branch is higher than another. [There is no "top" or "bottom" on a horizontal line.]

Second, the founders recognized the judiciary as the "weakest branch." The primary reasoning behind this view was the lack of legislative ability, or enforcement power, of the judiciary. At least, that's the way it was for the first hundred years or so.

Recently, we’ve studied cases in which the judiciary misinterprets (either deliberately or through misallocation of logical skills) past precedent and grants itself greater powers than its original purpose. This has been identified by general consensus as an abuse of office.

So the question is this: Did the founders consider or install any means whatsoever whereby the other branches could effectively check the abuse of office by the judiciary?

Coercion through money or jail are out of the question because it is completely unethical. Even though Congress sets the salary, they can't deliberately lower the salary of a justice to get him to cooperate with their demands.

Impeachment, then is the method by which a violations must be dealt with.

We also know that when a senator or congressman abuses his office by either not representing the people or conduct that compromises his office, he is voted out or is impeached.

When a president abuses his office, the legislative branch can call for an impeachment of his person. The executive branch’s check is both legislative (the power to over-ride a veto) and the judiciary (the power to rescind exec orders).

Simply because the justices were not specifically mentioned in the constitution as impeachable does not preclude the capability.

Even though the Supreme Court was originally supposed to try impeachment cases (and therefore could not try be charged with trying one of its own members) is also not a reason for denying a punishment for an over-active judiciary.

First, these arguments directly contradict the very methodical and logical set-up of checks and balances found within our constitution. Why institute checks and balances and then exclude one branch from the system of accountability by making them immune to impeachment?

A justice who is aware he could be impeached for an abuse of office would tread more carefully in areas that he (or the very rare “she”) would consider “gray.”

Second, the constitution directly provides for the impeachment of justices for an abuse of office.

Did the founders consider or install any means whatsoever whereby the other branches could effectively check the abuse of office by the judiciary?

The answer to my first question, I believe, is a resounding “yes.”

What, then, qualifies as "an abuse of office?"

According to the Constitution, an abuse of office would constitute: "Treason, high crimes and misdemeanors."

We all know what treason is, so I’ll start with crime. We normally think of it as a simple violation of law.

So if we catch a justice in black robes robbing Patrick Henry College professors of their red pens...It's just a bit ludicrous to assume men so qualified capable of committing such blatantly obvious crimes.

A misdemeanor, then, is where our attention must be focused.

Webster’s 1828 defines:

MISDEME'ANOR, n. Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement.
1. In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors.

Technically misdemeanor and crime are synonymous. But note Webster’s explanation of the usage; he lets us know that a misdemeanor is typically used to describe an action that is less offensive than an outright crime.

Also, under the definition of crime, Webster details the action committed in order for a misdemeanor to result:

“But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c. The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.
Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured. But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.”

While a crime would entail a direct offense against "the laws made to preserve the public rights," references to a misdemeanor would be an indirect offense against the public rights.

Based upon the evidence, the conclusion is quite simple.
Justices can be impeached for abuse of office.

If this is truly the case, why is it that no one has the courage to do so?

For Whom the Bell Tolls

2006-03-18T15:20:00.000-06:00

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
~John Donne

Today, amidst tears of grief, celebration, and apathy, Slobo Milosevic was laid to rest in his hometown on his family's estate in Serbia.

No man is an island...

The history of this man's actions, and their consequences, is no secret from the world. Responsible for some of the most violent ethnic cleansing initiatives since WWII, many wonder how he still managed to acquire the tens of thousands of supporters at his funeral this morning.

The concept, though, is understandable. People relate to those most like them, or those who represent something to be attained. As the face of the Socialist Party, Milosevic represented the common good, or the good of society and he held the values of an atheist. The people were tired of dry religion, and they were ready to see someone in office who truly cared for the people.

Any man's death diminishes me ...

