[]
Major media likes to talk about China (Communist China, anyway) as the rising force of note in Asian affairs, whether one means trade, finance, or technology, and as a result the United States is often cautioned to stay on the good side of Beijing.
But Isabel Hilton, writing for the Guardian, explains the matter concisely and with moral conviction. Simply put, the People’s Republic of China is not answerable to their people, serves in no way as a republic as most nations define it, and has only the brutality of the worst autocratic regimes in common with any of China’s history, and none of traditional Chinese values. Unless and until that changes, the PRC is merely an unstable oligarchy with a nice veneer hiding the blood stains.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Friday, June 03, 2005
The Theory and Practice of Common Sense
...
Human Events Online has presented an interesting collection. Where most publications occasionally print a list of papers and books they recommend their readers acquire and read, HEO has produced a list of the “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries”. The lesson HEO is pressing, is that ideas have influence and power, and ignoring dangerous falsehoods allows them to become dominant.
Here is HEO’s list:
1. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Freidrish Engels
2. Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao, by Mao Zedong
4. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, by Alfred Kinsey
5. Democracy and Education, by John Dewey
6. Das Kapital, by Karl Marx
7. The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy, by Auguste Comte
9. Beyond Good and Evil, by Freidrich Neitzsche
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by John Maynard Keynes
What strikes me as interesting when I see that list together, is how innocuous many of those titles are. Some even sound reasonable, until you find out the propositions set forth within their covers.
Evil is sometimes very subtle.
Human Events Online has presented an interesting collection. Where most publications occasionally print a list of papers and books they recommend their readers acquire and read, HEO has produced a list of the “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries”. The lesson HEO is pressing, is that ideas have influence and power, and ignoring dangerous falsehoods allows them to become dominant.
Here is HEO’s list:
1. The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Freidrish Engels
2. Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao, by Mao Zedong
4. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, by Alfred Kinsey
5. Democracy and Education, by John Dewey
6. Das Kapital, by Karl Marx
7. The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy, by Auguste Comte
9. Beyond Good and Evil, by Freidrich Neitzsche
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by John Maynard Keynes
What strikes me as interesting when I see that list together, is how innocuous many of those titles are. Some even sound reasonable, until you find out the propositions set forth within their covers.
Evil is sometimes very subtle.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
A Broken Oath
ooo
“I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and
directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I
enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever,
so help me GOD.”
- Oath spoken by every FBI agent upon commission at Quantico
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...without due process of law”
- from the 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
“the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
- from the 6th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Assuming that Mr. Woodward’s vouchsafe is sufficient proof, the media has begun the obligatory Liberal praise for former Deputy Director of the FBI, W. Mark Felt, for leaking information against President Richard Nixon to the Washington Post through reporters Woodward and Bernstein. “Hero” is a common word used for the former lawman, as though Felt should be held in equal or higher regard than, say, Marines currently serving in Iraq. I can’t help but believe that to many in the press, this is indeed how they see the matter.
Certainly, Richard Nixon’s conduct while President is inexcusable at times, and the tapes only reinforced the unsavory nature of Nixon’s anger against Democrats and the media. It should be understood, however, that Nixon’s aides played faction games against each other (remember Kissinger and Haldeman?), and in some cases the charges Democrats levelled against Nixon may have been redirected from the original culprit, to a more desirable target. Most people examining the Watergate scandal do not consider that President Nixon never had appropriate counsel; by the time Congress went after Nixon, Dean and Michell had already deserted him and madetheir own deals.
With that in mind, consider the conduct of Mr. Felt. As a Deputy Director of the FBI, Mr. Felt was a lawman, and answerable to the same code as any FBI agent. That is, if he found evidence of a crime, he was morally and legally required to bring it to his superiors’ attention.
Did Mr. Felt contact the FBI Director? No, he did not.
Did Mr. Felt notify the Attorney General? Again, no he did not.
Did Mr. Felt submit his evidence to a Grand Jury, or to his Congressman? Once again, Felt made no attempt to provide this information to any law enforcement or justice authority whatsoever.
Instead, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt conducted a personal vendetta against the President of the United States, passing along what he felt like telling, to Mr. Woodward, knowing the information would be printed as unchallenged fact, without any corroboration whatsoever, and without any sort of opportunity for the President to have an opportunity for rebuttal. This continuing action was in direct and deliberate violation of law and code.
In a Letter to the Editor of the Houston Chronicle, reader Jay Bute of El Lago hit the matter directly on the head when he asked whether, considering that a top FBI officer had complete control of what was released to the press, it might be possible that Felt could present whatever evidence he wanted in whatever manner served his personal interest and worse, could suppress or destroy evidence which might favor the President? At best, Deputy Director Felt violated his oath, obstructed justice, and violated the constitutional rights of Richard Nixon and his Administration. At worst, Felt damaged the entire balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of government, by usurping the process of investigation in order to attack a man he personally disliked.
While the Liberals cheer on Mr. Felt, keep in mind this basic fact: They are cheering a dirty cop.
“I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and
directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I
enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever,
so help me GOD.”
- Oath spoken by every FBI agent upon commission at Quantico
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...without due process of law”
- from the 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
“the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
- from the 6th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Assuming that Mr. Woodward’s vouchsafe is sufficient proof, the media has begun the obligatory Liberal praise for former Deputy Director of the FBI, W. Mark Felt, for leaking information against President Richard Nixon to the Washington Post through reporters Woodward and Bernstein. “Hero” is a common word used for the former lawman, as though Felt should be held in equal or higher regard than, say, Marines currently serving in Iraq. I can’t help but believe that to many in the press, this is indeed how they see the matter.
Certainly, Richard Nixon’s conduct while President is inexcusable at times, and the tapes only reinforced the unsavory nature of Nixon’s anger against Democrats and the media. It should be understood, however, that Nixon’s aides played faction games against each other (remember Kissinger and Haldeman?), and in some cases the charges Democrats levelled against Nixon may have been redirected from the original culprit, to a more desirable target. Most people examining the Watergate scandal do not consider that President Nixon never had appropriate counsel; by the time Congress went after Nixon, Dean and Michell had already deserted him and madetheir own deals.
With that in mind, consider the conduct of Mr. Felt. As a Deputy Director of the FBI, Mr. Felt was a lawman, and answerable to the same code as any FBI agent. That is, if he found evidence of a crime, he was morally and legally required to bring it to his superiors’ attention.
Did Mr. Felt contact the FBI Director? No, he did not.
Did Mr. Felt notify the Attorney General? Again, no he did not.
Did Mr. Felt submit his evidence to a Grand Jury, or to his Congressman? Once again, Felt made no attempt to provide this information to any law enforcement or justice authority whatsoever.
Instead, FBI Deputy Director W. Mark Felt conducted a personal vendetta against the President of the United States, passing along what he felt like telling, to Mr. Woodward, knowing the information would be printed as unchallenged fact, without any corroboration whatsoever, and without any sort of opportunity for the President to have an opportunity for rebuttal. This continuing action was in direct and deliberate violation of law and code.
In a Letter to the Editor of the Houston Chronicle, reader Jay Bute of El Lago hit the matter directly on the head when he asked whether, considering that a top FBI officer had complete control of what was released to the press, it might be possible that Felt could present whatever evidence he wanted in whatever manner served his personal interest and worse, could suppress or destroy evidence which might favor the President? At best, Deputy Director Felt violated his oath, obstructed justice, and violated the constitutional rights of Richard Nixon and his Administration. At worst, Felt damaged the entire balance between the Legislative and Executive branches of government, by usurping the process of investigation in order to attack a man he personally disliked.
While the Liberals cheer on Mr. Felt, keep in mind this basic fact: They are cheering a dirty cop.
Why It Matters That Bush Is President
Women voting in Afghanistan. Just one more thing that happens when 50 million people are freed from tyranny, because George W. Bush sticks to his principles.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
A Common Frustration
.
The Federal election of 2000 casts long shadows, it seems. Actually, that’s not true, but the election was one representative event, where partisan tensions rose and left scars on the nation. Republicans were bouyed by George W. Bush’s Presidential win in 2000, along with control of both the House and Senate in the Congress, and so came to think of the conflict as a hard-won victory, and they looked forward to enacting legislation as the clear majority party in power. For their part, the Democrats bitterly resented their losses in the national contests, all the more when they saw a trend in the draining away of their power. When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to subvert the election and their State Constitution, Democrats saw the defeat as a sign that they had fallen on all fronts.
Since the 2000 election, things have gotten only worse for the Democrats, as they are now losing not only national offices, but governorships and voter support in party affiliation. With the disgrace of Dan Rather and Jordan Eason, Democrats are also seeing the fall of their cherished icons in the public media.
During the first session of 2001, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to put together the promised agenda of legislation, but found themselves stymied on three fronts: First, President Bush acted with something less than bold confidence because of the close numbers of his election. Second, the Senate reversed opportunity not only because of the mercenary defection of Jim Jeffords, but also due to the historical egotism and narcissism of the Senators as a group. But third, the House also found it unexpectedly difficult to reach consensus on some of the most important bills. The Republicans were finding that majority as a party did not translate to unity on their priorities and promises.
So began the first term of President George W. Bush. Since then, the Republicans have enjoyed surprising victories in the 2002 Congressional elections, and in the 2004 Federal elections, but still face the inertia that faced them four years ago. True, there was the tax break vote, and the stunningly bold action which has freed two nations from despots, and which still holds the potential to remake the future of the entire Middle East. There is also the resolute decision to put up with stalls in Congress, rather than play the games Democrats used against the first George Bush, which would provide short-term amity but weaken the nation and the party. But the Republicans are finding that every battle has a sequel, and promises made to get elected are not always remembered by the men who make them, no matter how noble the words. Just as a Democrat majority in Congress did not give Bill Clinton everything he wanted, a Republican Congress will sometimes put itself ahead of the President and the Nation.
While the Democrats fight the growing trend of Conservative values, the Republicans fight a stubborn system of entrenched personal egos and the status quo. A common frustration, even for two parties moving in different directions.
The Federal election of 2000 casts long shadows, it seems. Actually, that’s not true, but the election was one representative event, where partisan tensions rose and left scars on the nation. Republicans were bouyed by George W. Bush’s Presidential win in 2000, along with control of both the House and Senate in the Congress, and so came to think of the conflict as a hard-won victory, and they looked forward to enacting legislation as the clear majority party in power. For their part, the Democrats bitterly resented their losses in the national contests, all the more when they saw a trend in the draining away of their power. When the United States Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court’s attempt to subvert the election and their State Constitution, Democrats saw the defeat as a sign that they had fallen on all fronts.