After eleven long years ending in a "revolution" of sorts, it seems impossible to think that such a man still has supporters. I wonder, though, if people really know what it is to be a leader anymore?

Should a leader simply express concern for the people? Does a leader seek positions of power? How should a leader behave when confronted with things like slander or libel? Does a leader seek his own gain? A general consensus of current quotations on leadership reveal an interesting fact:

Precious few mention that he who leads must serve.

They mention things like inspiration, influence, teamwork, responsibility. All good qualities, certainly. But how do those things happen? Why is a leader inspirational? How does he/she
obtain influence? Why would a leader be involved in teamwork? How should a leader be responsible?

If these are the only qualifications for leadership, Milosevic had it all. He inspired those under him to deeds that even now, face the scrutiny of the UN for genocide crimes. He influenced those around him to hold certain standards of ethics; that one type of man is better than another type. He encouraged teamwork; working together as a unit gets more done than just one man. And he was ultimately held responsible before the world for his actions.

I am involved in mankind...

But surely, surely, there is something more? It used to be taught that before a leader is looked up to, he is first looked down on. When a man can prove himself a servant, only then, can he be trusted as a leader. Why? It's true that a leader must uphold the best interests of the people he leads. That concept has almost become cliche through over-use and generalization.
What does that mean?

A leader does not need to have experienced every situation that each of his people have been through in order to know the best interests of the people. He serves them best by finding where their values lie and enacting policies that reflect that.

Milosevic was not a leader by that definition. The people valued life, standard of living, and a government that was open to the people. Milosevic valued selected life, standards of living for the few, and a government that governed the people with an iron rod of authority.

There is nothing to admire about a man who did his best to see his own gain rather than the gain of the people he served, and it is sad to see a people deceived into thinking that a great man ignores the values of the people.

It tolls for thee...

What is worth mourning, however, is our lost concept of what a leader truly is. When the people ignore the servant's aspect of leadership, then that man is nothing more than a benevolent dictator; he uses his office to serve himself rather than to serve others.

Even though Slobo Milosevic was "just one man," his burial symbolizes something greater. The people who came to respect him and ignore his faults, who proudly carried his portrait, who chanted his name in real grief...This is the tragedy.

Yes, the death of a man, and especially one such as Milosevic, affects everyone, but the slow death of the value of leadership should surely sound the death knoll for all.

Boerne revisited and other issues...

2006-02-21T11:46:00.000-06:00

I was reading some of the Washington Post headlines this morning and one caught my eye. The article (on the partial birth abortion case headed to the SCT) contained a link to the actual law in question. (at least someone on the Post staff knows how to research!) At the beginning, under Section 2, (8), I saw something that reminded me of Borne v. Flores.

However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the United States Congress is not bound to accept the same factual findings that the Supreme Court was bound to accept in Stenberg under the "clearly erroneous" standard. Rather, the United States Congress is entitled to reach its own factual findings; findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference; and to enact legislation based upon these findings so long as it seeks to pursue a legitimate interest that is within the scope of the Constitution, and draws reasonable inferences based upon substantial evidence.

Like the birth of the RFRA, the partial birth ban was carefully crafted to both recognize and deny Supreme Court precedent. Each branch seems to have a knowledge of how things are supposed to be run, but in the end, they wind up making decisions that often contradict that knowledge. 'Separation of powers' is touted in concept, but denied in practice. Boerne is most certainly one such case.

The buzz in recent SCOTUS news, though, has been all about O'Connor's replacement: Samuel Alito. His first day on the bench was intriguing, especially in the eyes of the Post, but so far nothing to shock anyone. Yet Alito has the vague reputation of supporting the ban. With Alito in the picture, it will likely mean Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all vote together. I don't hope for a majority win in this case, but perhaps, perhaps...we could snag a Stevens or Breyer.

All in all, I do wonder what the Partial Birth Ban's fate will be in Gonzalez v. Carhart.

I saw this earlier today, and I tend to agree. Definitely priceless.

I am all about Cruise Missiles.

Dear Rachel?

2006-02-17T11:42:00.000-06:00

*In an attempt at sattire, the following is completely fictitious and has no bearing on current events. Or does it?*

I recently received a letter from the UN asking for advice on how to force the United States to close its Guantanamo Bay prison facility. I shall post my response here:

Dear United Nations Human Rights Council,

Esteemed members, I was deeply gratified to receive your letter of yore and would consider it a great honor to advise your future actions.

First, since you really hold no legal sway over the United States, you’ll have to use persuasive tactics in order to bring Washington around to your noble motive. As history has proven time and time again, it is the people of the United States who really run the show. Thanks to a lack of accurate civic and historical education over the last sixty years, it’s not terribly difficult to make Americans think their country stinks, even if it really doesn’t. So you’ll have to present your case to the court of American public opinion before the American government will pay any attention to your cries. Americans have always responded to the calls of justice and equality. Those should be your sticking points.

Second, the American press is your best friend. Since the Nixon scandals, the press has become an enlightened member of the elite society who really knows what’s going on in the world. They tend to agree with us on Bush’s real status as a dictator even though the rest of America has not recognized it yet. They still enjoy scooping one another; so keep the various newspapers in the highest state of anticipation about your report through as many strategic ‘leaks’ as possible. Remember, the object is to convince the American people. With utmost respect to the members of the Council, reports that stretch longer than ten pages and contain l larger words than two syllables are generally considered very dull. But if a reputable paper, such as the New York Times, the LA times, or the Washington Post (?) has been dangling juicy bits of scandal and intrigue, you’ll have them all right where they need to be. Ready to pound down the great doors of Congress and pull apart the White House in order to achieve justice.

Finally, remember that there is strength in numbers and something that has been said once definitely bears repeating. Just because the allegations of naked prisoners, flushed Korans, and the denial of trial have already been propagated before is no reasons not to repeat them in stronger force. Yes, the US has already responded to these attacks, but it’s been said that if you repeat a thing often enough, the people will believe it; that my friends, is your ultimate goal.

I hope this missive has been helpful to you as you lay your plans for the onslaught. Just remember to keep the press one step ahead of the Republicans and don’t worry so much about the truth. As the honorable Albert Gore Jr., the one who invented the internet, once said: : “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

Best Wishes,

Rachel

P.S. In the unlikely event your campaign to remove GTB from the list of US prisons backfires, change the subject to Iran.

Princess Rachel and Mohamed

2006-02-07T19:17:00.000-06:00

Of Princesses

Most little girls, when they are very young, like to play house, take care of their dollies, and most of all, they love to dress up in old finery; long forgotten by its original owner, the cast-off clothing takes on new life in the mind of little girls as they pretend that they are grand princesses who hold high tea (really it's water) with a fine gentleman or an elegant lady (teddy bears and dollies serve this purpose quite nicely).

I never could get into the princess part. I didn't want to be in a castle, but I did dream of fine dinner parties, candle-lit ballrooms, and a bit more, well, in charge.

As I flipped through some of our art resource books in the library at work today, those childhood dreams came flooding back. Images of grand parlors, inaugural balls, and the stately decorum of the Capitol building gently settled into my consciousness.

Having actually been there a couple of times, it wasn't hard to close my eyes and actually feel the wind on capitol hill, hear the pigeons, and remember the feeling of seeing my first protestor.

Yes, I love DC.

I know it's one of the most dangerous cities in the US, and I know that if you're not a criminal, you're probably a crook. Going over the history of our capitol, though, and discovering the things that are there makes me want to find a roomate, pack up and move tomorrow.

At the very least, I caught myself planning to spend a week there if I don't make it to PHC this fall.

But enough of that...I have more important things to speak of: namely, our wimpy press.