Since the 2000 election, things have gotten only worse for the Democrats, as they are now losing not only national offices, but governorships and voter support in party affiliation. With the disgrace of Dan Rather and Jordan Eason, Democrats are also seeing the fall of their cherished icons in the public media.
During the first session of 2001, Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to put together the promised agenda of legislation, but found themselves stymied on three fronts: First, President Bush acted with something less than bold confidence because of the close numbers of his election. Second, the Senate reversed opportunity not only because of the mercenary defection of Jim Jeffords, but also due to the historical egotism and narcissism of the Senators as a group. But third, the House also found it unexpectedly difficult to reach consensus on some of the most important bills. The Republicans were finding that majority as a party did not translate to unity on their priorities and promises.
So began the first term of President George W. Bush. Since then, the Republicans have enjoyed surprising victories in the 2002 Congressional elections, and in the 2004 Federal elections, but still face the inertia that faced them four years ago. True, there was the tax break vote, and the stunningly bold action which has freed two nations from despots, and which still holds the potential to remake the future of the entire Middle East. There is also the resolute decision to put up with stalls in Congress, rather than play the games Democrats used against the first George Bush, which would provide short-term amity but weaken the nation and the party. But the Republicans are finding that every battle has a sequel, and promises made to get elected are not always remembered by the men who make them, no matter how noble the words. Just as a Democrat majority in Congress did not give Bill Clinton everything he wanted, a Republican Congress will sometimes put itself ahead of the President and the Nation.
While the Democrats fight the growing trend of Conservative values, the Republicans fight a stubborn system of entrenched personal egos and the status quo. A common frustration, even for two parties moving in different directions.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Political Suicide
-*-*-*-
One thing I have always found difficult to understand, is why it is that a fact obvious to most people always seems to miss a few, and almost always the people who need that comprehension the most. Denial is a common human failing, but even so it is baffling to see people deliberately ignore the source of their difficulties, and the key to their correction. In American politics, the Liberal mindset is doing their level best to impersonate lemmings as their party implodes from the force of Logic pummeling against their platform. And yet, even now the Liberal mind seeks ways not to correct their errors, but to justify them. This is bad news, because America has always been best run under the balanced influence of both Conservatism and Liberalism, and always with Reason at the helm. If one of those ends is lost from the government, the resulting imbalance is going to prove unpredictable, and eventually result in regrettable events.
Paul Starr wrote an interesting piece in the “The American Prospect”, which he calls “The Liberal Project Now”. I read the piece hoping to see an honest discussion of what has gone wrong with American Liberalism. While that was not what happened the article is an interesting look into the Liberal mindset.
Predictably, Starr begins with the vague and invalid accusation that the Republican Majority represents “a shift in partisan control of the federal government”. Taken literally, those words are true, but they were even more true when FDR and LBJ enjoyed overwhelming majorities, with effectively no balance from the Right, leading to serious errors which are only now being properly addressed.
Starr starts down the emotional and invalid path, when he claims that Conservatives are “devoted to dismantling the constitutional and fiscal underpinning of liberal government”, which in truth amounts to petty whining that a Republican majority means to govern with the mandate they received, just as happens anywhere when a political party is given the authority to do its job as it sees fit. I found this quote by Starr especially telling: “When historians and social scientists in the ‘50s said American politics reflected an ideological consensus that was liberal at its foundations, it was the absence of any socialist challenge that they mainly had in mind.” What that statement actually told me, is that academics concluded that FDR’s control of the federal government was so complete, that even the election of Eisenhower as President and a Republican Congress could not immediately turn the nation from its Leftist agenda and course; the Liberals victory had been so complete for a generation, that alternatives were not seriously considered.
Starr is not completely blind to the fall from power by Liberals, but he misses the root causes. Even as he admits that Liberals have only recently “faced the possibility of being totally excluded, not just from power but from any influence or access.” Now really, I am as big a fan of Dubya as anyone, but even I stop short of saying he has telepathic mind control, which is essentially what would be necessary for the Conservatives to have so wedged the door against Liberals. The truth is better news for Liberals, and much worse. The good news for Liberals, is that Conservatives do not have nearly the total power that Starr pretends here; the bad news is that Americans have rejected the worst of the Liberal agenda, and the stubborn refusal of Liberal Leadership to see that most Americans will not tolerate extreme Liberalism any more. A Pew poll in 2004 revealed that fewer Americans than ever before consider themselves ‘Liberal’ (as a percentage of the voting population), while Conservatives are on a long rise in not only support, but voter identification. It’s no accident that Florida and Texas, once both considered Liberal states, are increasingly Conservative, and it’s no fluke that the Governor of California is a Republican.
Starr says the job of the Liberal Leadership is “to make liberal government bolder, and to get its leaders to take political risks”. Sorry Mr. Starr, but that was what the Liberals tried in 2002 and 2004, and it just does not work. A truly bold liberal would be willing to take a long hard look at why your policies are rejected, not only by the President and government in office, but by a majority of Americans. “Liberals certainly need to defend liberal accomplishments and oppose conservative measures” demands Starr, but that simply is not wise. There are no liberal accomplishments of note, only a petulant denial of real needs and crises, and a refusal to face the fact that the only plans of action are coming from Conservatives. As for opposing Conservatives, why oppose a plan simply because a Conservative presents it? Unless and until Liberals accept reasonable measures offered by Conservatives, and unless and until Liberals can offer realistic and functional alternatives from their own platform, they will be hurting their own future to play the spite card as they have been doing these past five years.
Starr trips over a useful element is rebuilding Liberalism as a political option, when he writes “Rebuilding a Democratic majority will require a broad and inclusive politics and the acceptance of ideological diversity within the party”. Starr neglects to consider the recent history, though; The GOP accepts Pro-Choice Republicans as legitimate and equal to anyone in the party, while the Democrats shut down any Pro-Life members in their party. The GOP accepts party members who worried about the War in Iraq, while the Democrats refused to stand behind the President just a few weeks after 9/11. The Conservatives walk the walk, and the Liberals whine. Starr proves he doesn’t understand the nation’s barometer when he claims there is reason to believe that Americans would value a party “committed to the constitutional principles in force since the late 1930s”, which is Liberal code for the court-packing tactics of FDR, and the subsequent court activism which created two new branches of heavy taxation in violation of any Constitutional mandate, to say nothing of a progressive tax system so cumbersome and punitive, that a majority of Americans has supported the disbanding of the IRS for more than forty years. Starr yearns for a Socialist America, never realizing that ideology died with Stalin.
One thing I have always found difficult to understand, is why it is that a fact obvious to most people always seems to miss a few, and almost always the people who need that comprehension the most. Denial is a common human failing, but even so it is baffling to see people deliberately ignore the source of their difficulties, and the key to their correction. In American politics, the Liberal mindset is doing their level best to impersonate lemmings as their party implodes from the force of Logic pummeling against their platform. And yet, even now the Liberal mind seeks ways not to correct their errors, but to justify them. This is bad news, because America has always been best run under the balanced influence of both Conservatism and Liberalism, and always with Reason at the helm. If one of those ends is lost from the government, the resulting imbalance is going to prove unpredictable, and eventually result in regrettable events.
Paul Starr wrote an interesting piece in the “The American Prospect”, which he calls “The Liberal Project Now”. I read the piece hoping to see an honest discussion of what has gone wrong with American Liberalism. While that was not what happened the article is an interesting look into the Liberal mindset.
Predictably, Starr begins with the vague and invalid accusation that the Republican Majority represents “a shift in partisan control of the federal government”. Taken literally, those words are true, but they were even more true when FDR and LBJ enjoyed overwhelming majorities, with effectively no balance from the Right, leading to serious errors which are only now being properly addressed.
Starr starts down the emotional and invalid path, when he claims that Conservatives are “devoted to dismantling the constitutional and fiscal underpinning of liberal government”, which in truth amounts to petty whining that a Republican majority means to govern with the mandate they received, just as happens anywhere when a political party is given the authority to do its job as it sees fit. I found this quote by Starr especially telling: “When historians and social scientists in the ‘50s said American politics reflected an ideological consensus that was liberal at its foundations, it was the absence of any socialist challenge that they mainly had in mind.” What that statement actually told me, is that academics concluded that FDR’s control of the federal government was so complete, that even the election of Eisenhower as President and a Republican Congress could not immediately turn the nation from its Leftist agenda and course; the Liberals victory had been so complete for a generation, that alternatives were not seriously considered.
Starr is not completely blind to the fall from power by Liberals, but he misses the root causes. Even as he admits that Liberals have only recently “faced the possibility of being totally excluded, not just from power but from any influence or access.” Now really, I am as big a fan of Dubya as anyone, but even I stop short of saying he has telepathic mind control, which is essentially what would be necessary for the Conservatives to have so wedged the door against Liberals. The truth is better news for Liberals, and much worse. The good news for Liberals, is that Conservatives do not have nearly the total power that Starr pretends here; the bad news is that Americans have rejected the worst of the Liberal agenda, and the stubborn refusal of Liberal Leadership to see that most Americans will not tolerate extreme Liberalism any more. A Pew poll in 2004 revealed that fewer Americans than ever before consider themselves ‘Liberal’ (as a percentage of the voting population), while Conservatives are on a long rise in not only support, but voter identification. It’s no accident that Florida and Texas, once both considered Liberal states, are increasingly Conservative, and it’s no fluke that the Governor of California is a Republican.
Starr says the job of the Liberal Leadership is “to make liberal government bolder, and to get its leaders to take political risks”. Sorry Mr. Starr, but that was what the Liberals tried in 2002 and 2004, and it just does not work. A truly bold liberal would be willing to take a long hard look at why your policies are rejected, not only by the President and government in office, but by a majority of Americans. “Liberals certainly need to defend liberal accomplishments and oppose conservative measures” demands Starr, but that simply is not wise. There are no liberal accomplishments of note, only a petulant denial of real needs and crises, and a refusal to face the fact that the only plans of action are coming from Conservatives. As for opposing Conservatives, why oppose a plan simply because a Conservative presents it? Unless and until Liberals accept reasonable measures offered by Conservatives, and unless and until Liberals can offer realistic and functional alternatives from their own platform, they will be hurting their own future to play the spite card as they have been doing these past five years.