Freedom of the Press

I know, it's nothing new. In fact, it's as old as the Nixson administration. I just can't understand, though, how it is that out of thousands of employees, not one columnist, editor, or reporter has had the guts to republish the crazy mohamed cartoons.

First, let me say that I think the muslims are reacting like so many international four-year olds. There is absolutely no good going to come of burning, pillaging, rioting, and otherwise making a scene.

Finally, I shall also add that I find all but maybe TWO of those cartoons actually amusing. The others are either quite sobering, or downright boring.

I'll identify my favs...no worries.

This one was rather boring, to my mind. Much like a sunday school image. Anyone offended? No? ok. We'll keep moving.

This one was actually quite cute. Offensive? Hardly.

This one could be adopted as a national symbol. It's kind of neat looking. But I guess that shows how much I know about Muslim sentiments.

Now THIS one was funny. Truly worth a laugh or two, with a nice message behind it - just like a good political cartoon.

I don't know why, but I found this one amusing too. The women can see, and the men can't. So HA!.

Yeah guys, chill out, ok already?

Ah yes. Bombhead.
I like it. And it's accurate. Muslims are always so proud of their suicide bombers. They go on the internet and claim them with pride. They make tapes without subtitles and drive each other into religious frenzies over the celebratory acts of their comrades.

Ok, even though I haven't the foggiest as to what the "orange" is doing there, it induced a giggle.

Why, O why...

... can't we all be more like this:

"Ok class. The topic of tonight's discussion is going to be the constitutionality of throwing the SuperBowl refs into Lake Michigan."

Til next time...

Pressing On

2006-02-06T20:33:00.000-06:00

As I sit in front of a blazing fireplace (but not too close!) with my pineapple-upside-down cake, milk, and con-law materials, I'm struck with how simply complicated life can be.

The scene around me is perfectly simplistic and I am quite contented.
In fact, life in general has me completely happy. I guess what becomes complicated is maintaining the status quo. The next day is never something to fear, but there are always the insignificant details that somehow make me wish I could always just live in the moment that has me the most contented.

As I was running today, though, I realized that if you don't keep moving, (especially when you're as out of shape as I am), you loose your nerve to press on. A stationary position is ok for a minute or two, but after a while, well, there's nothing that frustrates me more than an unchanging atmosphere.

In short?

I like the way Paul said it:

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

This is what dreams are made of?

2006-01-26T11:48:00.000-06:00

So Starbuck's is always inspiring...on my lovely grande cup of cinnamon dolce latte, the following was inscribed:

"Imagine we were all the same. Imagine we agree about politics, religion, and morality. Imagine we like the same types of music, art, food, and coffee. Imagine we all look alike..."

And that brought to mind another quotation...

"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started."

Moral? Don't close your eyes when you day-dream.

Numbers 'n Stuff

2006-01-25T10:25:00.000-06:00

The Census Bureau

The Census Bureau needs to get its act together. Seriously.

They don't have the national average age of the American population and we're supposed to think of them as experts??

Whatever.

At least they keep their facts relevant: Texas rules the roost by an outstanding majoity.

Texas is now our second
most populous State with
a 1994 population of
18.4 million.

California had the highest
amount of net domestic out-
migration of any State
between 1993 and 1994,
with a net loss of 426,000
people to other States.

The South is the most pop-
ulous region of the Nation
and gained the most popu-
lation between 1993 and
1994.

Theology courses
A critic (liberal, of course) once described PHC as the "Bible college that turns out politians." Funny how accurate that really is.
Con-law has actually been quite interesting. It's amazing how nearly all my courses turn into a three/four month-long discussion on theology. This time around, though, I might actually discover some legal principles. (insert wink)

The Well-Armed Lamb

Today, I was hunting for the authenticity of this quotation attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Well, the quotation has been added to the list of the "unconfirmed." I still think it's brilliant.

Then I started thinking about that well-armed lamb and realized that it fit me perfectly!

Rachel means "lamb" and Leotta means "lion." I'd call that a fairly well-armed lamb.

Final thoughts?

Must. Have. Coffee.

Life goes on...

2006-01-17T13:57:00.000-06:00

I realize it's been a while since I've posted here. A long while, actually.

I should be crawling out of the woodwork soon, though, as I become more politically knowledgable. Lately, I've been blissfully non-opinonated in my thoughts as only a very small portion of them are ever dedicated to politics or current events in general.

Why the change? I'm starting school again.

That's right. Rachel's back in PHC DL courses...look out world.

At any rate, until my political consciouness is fully aroused, know that coffee is fully functional at whatever temperature.

That's right.

- When coffee is piping hot, it keeps you awake.

- When it's just right, it still keeps you awake

- When it feels like you've just downed an brownish iceberg, it will still keep you awake.

Hence, coffee is one of the few things I can think of in this thought-repressed moment that fulfills its function no matter its temperature.

That is all.

Suffer the little children...

2005-06-05T23:38:00.000-05:00

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14

Today, Governor Rick Perry signed into law the Parental Consent Bill and adopted the Marriage Amendment Act in the gynmnasium of Calvary Cathedral International in Ft. Worth.

It was anything but a typical political rally.

The protestors were normal. The location (in a scholl gymnasium) was semi-normal. The presence of legislators and a governor and the press was also fairly normal.

Yet, the atmosphere could easily be found in church on a Sunday morning.

A praise team sang songs of praise and worship as the 200 some odd attendees found their seats in folding chairs on the padded gymn floor or in the bleachers in the back. The meeting was opened with prayer. Each speaker was not only introduced by a pastor, but the three speakers preceeding the governor were all ordained ministers.

In each speech, their focus remained unified. Talk of values, of the future, of morals, and most importantly, each speech focused on children.

Yes, that's right. Each speech's underlying theme was children.

Isn't it intriguing that every major piece of liberal legislation and ideology ultimately affects or is directed at children?

Parental consent for a minor to have an abortion; education laws; under-age drinking and smoking; tax dependent status; marriage laws; stem cell research; health and safety codes; immunizations; paid leave of absence for military men; affirmative action; and the list simply goes on.

Jesus valued the little children and sought to protect and cherish them.

The liberal left in our society would seek to leave them unprotected. The "if they don't sink, they'll swim" and "survival of the fittest" axioms are imposed on them from day 1 under a liberal rule.

It is an interesting concept is it not? If the children are taught that spaghetti was originally a Canadian idea, italian resturaunts twenty years into the future will either no longer carry spaghetti, or it will have changed its menu to include non-Italian foods.

To know that the future is in our children is an extrememly motivating concept.

Let the battle rage on...but always pray that the righteous come out on top.

Freedom in faraway lands...short-term solution to a long-term problem

2005-05-21T13:12:00.000-05:00

We're seeing it on a wider-scale than ever before. The idea that freedom and democracy can be propogated and planted in any and all countries. The United States see itself as a beacon of hope to the rest of the world, and seeks to pass that torch to any country that expresses even the teensiest spark of interest.

CNN- President Bush
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/21/bush.radio/
"We're helping Afghanistan's elected government solidify these democratic gains and deliver real change. A nation that once knew only the terror of the Taliban is now seeing a rebirth of freedom, and we will help them succeed."

Islamic Republic News Agency
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0505101072171607.htm
Later during a press conference in reply to a reporter's question on foreign missionaries, Karzai said they were not welcome if they wanted to convert Muslims.
"Afghanistan is a Muslim country. Afghanistan's constitution is based on Islam. For missionaries to come to Afghanistan and try to preach and turn Afghans into other religions .. naturally no religion, no people would like that.''

destiny and desire

2005-04-22T14:50:00.000-05:00

...it was never meant to be
But it's just something we have no control over and
that's what destiny is
But no more worries, rest your head and go to sleep
Maybe one day we'll wake up and this will all just be a dream

Destiny gets blamed for so much in ignorance, but then I wonder how ignorant we really are.