Starr trips over a useful element is rebuilding Liberalism as a political option, when he writes “Rebuilding a Democratic majority will require a broad and inclusive politics and the acceptance of ideological diversity within the party”. Starr neglects to consider the recent history, though; The GOP accepts Pro-Choice Republicans as legitimate and equal to anyone in the party, while the Democrats shut down any Pro-Life members in their party. The GOP accepts party members who worried about the War in Iraq, while the Democrats refused to stand behind the President just a few weeks after 9/11. The Conservatives walk the walk, and the Liberals whine. Starr proves he doesn’t understand the nation’s barometer when he claims there is reason to believe that Americans would value a party “committed to the constitutional principles in force since the late 1930s”, which is Liberal code for the court-packing tactics of FDR, and the subsequent court activism which created two new branches of heavy taxation in violation of any Constitutional mandate, to say nothing of a progressive tax system so cumbersome and punitive, that a majority of Americans has supported the disbanding of the IRS for more than forty years. Starr yearns for a Socialist America, never realizing that ideology died with Stalin.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Responding To The Force
/\/\/All through the movies, we heard it; ‘May the Force be with you’. But who thought through what it means, for the Force to be with a person? One important aspect to the Force which is missed by many, is that the Force moves and acts, almost with its own volition, and while a person may believe they are acting independently of the Force (a la Han Solo), this is not really the case. The Force, however one wants to define it, is so intrinsic to human life, that it is impossible to say that the Force is not part of our very identity. And anything which is part of our identity, is a factor in our decisions and actions.
Anyone who has tried to walk down a street when the wind was blowing hard into their face, understands that direction is sometimes critical. And most of us have looked back with regret to a decision, where we ignored a signal from our gut and later realized we should have heeded it. Sensitivity to the Force and learning its communication is a skill developed through practice and careful meditation. The first step is realizing the Force has a direction and can serve a greater purpose.
Anyone who has tried to walk down a street when the wind was blowing hard into their face, understands that direction is sometimes critical. And most of us have looked back with regret to a decision, where we ignored a signal from our gut and later realized we should have heeded it. Sensitivity to the Force and learning its communication is a skill developed through practice and careful meditation. The first step is realizing the Force has a direction and can serve a greater purpose.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Blog Power, Indeed
...
If you think the New York Times really does print ‘all the news that’s fit to print’, you might want to skip this article. If you believe Dan Rather’s support of forged documents in an attempt to influence the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election was good journalism, this might make you very unhappy. And if you think that Eason Jordan was just trying to be what all journalists should aspire to become, just move on to a blog in your own part of the universe. What I mean is, the Blogosphere has now officially moved beyond the shores of the United States and Internet-only discussion, to the point where it now must be counted as a measure of political influence and policy direction by nations around the globe.
Late last week, I was contacted by an editor of the Kyodo News consortium, which is one of the largest news reporting syndicates in Asia, and is distributed to almost every newspaper, radio, and television station in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Pacific Rim. I was later interviewed by Mr. Toshimitsu Sawai, who is preparing a story about the early contenders for the U.S. Presidential Election in 2008. Mr. Sawai and I had a pleasant discussion about the qualifications of Dr. Condoleeza Rice for the office, along with speculation about her likely rivals in the Republican and Democrat parties if she chooses to run. We also discussed the significance of the Bush Doctrine in Asian affairs, how it affects trade agreements, national security, and regional alliances. Mr. Sawai is also interviewing a number of other political authorities, and I look forward to reading his story.
The significance of this interview, lies in the fact that Kyodo News did not restrict itself to the Mainstream Media in developing the story and finding sources for comment. Bloggers are now considered valid political authorities.
I wonder how long, before a major blogger wins a national office? It seems much more likely, indeed much closer, now.
If you think the New York Times really does print ‘all the news that’s fit to print’, you might want to skip this article. If you believe Dan Rather’s support of forged documents in an attempt to influence the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election was good journalism, this might make you very unhappy. And if you think that Eason Jordan was just trying to be what all journalists should aspire to become, just move on to a blog in your own part of the universe. What I mean is, the Blogosphere has now officially moved beyond the shores of the United States and Internet-only discussion, to the point where it now must be counted as a measure of political influence and policy direction by nations around the globe.
Late last week, I was contacted by an editor of the Kyodo News consortium, which is one of the largest news reporting syndicates in Asia, and is distributed to almost every newspaper, radio, and television station in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Pacific Rim. I was later interviewed by Mr. Toshimitsu Sawai, who is preparing a story about the early contenders for the U.S. Presidential Election in 2008. Mr. Sawai and I had a pleasant discussion about the qualifications of Dr. Condoleeza Rice for the office, along with speculation about her likely rivals in the Republican and Democrat parties if she chooses to run. We also discussed the significance of the Bush Doctrine in Asian affairs, how it affects trade agreements, national security, and regional alliances. Mr. Sawai is also interviewing a number of other political authorities, and I look forward to reading his story.
The significance of this interview, lies in the fact that Kyodo News did not restrict itself to the Mainstream Media in developing the story and finding sources for comment. Bloggers are now considered valid political authorities.
I wonder how long, before a major blogger wins a national office? It seems much more likely, indeed much closer, now.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
The Pursuit of Truth
[][][]
In studies of the phenomenon popularly referred to as “The Force”, serious adepts consider the attendant aspects of the practice, including the Ledi claims to be the guardians of truth, peace, and justice. It naturally follows, that Jedi studies consider the nature not only those ideals, but also our understanding of them. At the Jedi Academy, a series of lectures has been presented to students, including the search for truth. Richard Irvine, from the group called “Jedi Unity”, wrote from the perspective arguing that “we are all liars”, essentially putting up a front, a facade, to hide who and what we truly are. There is something to that, but his article presented only what I would call the negative aspects of truth, without considering the positive aspects of truth and the nobility of searching for it. I would like to address the good in searching for truth.
Some of my friends and readers may wonder why I am taking Jedi studies seriously. Perhaps I am a closet fanatic of the films? Perhaps the Texas sun has unhinged me slightly (in which case, some aspect of the Arizona sun may explain John McClain’s gradual change from noble veteran to egotistical demagogue)? Actually, I find that the Jedi studies, the ones which concern themselves with the basic ideals common to all humanity, which happened to be used to tell the Jedi story, are based on sound principles and genuine scholarship. More, Jedi students come from all walks and ages of life, including many people who have no intention of changing their faith or creed, but who are curious about why the Jedi code resonates for them. I invite you to consider the Jedi articles I write as philosophical inquiries, because that’s exactly their purpose.
Back to the pursuit of truth. When Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman procurator for Judea, Pilate is said to have asked, “What is Truth?” While in Pilate’s case, he was probably not seeking a serious answer, the fact remains that people have been asking that question and others related to it for as long as humans have been able to speak. Socrates and Plato addressed it, as did Lao-Tse, Confucius, and Sun Tzu, and after them many other thinkers right up to the present day. The three largest religions practiced on the planet are based on the claim that they have received or discerned some or all of universal truth. Clearly, the pursuit of truth is a popular and significant activity for people, a compelling question which drives men to seek some sort of answer.
In his article accusing humans of a chronic condition of deceit, Richard Irvine noted that language is symbolism used for communication; to some degree we all miss the truth, in that our best efforts to describe a thought or concept, we must use the estimate created by language. That is not to say, however, that language cannot convey a concept accurately. If I draw a circle freehand, it will not be difficult for someone with a simple compass to show where I miss the curve, but that does not mean that someone looking at my drawing won’t recognize that I have tried to draw a circle. The intent can be conveyed, and if the intent is true, the truth can be so conveyed.
This brings up the craft of discernment. Men lie, and do so not only well and frequently, but also there are men who love and serve truth, come what may. The Jedi code is not only discovering the truth, but nurturing it and defending it, and convincing as many people as possible, that the truth is worthy of their support, not only as a practice to demand of leaders and speakers, but to develop and practice in their own lives.
This is a good thing, and worthy of honor.
In studies of the phenomenon popularly referred to as “The Force”, serious adepts consider the attendant aspects of the practice, including the Ledi claims to be the guardians of truth, peace, and justice. It naturally follows, that Jedi studies consider the nature not only those ideals, but also our understanding of them. At the Jedi Academy, a series of lectures has been presented to students, including the search for truth. Richard Irvine, from the group called “Jedi Unity”, wrote from the perspective arguing that “we are all liars”, essentially putting up a front, a facade, to hide who and what we truly are. There is something to that, but his article presented only what I would call the negative aspects of truth, without considering the positive aspects of truth and the nobility of searching for it. I would like to address the good in searching for truth.
Some of my friends and readers may wonder why I am taking Jedi studies seriously. Perhaps I am a closet fanatic of the films? Perhaps the Texas sun has unhinged me slightly (in which case, some aspect of the Arizona sun may explain John McClain’s gradual change from noble veteran to egotistical demagogue)? Actually, I find that the Jedi studies, the ones which concern themselves with the basic ideals common to all humanity, which happened to be used to tell the Jedi story, are based on sound principles and genuine scholarship. More, Jedi students come from all walks and ages of life, including many people who have no intention of changing their faith or creed, but who are curious about why the Jedi code resonates for them. I invite you to consider the Jedi articles I write as philosophical inquiries, because that’s exactly their purpose.
Back to the pursuit of truth. When Jesus stood before Pilate, the Roman procurator for Judea, Pilate is said to have asked, “What is Truth?” While in Pilate’s case, he was probably not seeking a serious answer, the fact remains that people have been asking that question and others related to it for as long as humans have been able to speak. Socrates and Plato addressed it, as did Lao-Tse, Confucius, and Sun Tzu, and after them many other thinkers right up to the present day. The three largest religions practiced on the planet are based on the claim that they have received or discerned some or all of universal truth. Clearly, the pursuit of truth is a popular and significant activity for people, a compelling question which drives men to seek some sort of answer.
In his article accusing humans of a chronic condition of deceit, Richard Irvine noted that language is symbolism used for communication; to some degree we all miss the truth, in that our best efforts to describe a thought or concept, we must use the estimate created by language. That is not to say, however, that language cannot convey a concept accurately. If I draw a circle freehand, it will not be difficult for someone with a simple compass to show where I miss the curve, but that does not mean that someone looking at my drawing won’t recognize that I have tried to draw a circle. The intent can be conveyed, and if the intent is true, the truth can be so conveyed.