All the world's a stage, after all, and we each enact our own insignificant dramas. We don't always follow the script.

Man is often more like Pirandello's description of "Six characters in search of an author"

We already have our roles mapped out...we don't like the idea of someone else taking over and defining who we are and how we should react to life's obstacles.

We see things the way we want to rather than looking to the Author of it all...

In reality, our destiny is always the result of what we desire.

Thoughts of the day

2005-04-19T23:30:00.000-05:00

Thoughts of the day: 4 digits, plus 6 digits, plus 5 digits equals three hands. Or three feet.

In which case, 4 digits, plus 6 digits, plus 5 digits equals one yard.

I am thinking way to hard about this-moving on.

You know entertainment must have been in its primitive stages when, in the National Intelligencer of 1853, the difference between dust and mud made front page headlines.

My, how far we've come.

I think I'd rather know about dust and mud rather than some of the other things floating around out there. At least I'm discovering a little bit more about myself and my fellow man that's actually thought-provoking.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It was also the opinion of the National Intelligencer in 1853 that we would eventually run out of names within the next century. For the rest of our time here on earth, no one would have an original name.

Finally, I love my job, in part, because I am good at it. But the primary reason I love doing what I do is because I know that in combing a disintegrating newspaper from the 1850s or exhaustively searching Google for the answers to life, congress, and the universe, I am furthering the cause of another.

I am the person in the background.

But I am content to be there because I get to see the fruit of my labor blossom into something that I myself could never develop or present.

"Self-esteem may arise within any occupation at any period. A chef, a surgeon,
or a scholar may be proud, even to arrogance, of his skill; but his skill is
confessedly the means to an end beyond itself, and the status of the skill
depends wholly on the dignity or necessity of that end."

"The Discarded Image" ~CS Lewis

And now, my paper calls my name. Loudly and quite insistently in fact.

Reminds me of a certain four-year old i know.

How long?

2005-03-25T11:06:00.000-06:00

Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?

The Federal and district justices in our court systems have gotten so far out of hand over the last forty years, that they believe themselves to be not only invincible, but infallible. Facts and logic are irrelevant. The courts have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done.

They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?

According to our courts, we must be so tolerant of others that if our own inheritance is ignored, that's a sacrifice we must make on the alter of First Amendmentism. The Ten Commandments are the foundational statements of our laws, yet at the risk of offending a few, they must disappear.
More importantly, hedonism has replaced the value of life.
Roe vs. Wade and similar decisions have effectively opened the door for society to errase so much potential.

Weeping seems to be the appropriate thing to do when I reflect that each of the tiny lives destroyed were not mere babies that smile and gurgle and mess and cry. They would have gone through the process of life. They would have grown up to affect other lives, and be affected by the lives around them.

What have we missed?

Now, not only are the lives of the unborn under constant fire, but the lives of the mentally incompent right along with them. Not only does the court assert the right to say how you can live and precisely when you are alive, but they can now dictate when life is ended.

If the courts can dictate when life begins, why shouldn't it be able to tell you how to live, what constitutes a quality life, and when your life is over?

How much longer will we put up with this treatment in a government that was instituted by the people, for the people, and of the people?

We do not live under the rule of a tyrant, but we behave like we do.

Or perhaps we are merely so complacent and comfortable in our own comfort zones that anything outside our little bubble doesn't bother us.

See, hear, and speak no evil?
As Christians, how should we respond? Sure it's easy to keep our heads in the sand and mutter about church activities, school, and the price of gasoline. We are, after all, not citizens of this earth, but of a heavenly kingdom.

Yet our purpose on this earth is not to merely wait to be taken home. Our purpose is to present Christ to others so that those others can come home with us.

How do we present Christ to others when we permit those same others to be effectively murdered before they even have a chance at life?

How long?

**************************

For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.

But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.
~Psalm 94

My little mirrors

2005-03-22T03:02:00.000-06:00

For around 15 years or so, the phrase "Be careful what you do; you never see the little eyes that are watching everything you do." has been a regular part of growing up as the eldest in a family of five children.

The truth of that statement has never ceased to alternately amuse, frighten, and anger me. But over the years, it's become more or less a fact of life and one that gets easily pushed into the background.

Now, however, after reading this article, the thought deserves to be revisited.

I've recently begun helping to teach the 4th grade girls Sunday School class at church on Sunday mornings.

Every single one of those girls are precious and unique. They will all grow up one day to be young women and fill different functions in church, home, and society, touching countless lives with their words and actions.

But what I find most interesting, is that they pick up on anything and everything that I do and say. One girl has already talked about pulling her hair up like I ocassionally do with mine.

If the way I wear my hair is such an influence, what do my attitudes and reactions teach them?

O for the knowledge that I won't mess up; that they will never learn habits that will drag them down from me.

Brevity is the soul of wit...

2005-03-21T18:46:00.000-06:00

So these shall be brief...

1. Terry Schavio's legislation is yet another example of unecessary, but forced government intervention. Government cannot intervene where the people will not permit, yet the people have now permitted, and Congress has now interevened. Terry Schavio's case is indeed an unfortunately sympton of the illness present in our society, yet who is supposed to take care of that illness? Certainly not the government. Perhaps I have made a mistake. This topic will likely reappear on this blog.

2. ANWR nuts are really just, well, nuts. Barring any and all international implications, it does seem that Congress is determined to assert US rights over the Alaskan domain. How they do it and when they do it is still left to speculation. But I say: it's about time.

3. Kim Jong is like a six year old with a loaded M16. He knows he dangerous, but doesn't know when to quit. Despite all the militants who would love for the US to simply waltz in and take him out too, I think we can quietly wait this one out. Proverbs actually says something along these lines...Something about negotiating with fools?

4. Umbrella of vaccination? While I appluad the elimination of a dangerous illness, I remain a cautious skeptic of vaccinations. Are they as necessary for national health as we think they are? And are they really as safe for the women and young girls who take their injection as we would like to believe? (hmm, perhaps another blog topic up-coming)

5. Amazing the types of things China will report...Rather reminds me of Woodrow Wilson and his mistress. The British Ambassador at the time was said to have remarked: "She was so surprised when he proposed. She fell out of bed." What goes around comes around, eh?

History tests should be multiple choice and no longer than an hour.

Spring break is a beautiful concept.

Save the _last_ dance?

2005-03-20T21:24:00.000-06:00

You can dance-every dance with the guy

Who gives you the eye, let him hold you tight

You can smile-every smile for the man

Who held your hand neath the pale moon light

But don't forget who's takin' you home

And in whose arms you're gonna be

So darlin' save the last dance for me

*********

The song is cute, and yet, touches something a bit deeper than just a wink and a nudge.

(Micheal Buble's new CD, "It's Time", is completely awesome, by the way.)

But perhaps, in our society's mind, the last dance is all any man has the right to ask for...

After all, if he's out of sight, he's out of mind; right?

He should understand.

I mean, a girl just can't sit around waiting for Prince Charming to come charging up on the white horse.
There are parties to have fun at, guys to meet, who knows?

Prince Charming may be at the party. You don't know who he is anyway, better to leave no stone unturned, no man untried...you just might miss him altogether.

Wouldn't that be a tragedy? to miss PC because you didn't try?

If Prince Charming just so happens to get the first dance, heavenly miracle! If not, it's all good. He gets the last one anyway.

Is it just me, or does that attitude strike anyone else as incredibly flippant and totally self-reliant?

Ladies, why can we not be content to know that if we seek first Christ, all these things will be added to us? Why must we be "on the hunt"?