This brings up the craft of discernment. Men lie, and do so not only well and frequently, but also there are men who love and serve truth, come what may. The Jedi code is not only discovering the truth, but nurturing it and defending it, and convincing as many people as possible, that the truth is worthy of their support, not only as a practice to demand of leaders and speakers, but to develop and practice in their own lives.
This is a good thing, and worthy of honor.
Friday, May 27, 2005
War Politics
[[[--]]]
In the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, there is often a point at which the rabbit sternly remarks, ‘Of course you know, this means war.’ It’s part of the comedy. Unfortunately, national politicians have begun to treat real conflicts with the same disparaging dismissal, as was demonstrated by this week’s pathetic collapse of Republican resolve, and subsequent Democrat crowing as minority demagogues won out over principled idealists. Within hours, one Democrat who had promised to vote for cloture for Judge Owen had already broken his pledge, and later that same week, Senate Democrats filibustered to again delay a vote on U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and were also sounding threats against upcoming qualified nominees for Federal Court. The fact that it is a political war, in no way diminishes the severity of the reality that we are at war, the liars and the cheats against the Constitution and its defenders.
Some in the Republican camp have suggested that those unhappy with the sell-out must accept the results of the quisling treachery, and actually suggest that we who demand that ideals be defended and subversion of the Constitution be struck down, are somehow damaging the Republican cause. This is not at all the case, and by definition never can be. There is a point where a line must be drawn, and no more leniency or excuses granted, no more variance allowed. We are the party elected to majority, not just once or just recently, but in the clear trend for more than a decade, and it is required of us to accept that command, with responsibility and authority for the decision of course and law. Anything else is surrender to forces which run on the motive of greed and corruption.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is symbolic of all that’s wrong with the GOP right now. Even after the betrayal of the judges, Senator Dole could only write “Although I am pleased that some of the President's qualified judicial nominees are finally getting the fair up or down vote they deserve, I am disappointed that not all nominees will be afforded that same courtesy”. Senator, disappointment is not the word. We are outraged, here in the base, by Senators who promised they heard us, then turned out and did exactly what they said would never happen. Your mild-mannered acceptance of the subversion of majority rule by a handful of demagogues, and the clear rejection of the public voice, makes it clear you are neither worthy of our support, nor a logical place for our money and time.
We will vote for qualified candidates, as always.
We will campaign for, and donate money to, qualified candidates, as always.
But we will not support poseurs.
You have one small window to get us back. The only way, is to immediately invoke the majority-rule option in the Senate for ALL Presidential appointments during the 109th Congress. That’s what was promised, that’s what is expected, and nothing less will count.
It’s wheat and chaff time, Ms. Dole. Are you a Republican, or are you a pretender?
In the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, there is often a point at which the rabbit sternly remarks, ‘Of course you know, this means war.’ It’s part of the comedy. Unfortunately, national politicians have begun to treat real conflicts with the same disparaging dismissal, as was demonstrated by this week’s pathetic collapse of Republican resolve, and subsequent Democrat crowing as minority demagogues won out over principled idealists. Within hours, one Democrat who had promised to vote for cloture for Judge Owen had already broken his pledge, and later that same week, Senate Democrats filibustered to again delay a vote on U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, and were also sounding threats against upcoming qualified nominees for Federal Court. The fact that it is a political war, in no way diminishes the severity of the reality that we are at war, the liars and the cheats against the Constitution and its defenders.
Some in the Republican camp have suggested that those unhappy with the sell-out must accept the results of the quisling treachery, and actually suggest that we who demand that ideals be defended and subversion of the Constitution be struck down, are somehow damaging the Republican cause. This is not at all the case, and by definition never can be. There is a point where a line must be drawn, and no more leniency or excuses granted, no more variance allowed. We are the party elected to majority, not just once or just recently, but in the clear trend for more than a decade, and it is required of us to accept that command, with responsibility and authority for the decision of course and law. Anything else is surrender to forces which run on the motive of greed and corruption.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is symbolic of all that’s wrong with the GOP right now. Even after the betrayal of the judges, Senator Dole could only write “Although I am pleased that some of the President's qualified judicial nominees are finally getting the fair up or down vote they deserve, I am disappointed that not all nominees will be afforded that same courtesy”. Senator, disappointment is not the word. We are outraged, here in the base, by Senators who promised they heard us, then turned out and did exactly what they said would never happen. Your mild-mannered acceptance of the subversion of majority rule by a handful of demagogues, and the clear rejection of the public voice, makes it clear you are neither worthy of our support, nor a logical place for our money and time.
We will vote for qualified candidates, as always.
We will campaign for, and donate money to, qualified candidates, as always.
But we will not support poseurs.
You have one small window to get us back. The only way, is to immediately invoke the majority-rule option in the Senate for ALL Presidential appointments during the 109th Congress. That’s what was promised, that’s what is expected, and nothing less will count.
It’s wheat and chaff time, Ms. Dole. Are you a Republican, or are you a pretender?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Jedi Types
OOO
I’ve taken up a renewed interest in things Jedi in the past month, for obvious reasons. But I always found the notion of a group or people dedicated to the advancement of justice and truth, to be a worthy goal. After all, I always wondered why, since the Boy and Girl Scouts were such great organizations, why there wasn’t an adult component. I don’t mean campouts and funny uniforms, but a dedication to the more noble pursuits. And that leads me to the Jedi. No, not movie marathons, dreaming of magic powers or funny uniforms, but again a serious study and pursuit of ideals worth the effort.
One nice thing about the 21st Century (AD), is Search Engines. I just Googled “Jedi” and found myself in a treasure trove of information, some of it useless and vapid, but some of it well worth the visit. I have focused on TheJedi.org for now, in part because it has a lot of information made easily accessible, in part because it’s free to all seekers, and in part because it’s a very serious study of what they call “Jedi Realism”. That is, they strip away the silliness and the special effects, to get to the heart of what the Jedi are as a philosophy and discipline. And these guys have worked out a functional system worth examination. No, that doesn’t mean I’m going to claim my faith is now Jedi, or that I plan to open up a shop of movie memorabilia. What I am going to do, though, is look for new perspectives from the “Jedi” point of view, and post on it if I find something worth noting. Such a thought came to me today.
Most people don’t think about Jedi, and the ones who do generally form a single opinion of them and hold that in their mind with the mental label ‘Jedi’. But even the Star Wars films showed a number of schools of Jedi thought and action and belief. I’m leaving out what I consider Jedi “bit” parts, because cameo appearances can’t really provide insight in the beliefs and doctrines of a person. That leaves us, however, with valid examples in Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Anikin Skywalker/Darth Vader, the Emperor and Count Dooku, Darth Maul, and of course Luke Skywalker (Film titles are abbreviated to acronyms in this article).
I start with Obi-Wan Kenobi, because he shows up the most. Pretty neat trick, to get killed in the first movie, yet show up in all six anyway. Obi-Wan, if you recall the films, was hanging out in the desert on Tattooine, but as soon as Luke showed up and the hologram played, OWK was at full speed immediately. He was conversant with desert customs, yet equally at home on a starship, very much the Renaissance Man in Space. OWK worked alone comfortably, yet was not antisocial or disgruntled. The audience is left with the impression that Obi-Wan was a pretty regular guy for a Jedi, although he had Yoda’s favor (Dooku said so when they clashed in AOTC), yet I find it reasonable to consider Obi-Wan one of the greatest; his disappearing trick when Vader strikes him in ANH is a feat no other Jedi manages, even Yoda. Further, OWK displays a constant balance of mood that is the perfect example of Jedi serenity and peace, and his humble demeanor serves him well throughout. Also, OWK is knowledgeable and full of life, containing the four Jedi aspirations in his work, words, and apparent thoughts.
Next up is Yoda. If you want to realize the impact of Yoda, realize that millions of adults sat and listened to a green muppet, taking him seriously. Not just once, but regularly and as a sage character of wisdom and insight. That’s powerful stuff. The reason it’s so powerful, is because Yoda spoke from basic truths. Like OWK, Yoda is very much alive and in tune with Nature, he is serene, he is knowledgeable and wise, and he is humble, willing to act silly in order to discover Luke’s intentions in TESB. The deference given to Yoda by other Jedi in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS is not always compelling, although I found it a good touch that Yoda never once demanded deference, or appeared to have any sort of arrogance of selfish pride. Between OWN and Yoda, a template of the ideal Master/Apprentice relationship was presented. Both functional and worthy of their own respect, but at the same time unique individuals and yet communicating and working together to a common purpose.
Next up is Anikin Skywalker, who became Darth Vader. While Vader’s character was good drama for the movie series, it was significant to me to see what Anikin lost when he became Darth. When you take away the cool black outfit with personal intimidation package, and he’s not terrifying/killing flunkies, Darth really accomplishes very little. In ANH, his battle station gets destroyed. In TESB, he accidentally cuts off his son’s hand while unsuccessfully trying to recruit him. He also loses custody of the rebels he was pursuing, as well as his (unknown to him) own daughter. In ROTJ, he gets another battle station destroyed, kills the Emperor which gets him killed in the process (which is kind of a bad thing, realizing at the end of your life that you made the worst possible career choice, and the best you can do is destroy everything you worked to build). Not a hit parade, that. In the course of the films, he loses his innocence, his family, his love, his ideals, his way, and his life.
Then we have the Emperor and Count Dooku. These two are sort of a set, because what we see in both their cases, is that they start on a path to true discovery and growth, and are detoured by ambition and arrogance. In the end, their own flaws destroy them, and they end up dead and dishonored. The way that seems most powerful is nothing more than a petty excuse for quitting and throwing away potential.
A more active version of that futility can be seen in Darth Maul. Like the Emperor and Dooku, Maul gives up everything worth having in the pursuit of pure power, in his case a fanatic devotion to a perversion of the Jedi Code, one which makes him formidable, enough to take on 2 Jedi at once and overpower them, but which destroys him on his first mistake.
And that leaves us with Luke Skywalker. Luke grows from a boy with potential, to a true Jedi Knight, worthy not only to defeat the Emperor and redeem his father’s soul, but to recreate the Jedi Order. He does this by learning the Jedi Creed, very much the hard way: The only parents he knows are murdered, then his mentor and closest friends are killed or captured, and then Luke discovers that his father is the evil force behind all his trouble. Worse, Luke learns from Yoda that the path he would most like to take, to directly fight against this evil, would only lead to him becoming evil himself. So, even after hard training physically and mentally, Luke realizes he must face and master himself, before he can confront his father and accomplish his identity and ideals, even at great personal cost. Yet in the end, Luke has everything he truly desires; he has family in his sister and in the knowledge that his father, his mentor, and his teacher are one with the Force; he has friends and honor, and he knows that he is truly Jedi.
So in looking at these people, we see the dutiful balance of Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wisdom and serenity of Yoda, the impulsiveness of Anikin, the lust for power in the Emperor and Dooku, the battle rage of Maul, and the growth and earnest faith of Luke. There are worthwhile lessons in each of them, whether of not you want to consider the Jedi aspect of their characters.
I’ve taken up a renewed interest in things Jedi in the past month, for obvious reasons. But I always found the notion of a group or people dedicated to the advancement of justice and truth, to be a worthy goal. After all, I always wondered why, since the Boy and Girl Scouts were such great organizations, why there wasn’t an adult component. I don’t mean campouts and funny uniforms, but a dedication to the more noble pursuits. And that leads me to the Jedi. No, not movie marathons, dreaming of magic powers or funny uniforms, but again a serious study and pursuit of ideals worth the effort.
One nice thing about the 21st Century (AD), is Search Engines. I just Googled “Jedi” and found myself in a treasure trove of information, some of it useless and vapid, but some of it well worth the visit. I have focused on TheJedi.org for now, in part because it has a lot of information made easily accessible, in part because it’s free to all seekers, and in part because it’s a very serious study of what they call “Jedi Realism”. That is, they strip away the silliness and the special effects, to get to the heart of what the Jedi are as a philosophy and discipline. And these guys have worked out a functional system worth examination. No, that doesn’t mean I’m going to claim my faith is now Jedi, or that I plan to open up a shop of movie memorabilia. What I am going to do, though, is look for new perspectives from the “Jedi” point of view, and post on it if I find something worth noting. Such a thought came to me today.
Most people don’t think about Jedi, and the ones who do generally form a single opinion of them and hold that in their mind with the mental label ‘Jedi’. But even the Star Wars films showed a number of schools of Jedi thought and action and belief. I’m leaving out what I consider Jedi “bit” parts, because cameo appearances can’t really provide insight in the beliefs and doctrines of a person. That leaves us, however, with valid examples in Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Anikin Skywalker/Darth Vader, the Emperor and Count Dooku, Darth Maul, and of course Luke Skywalker (Film titles are abbreviated to acronyms in this article).
I start with Obi-Wan Kenobi, because he shows up the most. Pretty neat trick, to get killed in the first movie, yet show up in all six anyway. Obi-Wan, if you recall the films, was hanging out in the desert on Tattooine, but as soon as Luke showed up and the hologram played, OWK was at full speed immediately. He was conversant with desert customs, yet equally at home on a starship, very much the Renaissance Man in Space. OWK worked alone comfortably, yet was not antisocial or disgruntled. The audience is left with the impression that Obi-Wan was a pretty regular guy for a Jedi, although he had Yoda’s favor (Dooku said so when they clashed in AOTC), yet I find it reasonable to consider Obi-Wan one of the greatest; his disappearing trick when Vader strikes him in ANH is a feat no other Jedi manages, even Yoda. Further, OWK displays a constant balance of mood that is the perfect example of Jedi serenity and peace, and his humble demeanor serves him well throughout. Also, OWK is knowledgeable and full of life, containing the four Jedi aspirations in his work, words, and apparent thoughts.
Next up is Yoda. If you want to realize the impact of Yoda, realize that millions of adults sat and listened to a green muppet, taking him seriously. Not just once, but regularly and as a sage character of wisdom and insight. That’s powerful stuff. The reason it’s so powerful, is because Yoda spoke from basic truths. Like OWK, Yoda is very much alive and in tune with Nature, he is serene, he is knowledgeable and wise, and he is humble, willing to act silly in order to discover Luke’s intentions in TESB. The deference given to Yoda by other Jedi in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS is not always compelling, although I found it a good touch that Yoda never once demanded deference, or appeared to have any sort of arrogance of selfish pride. Between OWN and Yoda, a template of the ideal Master/Apprentice relationship was presented. Both functional and worthy of their own respect, but at the same time unique individuals and yet communicating and working together to a common purpose.
Next up is Anikin Skywalker, who became Darth Vader. While Vader’s character was good drama for the movie series, it was significant to me to see what Anikin lost when he became Darth. When you take away the cool black outfit with personal intimidation package, and he’s not terrifying/killing flunkies, Darth really accomplishes very little. In ANH, his battle station gets destroyed. In TESB, he accidentally cuts off his son’s hand while unsuccessfully trying to recruit him. He also loses custody of the rebels he was pursuing, as well as his (unknown to him) own daughter. In ROTJ, he gets another battle station destroyed, kills the Emperor which gets him killed in the process (which is kind of a bad thing, realizing at the end of your life that you made the worst possible career choice, and the best you can do is destroy everything you worked to build). Not a hit parade, that. In the course of the films, he loses his innocence, his family, his love, his ideals, his way, and his life.
Then we have the Emperor and Count Dooku. These two are sort of a set, because what we see in both their cases, is that they start on a path to true discovery and growth, and are detoured by ambition and arrogance. In the end, their own flaws destroy them, and they end up dead and dishonored. The way that seems most powerful is nothing more than a petty excuse for quitting and throwing away potential.
A more active version of that futility can be seen in Darth Maul. Like the Emperor and Dooku, Maul gives up everything worth having in the pursuit of pure power, in his case a fanatic devotion to a perversion of the Jedi Code, one which makes him formidable, enough to take on 2 Jedi at once and overpower them, but which destroys him on his first mistake.
And that leaves us with Luke Skywalker. Luke grows from a boy with potential, to a true Jedi Knight, worthy not only to defeat the Emperor and redeem his father’s soul, but to recreate the Jedi Order. He does this by learning the Jedi Creed, very much the hard way: The only parents he knows are murdered, then his mentor and closest friends are killed or captured, and then Luke discovers that his father is the evil force behind all his trouble. Worse, Luke learns from Yoda that the path he would most like to take, to directly fight against this evil, would only lead to him becoming evil himself. So, even after hard training physically and mentally, Luke realizes he must face and master himself, before he can confront his father and accomplish his identity and ideals, even at great personal cost. Yet in the end, Luke has everything he truly desires; he has family in his sister and in the knowledge that his father, his mentor, and his teacher are one with the Force; he has friends and honor, and he knows that he is truly Jedi.
So in looking at these people, we see the dutiful balance of Obi-Wan Kenobi, the wisdom and serenity of Yoda, the impulsiveness of Anikin, the lust for power in the Emperor and Dooku, the battle rage of Maul, and the growth and earnest faith of Luke. There are worthwhile lessons in each of them, whether of not you want to consider the Jedi aspect of their characters.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
National Missing Child Day
[]
Today is National Missing Child Day. According to statistics from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) , approximately 725,000 juveniles or children are reported missing to the police each year. That’s more than two thousand children a day. Congress mandated the automatic NCIC entry and police report in every case of a missing child, with the National Child Search Assistance Act in 1990. Since 1990, NCIC missing persons reports have increased 27%.
According to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2000;
· Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping: kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent), kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent), and kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).
· Family kidnapping is committed primarily by parents, involves a larger percentage of female perpetrators (43 percent) than other types of kidnapping offenses, occurs more frequently to children under 6, equally victimizes juveniles of both sexes, and most often originates in the home.
· Stranger kidnapping victimizes more females than males, occurs primarily at outdoor locations, victimizes both teenagers and school-age children, is associated with sexual assaults in the case of girl victims and robberies in the case of boy victims (although not exclusively so), and is the type of kidnapping most likely to involve the use of a firearm.
You can help find children and bring them home safe. Just be sure you do these simple things:
[] When the mailers come, LOOK at the picture, and really think about whether you might have seen the child.
[] When you visit WAL-MART or any store participating in a Child Search program, take the time to look at the pictures and think.
[] When an AMBER ALERT is broadcast, note the description and information
[] Contact the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or Child Find of America, to learn more.
You can save a child's life.
Today is National Missing Child Day. According to statistics from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) , approximately 725,000 juveniles or children are reported missing to the police each year. That’s more than two thousand children a day. Congress mandated the automatic NCIC entry and police report in every case of a missing child, with the National Child Search Assistance Act in 1990. Since 1990, NCIC missing persons reports have increased 27%.
According to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2000;
· Based on the identity of the perpetrator, there are three distinct types of kidnapping: kidnapping by a relative of the victim or "family kidnapping" (49 percent), kidnapping by an acquaintance of the victim or "acquaintance kidnapping" (27 percent), and kidnapping by a stranger to the victim or "stranger kidnapping" (24 percent).
· Family kidnapping is committed primarily by parents, involves a larger percentage of female perpetrators (43 percent) than other types of kidnapping offenses, occurs more frequently to children under 6, equally victimizes juveniles of both sexes, and most often originates in the home.
· Stranger kidnapping victimizes more females than males, occurs primarily at outdoor locations, victimizes both teenagers and school-age children, is associated with sexual assaults in the case of girl victims and robberies in the case of boy victims (although not exclusively so), and is the type of kidnapping most likely to involve the use of a firearm.
You can help find children and bring them home safe. Just be sure you do these simple things:
[] When the mailers come, LOOK at the picture, and really think about whether you might have seen the child.
[] When you visit WAL-MART or any store participating in a Child Search program, take the time to look at the pictures and think.
[] When an AMBER ALERT is broadcast, note the description and information
[] Contact the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or Child Find of America, to learn more.
You can save a child's life.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Why Senators Should Not Be Allowed To Watch TV
O
In the season finale of "24", super-agent Jack Bauer chased down terrorists, made a deal which let criminals get away, a nuclear weapon is shot down, and the government in power proves to be either weak or corrupt.
Around the same time as this episode was aired, 14 Senators took it upon themselves to claim the authority belonging to the whole Senate, made a deal which excused Democratic calumny while denying the majority of the Senators their right and authority, the much-needed 'nuclear' option was shot down, and the group of fourteen usurping Senators proved themselves no better than political whores, ambitious and unscrupulous.
Senators should not be allowed to watch television.
In the season finale of "24", super-agent Jack Bauer chased down terrorists, made a deal which let criminals get away, a nuclear weapon is shot down, and the government in power proves to be either weak or corrupt.