Even when some guy does approach you first, don't compromise because you don't know if he's the one or not. God will not give you someone that you'll have to compromise to keep.

If your priorities are right and consistent, you'll have the entire party to save for the one who takes you home.

Just some thoughts...

Tempus fugit et nos fugimus in illus.

2005-03-09T21:19:00.000-06:00

There is nothing more intensely stirring to the senses than the aura of candlelight offset by the glow of the computer screen in front of me.

It's easy to contemplate things like life, eternity, values, and time because there doesn't seem to be another living soul in the world to bring me back to reality.

I think one of my greatest fears has been that I will somehow mess up God's plan for my life. I know that God has His best for me, but somehow, I've always had this idea that its realization is contingent upon me "being good". Like a child before Christmas, I had the idea that if I wasn't good, I wouldn't get presents. Over a passage of time, I'd get tired of being good; I just knew that I'd mess up something irrevocably.

Yet "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

But here's something better.

No matter how much I may change over time, God will not.
God is not limited, or constrained by time. Why? He created it. Time did not exist before the earth was created. The evening and the morning were the first day.

So let's put this all in context, shall we?

If time is a measurement of change and God never changes, then that which God has set in eternity cannot be undone through the process of time.

Hence, what God has foreordained will happen regardless of trivial circumstance.

I don't have to worry about messing up irrevocably, about time passing me by, or about the possibility of missing His best.

God is always on time.

On a lighter note, I wonder if we'll have to use past, present, and future verbs in heaven?

A note to those who would be wise...

2005-03-09T01:58:00.000-06:00

Late hours and early mornings never mix well.

Not even in a blender.

That was free. I'll be charging nex time.

The purpose of the llama

2005-03-03T08:25:00.000-06:00

The amount of ridiculous and crazy creations going around over the internet is paradoxically both appalling and hilarious.

While I am aware that there is definitely that which is completely inappropriate floating around out there, I have so far, and with much thankfulness, only seen the more inane segments of these creations. The Llama song must be a classic example of this category.

When all is said and done, the reactions to that ditty range from absolute disgust at the complete irrationality of the work, to total amusement at the lack of human reasoning found within the song.

I rather fall on both sides of the fence. I appreciate random and goofy humor occasionally and found this one to definitely fall in that category. Because I have mid-terms coming up shortly, it has found a home in my favorites page.

On the other hand, it's rather saddening to see the amount of time, effort, and energy spent on the Llama song go in to something that is not only completely pointless, but because of its lack of point, it has no real value or impact on the life of the watcher/listener. (Other than, of course, the two minutes spent laughing as the song plays.)

To me, when someone has the ability to actually throw something like that together, it shows a complete waste. This person has amazing capability with the little machine we call a computer, and yet, he uses it on something like the Llama song.

While it is certainly randomly hilarious, there's no point to it other than a laugh or two.

The world will move on with, or without it.

render unto Caesar

2005-03-01T23:24:00.000-06:00

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that you are not a real adult until the government recognizes your presence.

And the most formal way for the government to recognize your presence, comes in the shape of a 1040EZ form.

I also submit to you that the title: "1040EZ" is an inside joke amongst the IRAers.

Yessireebob. I can just see them at their hand-carved mahogany desks chuckling everytime they receive a 1040EZ...

-Hehehe, hey Richard! It's another one! The suckers sent in another one!

-::chortling:: Yeah Lawrence, they read the title and think it's so ::supressed chuckle:: EASY! HAHAHAHA!

-Right. All ::snigger:: one thousand and forty questions!

::both burst into uncontrollable laughter::

Uhm, happy taxes...

I know you are, but what am I?

2005-02-27T13:18:00.000-06:00

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?

2005-02-23T12:50:00.000-06:00

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?

2005-02-22T01:23:00.000-06:00

"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

2005-02-19T23:00:00.000-06:00

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...

2005-02-16T10:29:00.000-06:00

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

2005-02-15T23:25:00.000-06:00

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