Around the same time as this episode was aired, 14 Senators took it upon themselves to claim the authority belonging to the whole Senate, made a deal which excused Democratic calumny while denying the majority of the Senators their right and authority, the much-needed 'nuclear' option was shot down, and the group of fourteen usurping Senators proved themselves no better than political whores, ambitious and unscrupulous.
Senators should not be allowed to watch television.
TREACHERY!!
<---
There has been much noise about the deal made to avert the Senate vote on whether to actually do the jobs they have been elected to. Anyone who claims this is a “good” deal, either is a Democrat, or has not read the text of the deal. Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the text from the deal made by the 14 Senators, and my comments regarding their implications:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
“We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based on mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future nominations in the 109th Congress.”
First, given the unconstitutional tricks played by Reid and the Democrats for the past five years, to put Reid on the same level as Frist is not only a slap in the face of Dr. Frist, who has performed his work honorably and responsibly, but also denies consequence and accountability for the Democrats’ past offenses. This first paragraph gives the Democrats a pass for their conduct. Note also, that 14 Senators have taken it upon themselves, to declare the rules for the other 86. If usurpation by the minority were not something to fear before, this is an unconscionable advance in political trickery, and should be shouted down for the elitist mindset it advances.
“This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.”
In plain English, this translates to ‘We don’t give a rat’s hindside for what the U.S. Constitution demands we do as Senators. We few have taken upon ourselves to declare the rules and order for all judicial nominations for the foreseeable future.’
“We have agreed to the following:
“Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
“A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owens (5th Circuit).
“B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).”
This is outrageous! These 14 bombasts have finally decided that after years of waiting, they are willing to allow floor votes on some judges, all of whose credentials were established long ago. Yet, other judges are specifically and deliberately held to a different standard, on no basis related to their competency, or the need to fill bench vacancies. This, without question, is unconstitutional, and completely unacceptable conduct from a Republican Senator.
“II. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
The first statement in this section, is the duty which every Democrat Senator has ducked or violated for the past half-decade. Note that there is no enforcement clause to make them obey their duty now. The last sentence is a pile of steaming animal waste product, as it makes no promise whatsoever, that Democrats will not go back to their usurpation the moment they feel like it, and worse, wish to have such violation of their duties blessed as some sort of right or moral obligation. The fact that this clause was even included in the agreement, shows the negligence, bordering on corrupt complicity, of the Republican Senators who agreed to this treachery.
“B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or reinterpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.”
This is an outright surrender by the Republican signatories. The Democrats make no commitment to give up the filibuster, but expect the Republicans to give up their right as the majority party to change the rules when necessary. That any Republican would sign such an agreement, is betrayal of his party, his state, and his nation.
“We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “:Advice speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.”
Having raped the Senate of its rules and authority, these worthies now deign to command the President how he shall present nominees. FDR never had to 'pre-screen' his nominees, nor did Clinton, nor any President in the past. The Senate has always had the right to debate and vote on the merits or doubts of a candidate, but these Senators wish to expand their personal power, to the point of adding an unconstitutional restriction on the President. Here is printed in plain statement, unmitigated gall and arrogance!
“Such a return to the early practices of our government” - This is a lie, and nothing else - “may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
“We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.”
There it is, plainly printed. Democrats have used a power in the past, which they now deny to Republicans by no right but posture and deceit and further, would now claim for themselves not only control of the Senate, but a lever against the President, in order to maintain control of the courts, so that 7 Senators have corrupted another 7, to grant them power over all three branches of the government, through no right or Constitutional mandate, nor the approval of electoral support, but only through arrogance and complicity in avarice. Such brazen contempt for the principles of a Democratic Republic, I have not seen in a long time.
Mark these names, for these villains have leveraged power from a position they do not deserve to hold:
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Mark these names also, for they are villains to their state, their party, and to the nation for violating the trust and duty of their office. Remember them when they come up again for election, and make known the foul fruit of their arrogance:
John McCain (Arizona)
John Warner (Virginia)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island)
Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Treachery has been done. It falls to us now to answer it, remember it, and when the next election comes, to pay the wages it has brought, in full fury.
There has been much noise about the deal made to avert the Senate vote on whether to actually do the jobs they have been elected to. Anyone who claims this is a “good” deal, either is a Democrat, or has not read the text of the deal. Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the text from the deal made by the 14 Senators, and my comments regarding their implications:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
“We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based on mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future nominations in the 109th Congress.”
First, given the unconstitutional tricks played by Reid and the Democrats for the past five years, to put Reid on the same level as Frist is not only a slap in the face of Dr. Frist, who has performed his work honorably and responsibly, but also denies consequence and accountability for the Democrats’ past offenses. This first paragraph gives the Democrats a pass for their conduct. Note also, that 14 Senators have taken it upon themselves, to declare the rules for the other 86. If usurpation by the minority were not something to fear before, this is an unconscionable advance in political trickery, and should be shouted down for the elitist mindset it advances.
“This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.”
In plain English, this translates to ‘We don’t give a rat’s hindside for what the U.S. Constitution demands we do as Senators. We few have taken upon ourselves to declare the rules and order for all judicial nominations for the foreseeable future.’
“We have agreed to the following:
“Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
“A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owens (5th Circuit).
“B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).”
This is outrageous! These 14 bombasts have finally decided that after years of waiting, they are willing to allow floor votes on some judges, all of whose credentials were established long ago. Yet, other judges are specifically and deliberately held to a different standard, on no basis related to their competency, or the need to fill bench vacancies. This, without question, is unconstitutional, and completely unacceptable conduct from a Republican Senator.
“II. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.”
The first statement in this section, is the duty which every Democrat Senator has ducked or violated for the past half-decade. Note that there is no enforcement clause to make them obey their duty now. The last sentence is a pile of steaming animal waste product, as it makes no promise whatsoever, that Democrats will not go back to their usurpation the moment they feel like it, and worse, wish to have such violation of their duties blessed as some sort of right or moral obligation. The fact that this clause was even included in the agreement, shows the negligence, bordering on corrupt complicity, of the Republican Senators who agreed to this treachery.
“B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or reinterpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.”
This is an outright surrender by the Republican signatories. The Democrats make no commitment to give up the filibuster, but expect the Republicans to give up their right as the majority party to change the rules when necessary. That any Republican would sign such an agreement, is betrayal of his party, his state, and his nation.
“We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “:Advice speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.”
Having raped the Senate of its rules and authority, these worthies now deign to command the President how he shall present nominees. FDR never had to 'pre-screen' his nominees, nor did Clinton, nor any President in the past. The Senate has always had the right to debate and vote on the merits or doubts of a candidate, but these Senators wish to expand their personal power, to the point of adding an unconstitutional restriction on the President. Here is printed in plain statement, unmitigated gall and arrogance!
“Such a return to the early practices of our government” - This is a lie, and nothing else - “may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
“We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.”
There it is, plainly printed. Democrats have used a power in the past, which they now deny to Republicans by no right but posture and deceit and further, would now claim for themselves not only control of the Senate, but a lever against the President, in order to maintain control of the courts, so that 7 Senators have corrupted another 7, to grant them power over all three branches of the government, through no right or Constitutional mandate, nor the approval of electoral support, but only through arrogance and complicity in avarice. Such brazen contempt for the principles of a Democratic Republic, I have not seen in a long time.
Mark these names, for these villains have leveraged power from a position they do not deserve to hold:
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Mark these names also, for they are villains to their state, their party, and to the nation for violating the trust and duty of their office. Remember them when they come up again for election, and make known the foul fruit of their arrogance:
John McCain (Arizona)
John Warner (Virginia)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island)
Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Treachery has been done. It falls to us now to answer it, remember it, and when the next election comes, to pay the wages it has brought, in full fury.
Monday, May 23, 2005
ALERT CONDITION ADVANCED
[5] [4] [3] [2] [1]
The United States Senate, specifying hostile intentions by the Dark Side Party (aka Democrats), has advanced the Senate Defense Condition, or SENCON, from 4 (elevated) to 3 (full alert), in reaction to Democrat overtures indicating continuing hostility to Constitutional responsibilities and the duty to vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees.
The risk of "nuclear" conflict has increased from "possible" to "probable".
The United States Senate, specifying hostile intentions by the Dark Side Party (aka Democrats), has advanced the Senate Defense Condition, or SENCON, from 4 (elevated) to 3 (full alert), in reaction to Democrat overtures indicating continuing hostility to Constitutional responsibilities and the duty to vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees.
The risk of "nuclear" conflict has increased from "possible" to "probable".
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Sexuality and Morality
><
One quick way to start a fight, is to start discussing sexuality and what is right or wrong about it. Most people, accordingly, would decide to leave that subject be, but ignoring behavior with a moral value is not something Christians are taught to do. So, in discussing the moral aspects of sexual conduct, I also find it necessary to examine the place of the Church, and of Christians, in how we act towards others in a matter or sexual conduct.
In my earlier post concerning Sexuality, I made a point of noting that Scripture has been taken as support for positions condemning Homosexuality which, when examined closer and in context, is not the sum of their statements. Also, I have noted that the Gospel accounts do not show a single statement by Christ which indicts Homosexuals, or which indicates that sexual orientation is a sin. I decided to present my understanding of sexual morals as they apply to Christians.
Before going on, I should note my strong belief that Jesus not only was never married or had children, I am convinced He never had sex. Any claim to the contrary misses a critical part of Jesus’ promise to us; Jesus Christ made God accessible to anyone interested in the relationship, and to equal degree. If Jesus had a girlfriend, let alone a wife and children, that promise is destroyed. This absolute celibacy by Jesus is the motive for Paul’s suggestion that believers should not marry, if they have the self-control to maintain their virginity. It also has the unfortunate effect, of suggesting that only virginity would please God, which is simply not so.
God made every single human being on the planet, and Genesis makes clear that God intended for humans to have children, which has almost always involved sexual intercourse. But more, it is clear from even a superficial reading of Scripture, that God is pleased when a husband and wife love each other, the Song of Songs is pretty specific about the physical pleasures of a couple, and God’s approval.
If I stopped there, Roman Catholics and most of the traditional Protestants would be pretty pleased. But those same Scripures pose other stories, less obvious but no less significant. Jacob and the Lord wrestled at night (Genesis 32:22-25). David and Jonathan were best friends, and some of their contact indicates a more intimate relationship than even brotherhood (1 Samuel 20:3, 20:11, 20:15, for example) . Some of the most important figures in the Bible were prostitutes, like Rahab (Joshua 2:1-24) and many of the women Jesus addressed had been married more than once, were living with a man they were not married to, or otherwise engaging in activities fairly promiscuous for the times, and it is noteworthy to see how He spoke with compassion to them.
Abram had a child by Hagar before he did with his wife, Sarai. Lot was considered a righteous man, but both of his daughters had children with him (Genesis 19:30-36). Tamar disguised herself as a “shrine prostitute” in order to have children to continue the bloodline (Genesis 38:13-30) . The Roman Centurion whose faith Jesus praised (Luke 7:9), seemed to have an unusual personal interest in his servant, yet Jesus had nothing but praise for him.
So, from a Biblical perspective, it becomes clear to me that a lust-driven action offends God, and violence in any relationship is evil. Further, in any relationship, one member dominates, and so is responsible for whatever happens in that relationship. The moral value of any relationship, then, does not depend on its orientation, but on the character of its pursuit, and the commitment of the participants to the other’s well-being and happiness.
I need to say that I am a bit disappointed, that some who asked me by e-mail to post on this issue, have not said anything since I did so. I expect I posted a few things you didn’t expect, but whether or not you agreed with my take, I think it would be a good and desirable thing, for you to make your own thoughts and opinions known. The conversation is too important, for it to be merely a soliloquoy.
One quick way to start a fight, is to start discussing sexuality and what is right or wrong about it. Most people, accordingly, would decide to leave that subject be, but ignoring behavior with a moral value is not something Christians are taught to do. So, in discussing the moral aspects of sexual conduct, I also find it necessary to examine the place of the Church, and of Christians, in how we act towards others in a matter or sexual conduct.
In my earlier post concerning Sexuality, I made a point of noting that Scripture has been taken as support for positions condemning Homosexuality which, when examined closer and in context, is not the sum of their statements. Also, I have noted that the Gospel accounts do not show a single statement by Christ which indicts Homosexuals, or which indicates that sexual orientation is a sin. I decided to present my understanding of sexual morals as they apply to Christians.
Before going on, I should note my strong belief that Jesus not only was never married or had children, I am convinced He never had sex. Any claim to the contrary misses a critical part of Jesus’ promise to us; Jesus Christ made God accessible to anyone interested in the relationship, and to equal degree. If Jesus had a girlfriend, let alone a wife and children, that promise is destroyed. This absolute celibacy by Jesus is the motive for Paul’s suggestion that believers should not marry, if they have the self-control to maintain their virginity. It also has the unfortunate effect, of suggesting that only virginity would please God, which is simply not so.
God made every single human being on the planet, and Genesis makes clear that God intended for humans to have children, which has almost always involved sexual intercourse. But more, it is clear from even a superficial reading of Scripture, that God is pleased when a husband and wife love each other, the Song of Songs is pretty specific about the physical pleasures of a couple, and God’s approval.
If I stopped there, Roman Catholics and most of the traditional Protestants would be pretty pleased. But those same Scripures pose other stories, less obvious but no less significant. Jacob and the Lord wrestled at night (Genesis 32:22-25). David and Jonathan were best friends, and some of their contact indicates a more intimate relationship than even brotherhood (1 Samuel 20:3, 20:11, 20:15, for example) . Some of the most important figures in the Bible were prostitutes, like Rahab (Joshua 2:1-24) and many of the women Jesus addressed had been married more than once, were living with a man they were not married to, or otherwise engaging in activities fairly promiscuous for the times, and it is noteworthy to see how He spoke with compassion to them.
Abram had a child by Hagar before he did with his wife, Sarai. Lot was considered a righteous man, but both of his daughters had children with him (Genesis 19:30-36). Tamar disguised herself as a “shrine prostitute” in order to have children to continue the bloodline (Genesis 38:13-30) . The Roman Centurion whose faith Jesus praised (Luke 7:9), seemed to have an unusual personal interest in his servant, yet Jesus had nothing but praise for him.
So, from a Biblical perspective, it becomes clear to me that a lust-driven action offends God, and violence in any relationship is evil. Further, in any relationship, one member dominates, and so is responsible for whatever happens in that relationship. The moral value of any relationship, then, does not depend on its orientation, but on the character of its pursuit, and the commitment of the participants to the other’s well-being and happiness.
I need to say that I am a bit disappointed, that some who asked me by e-mail to post on this issue, have not said anything since I did so. I expect I posted a few things you didn’t expect, but whether or not you agreed with my take, I think it would be a good and desirable thing, for you to make your own thoughts and opinions known. The conversation is too important, for it to be merely a soliloquoy.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Sexual Conduct
O
I will warn you right up front, this is likely to be a long post, and one which will need follow-ups.
I have received a number of e-mails, requesting I address the issue of Homosexuality in the United States, and also Gay Marriage. I have thought about the issues, read up a bit, prayed on it and decided I would actually prefer to expand the issue to a look at the Morality of Sexual Conduct. You, kind reader, will have to decide the degree of wisdom in my attempt, and the worth of the result.
Because two of the e-mails I received addressed the question from the perspective of Christianity, I will begin with the question of whether or not Homosexuality is sinful. Since human opinion is invariably biased, the logical starting place fro a Christian review would be in the Bible. I found ten citations in the Bible, relevant to the question of Homosexuality. They fall into three categories of note:
General prohibition of homosexuality – Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Specific prohibition against “Male shrine prostitutes” – Deuteronomy 23:17, 1st Kings 14:24 and 15:12 and 22:46, 2nd Kings 23:7
Prohibition against ‘unnatural’ desires – Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Timothy 1:10
First, note that the most references, five of them, show up in reference to male prostitutes at pagan temples. The 1st Corinthian reference also notes them, so 55% of the references are directly connected not to the sexual act itself, but to the idolatry of abandoning God. As for the remaining references, the Old Testament laws were given in the same texts which referenced protecting the tribes from mold and mildew, plague and disease. In other words, the Levitical laws existed for a specific purpose when they were issued, and they could be reconsidered when applied to another circumstance. My basis for saying this, is the fact that Jesus appeared to violate the Law when He healed on the Sabbath, and when He chose not to follow traditional cleansing rituals before eating. In His explanations for these, Jesus made clear that the Pharisees misunderstood the law in that regard. I have another comment from Jesus in mind, but I will save that for a later point, where it is particularly appropriate. That leaves the verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. But looking at these more closely, we see that Paul was writing about lust and wrongful desires, pursuing earthly wants. Romans 1:28-31 in particular, shows what’s going on, as Paul condemns lust in the same mention as envy, murder, deceit, malice, gossip, greed, arrogance, and disobeying your parents. How many people today consider envy the same thing as murder, or gossip the same thing as rape? Paul is speaking about the need to be perfect.
The next point to make about Homosexuality, is what Jesus had to say about it – nothing. There is not a single quote in Scripture, where Jesus condemns a person for Homosexuality. Given the Roman occupation at the time, and some of the more common Roman customs of the soldiers, there certainly were Homosexuals around which Jesus could have pointed out, but He did not. He neither praised nor condemned any particular sexual behavior, save two occasions of note. In John 8:2-11, a woman was caught in the act of Adultery, and Jesus made His admonition that “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Also, in Mark 10:2-12, Jesus warns that Moses allowed the law allowing divorce to be written, because men’s hearts were hard, and warning also that “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”. This is a hard truth, and one which many Christians forget, especially when they consider their own remarried ministers and members.
Over at BeliefNet, a member named ‘The Maven’ made that excellent point. This is not to say that a Christian who has been divorced may not remarry at all, or that divorce is always wrong, but that the commitment of marriage is a sacred thing and no trifle, and to condemn another person is a hateful act which is not at all in keeping with the Lord’s commands.
So, if I had to present a verdict on the morality of Homosexuality, I would say that it is very much like Heterosexuality. If you are only pursuing what you feel like doing, and have no care of attention for your partner, you are using them as a thing, and offending God as you risk great harm to another person. If you are committed to their happiness and welfare, then you do not sin.
As to remarriage, that deserves its own post, which I will work on later. For now, the logical next step is to discuss the so-called ‘Gay Marriage’. Ultimately, there’s three takes on that – the cultural one, the American one, and the moral one. Starting with cultural, people don’t like surprises, and every time something significant shows up on the horizon, there’s people who toss out reasons why it’s bad. On the one hand, I’m not game for revisionist history, or special rights for a group of people. I also strongly believe that no church can or should be compelled to marry Gay people if their doctrine forbids it. That said, it’s nothing but idiocy for the opposite to dominate, like prohibiting a willing church from performing a gay marriage, or denying gays the same rights as anyone else, or automatically treating GLBT as a “risk group”, on the assumption that having a GLBT neighbor, co-worker, boss, friend, or whatever somehow means bad news. Something can be worked out, and will, but hysteria and any sort of phobia is just unacceptable.
On to the American position. That’s pretty simple, really – except for laws which protect children from predators and which encourage families, a GLBT couple should, I would say must, be equal in the eyes of the law to a heterosexual couple. I have heard the ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but those all basically boil down to questions about predatory conduct, which is its own issue. I don’t know if the word ‘marriage’ should be used, since there are connotations to the word that we simply may not be able to address at this time, but there has to be some accommodation that grants people a balance of rights.
On the moral level, it actually comes down to one word – promiscuity. I would be much happier with a son or daughter who marries his love, rather than one who sleeps around, whether gay, bi-, or straight. A married gay couple is committed, monogamous, and that should be encouraged. Period.
I’m going to stop here for a time, for two reasons. First, I expect this is going to be a chunk to weigh and consider. Second, the next issue is the big one about Sexual Morality overall, and that needs a fresh start.
For now, I look forward to your comments and replies. At the least, I hope I will hear back from the people who asked me to post on this topic. Thanks.
I will warn you right up front, this is likely to be a long post, and one which will need follow-ups.
I have received a number of e-mails, requesting I address the issue of Homosexuality in the United States, and also Gay Marriage. I have thought about the issues, read up a bit, prayed on it and decided I would actually prefer to expand the issue to a look at the Morality of Sexual Conduct. You, kind reader, will have to decide the degree of wisdom in my attempt, and the worth of the result.
Because two of the e-mails I received addressed the question from the perspective of Christianity, I will begin with the question of whether or not Homosexuality is sinful. Since human opinion is invariably biased, the logical starting place fro a Christian review would be in the Bible. I found ten citations in the Bible, relevant to the question of Homosexuality. They fall into three categories of note:
General prohibition of homosexuality – Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Specific prohibition against “Male shrine prostitutes” – Deuteronomy 23:17, 1st Kings 14:24 and 15:12 and 22:46, 2nd Kings 23:7
Prohibition against ‘unnatural’ desires – Romans 1:26-27, 1st Corinthians 6:9, 1st Timothy 1:10
First, note that the most references, five of them, show up in reference to male prostitutes at pagan temples. The 1st Corinthian reference also notes them, so 55% of the references are directly connected not to the sexual act itself, but to the idolatry of abandoning God. As for the remaining references, the Old Testament laws were given in the same texts which referenced protecting the tribes from mold and mildew, plague and disease. In other words, the Levitical laws existed for a specific purpose when they were issued, and they could be reconsidered when applied to another circumstance. My basis for saying this, is the fact that Jesus appeared to violate the Law when He healed on the Sabbath, and when He chose not to follow traditional cleansing rituals before eating. In His explanations for these, Jesus made clear that the Pharisees misunderstood the law in that regard. I have another comment from Jesus in mind, but I will save that for a later point, where it is particularly appropriate. That leaves the verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. But looking at these more closely, we see that Paul was writing about lust and wrongful desires, pursuing earthly wants. Romans 1:28-31 in particular, shows what’s going on, as Paul condemns lust in the same mention as envy, murder, deceit, malice, gossip, greed, arrogance, and disobeying your parents. How many people today consider envy the same thing as murder, or gossip the same thing as rape? Paul is speaking about the need to be perfect.
The next point to make about Homosexuality, is what Jesus had to say about it – nothing. There is not a single quote in Scripture, where Jesus condemns a person for Homosexuality. Given the Roman occupation at the time, and some of the more common Roman customs of the soldiers, there certainly were Homosexuals around which Jesus could have pointed out, but He did not. He neither praised nor condemned any particular sexual behavior, save two occasions of note. In John 8:2-11, a woman was caught in the act of Adultery, and Jesus made His admonition that “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”. Also, in Mark 10:2-12, Jesus warns that Moses allowed the law allowing divorce to be written, because men’s hearts were hard, and warning also that “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”. This is a hard truth, and one which many Christians forget, especially when they consider their own remarried ministers and members.
Over at BeliefNet, a member named ‘The Maven’ made that excellent point. This is not to say that a Christian who has been divorced may not remarry at all, or that divorce is always wrong, but that the commitment of marriage is a sacred thing and no trifle, and to condemn another person is a hateful act which is not at all in keeping with the Lord’s commands.
So, if I had to present a verdict on the morality of Homosexuality, I would say that it is very much like Heterosexuality. If you are only pursuing what you feel like doing, and have no care of attention for your partner, you are using them as a thing, and offending God as you risk great harm to another person. If you are committed to their happiness and welfare, then you do not sin.
As to remarriage, that deserves its own post, which I will work on later. For now, the logical next step is to discuss the so-called ‘Gay Marriage’. Ultimately, there’s three takes on that – the cultural one, the American one, and the moral one. Starting with cultural, people don’t like surprises, and every time something significant shows up on the horizon, there’s people who toss out reasons why it’s bad. On the one hand, I’m not game for revisionist history, or special rights for a group of people. I also strongly believe that no church can or should be compelled to marry Gay people if their doctrine forbids it. That said, it’s nothing but idiocy for the opposite to dominate, like prohibiting a willing church from performing a gay marriage, or denying gays the same rights as anyone else, or automatically treating GLBT as a “risk group”, on the assumption that having a GLBT neighbor, co-worker, boss, friend, or whatever somehow means bad news. Something can be worked out, and will, but hysteria and any sort of phobia is just unacceptable.
On to the American position. That’s pretty simple, really – except for laws which protect children from predators and which encourage families, a GLBT couple should, I would say must, be equal in the eyes of the law to a heterosexual couple. I have heard the ‘slippery slope’ arguments, but those all basically boil down to questions about predatory conduct, which is its own issue. I don’t know if the word ‘marriage’ should be used, since there are connotations to the word that we simply may not be able to address at this time, but there has to be some accommodation that grants people a balance of rights.
On the moral level, it actually comes down to one word – promiscuity. I would be much happier with a son or daughter who marries his love, rather than one who sleeps around, whether gay, bi-, or straight. A married gay couple is committed, monogamous, and that should be encouraged. Period.
I’m going to stop here for a time, for two reasons. First, I expect this is going to be a chunk to weigh and consider. Second, the next issue is the big one about Sexual Morality overall, and that needs a fresh start.
For now, I look forward to your comments and replies. At the least, I hope I will hear back from the people who asked me to post on this topic. Thanks.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Fiction As Truth
[]
Over on BeliefNet, I have been plunking away at posts regarding the Jedi. Yeah, Luke Skywalker and Yoda and all that lot. But in a way, not them at all.
The “Star Wars” stories worked, in my sometimes-garrulous opinion, because of the basic themes in them – Heroism, Justice, Humor, and Action. Basically, the first movie was good, but it was the inspiration of the Ideals of the Jedi, which made the films truly epic. At least, until Lucas decided to demote ‘The Force’ to blood chemistry, and imposed Jar-Jar Binks on us at the same time.
But fiction has always had its effect, and often for good purpose. Shakespeare’s plays were fiction, yet have been quoted at great length for centuries. Even people who believe the Bible is nothing more than allegory and symbolism, admit it has powerful lessons and moral value. And whole generations have grown up memorizing the signal lines from their favorite works.
I miss the writer Roger Zelazny, a peculiar man I did not agree with at all in his choice of faith and in many of his cultural assumptions. Yet he was a compelling writer, the sort of man who could tell you about his breakfast in a way that could mesmerize.
I liked the way Dusko Doder could create a complete image of Moscow, so you could feel the excitement of the first spring thaw, and feel a belonging to the communities in varying places.
I found Plato’s arguments compelling, written in a style which captured not only his reasoning, but the passion behind his convictions.
We live in a world obsessed with fact. Good fiction reminds us to watch for the greater truth, even when there is no fact at all in its source. You might laugh at Obi-Wan Kenobi, but to do so is an admission that he exists at some level.
Over on BeliefNet, I have been plunking away at posts regarding the Jedi. Yeah, Luke Skywalker and Yoda and all that lot. But in a way, not them at all.
The “Star Wars” stories worked, in my sometimes-garrulous opinion, because of the basic themes in them – Heroism, Justice, Humor, and Action. Basically, the first movie was good, but it was the inspiration of the Ideals of the Jedi, which made the films truly epic. At least, until Lucas decided to demote ‘The Force’ to blood chemistry, and imposed Jar-Jar Binks on us at the same time.
But fiction has always had its effect, and often for good purpose. Shakespeare’s plays were fiction, yet have been quoted at great length for centuries. Even people who believe the Bible is nothing more than allegory and symbolism, admit it has powerful lessons and moral value. And whole generations have grown up memorizing the signal lines from their favorite works.
I miss the writer Roger Zelazny, a peculiar man I did not agree with at all in his choice of faith and in many of his cultural assumptions. Yet he was a compelling writer, the sort of man who could tell you about his breakfast in a way that could mesmerize.
I liked the way Dusko Doder could create a complete image of Moscow, so you could feel the excitement of the first spring thaw, and feel a belonging to the communities in varying places.
I found Plato’s arguments compelling, written in a style which captured not only his reasoning, but the passion behind his convictions.
We live in a world obsessed with fact. Good fiction reminds us to watch for the greater truth, even when there is no fact at all in its source. You might laugh at Obi-Wan Kenobi, but to do so is an admission that he exists at some level.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Bringing Fiction To Life
...
It had to end, I know. But it still surprised me a little, and moved me within, to read the final fictional dispatch from the equally fictional Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader.
The writer, who is almost completely anonymous (his page shows “MFDH” at the bottom, and some of the links reference http://mfdh.ca ) , has written a brilliant account of the Star Wars saga from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker, and a better one you will not find, even from George Lucas.
Some people will see the ‘Star Wars’ analogy and roll their eyes. I saw a portrayal of conflict, redemption, and discovery, and think others will as well.
It had to end, I know. But it still surprised me a little, and moved me within, to read the final fictional dispatch from the equally fictional Anakin Skywalker, aka Darth Vader.
The writer, who is almost completely anonymous (his page shows “MFDH” at the bottom, and some of the links reference http://mfdh.ca ) , has written a brilliant account of the Star Wars saga from the perspective of Anakin Skywalker, and a better one you will not find, even from George Lucas.
Some people will see the ‘Star Wars’ analogy and roll their eyes. I saw a portrayal of conflict, redemption, and discovery, and think others will as well.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Master On War
<.>
Right Wing News has a great selection of quotes by George S. Patton, which I find especially fitting for the present condition. I also have little trouble imagining his reaction to the pessimists and limp-spined expectations of the Left.
To those in Congress talking about delaying Judicial And Social Security Reform:
“A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week”
To those who think accommodation with the Democratic Minority is preferable to pushing through on the programs Republicans promised to get through:
“Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.”
To those who count our losses and worry:
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
To those who think we should quit and go home:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the b*stards who started it.”
To those who think we are doing too much right now:
“I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.”
To those who say we need to wait until we have everything line up just so:
“We have got by due to persistence and on the ability to make plans fit circumstances. The other armies try to make circumstances fit plans.”
And if he were here right now, I have absolutely no doubt that General Patton would have two words for Senate Majority Leader Frist, on the matter of the unconstitutional tactic of a minority using the filibuster to prevent a simple vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees:
“NUKE ‘EM”
Right Wing News has a great selection of quotes by George S. Patton, which I find especially fitting for the present condition. I also have little trouble imagining his reaction to the pessimists and limp-spined expectations of the Left.
To those in Congress talking about delaying Judicial And Social Security Reform:
“A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week”
To those who think accommodation with the Democratic Minority is preferable to pushing through on the programs Republicans promised to get through:
“Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.”
To those who count our losses and worry:
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”
To those who think we should quit and go home:
“Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to get the b*stards who started it.”
To those who think we are doing too much right now:
“I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood.”
To those who say we need to wait until we have everything line up just so:
“We have got by due to persistence and on the ability to make plans fit circumstances. The other armies try to make circumstances fit plans.”
And if he were here right now, I have absolutely no doubt that General Patton would have two words for Senate Majority Leader Frist, on the matter of the unconstitutional tactic of a minority using the filibuster to prevent a simple vote on Federal Appeals Court nominees:
“NUKE ‘EM”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
