We are not in a period of great statesman leading the way.  That's especially true when it comes to the 2008 presidential race.  This is true on both sides of the aisle.  TR, FDR, Reagan..much less Lincoln, Jefferson, or Washington?  I think not.

This is made even more evident by the coming-of-political-age of YouTube.  People can now effectively mock the folks they don't like with a parody, or forever record their gaffes.  This humanizes all candidates, and brings them back to the average-guy/joker pack.  YouTube de-iconizes our leaders.

In some ways, this is great--we are a nation of laws, not superhero leaders.  Excessive adoration of our public leaders is not healthy in a republic.  But, at the same time, it--like so much else in modern culture--reduces public office, and the people striving to serve in office, to jokes.  Can anyone again be "great" with the new technology?

But that is the world we are in.  Here are the high/low-lights.  Pick your (formerly) favorite candidate:

McCain picks his side, and sticks with it;

John Edwards, feeling pretty.

Rudy Giuliani feeling pretty again.  And again.

Hillary returning to her southern roots, yawl.

Romney goes a huntin', for varmints!  (All his life, or twice.)

These clips highlight the use of new technology to bring down candidates.  Some of this is helpful to the process in revealing hypocrisy--no more whistle stop speeches wherein candidates would change their positions based on what state they were in.  It is also harmful, in that it trivializes serious people in a serious process.

 
Read on HERE.

Thomas More

 

Less than 2 weeks ago while the U.S. was in the first days of grieving over the loss of 33 lives at Virginia Tech, my husband and I were alerted that three of our co-workers in Turkey were killed in their office by young Islamic militants. Only in recent days have we become more aware of the details of their long, ruthless torture and the amount of premeditated planning their attackers were involved in. Perhaps you will be encouraged by the lives of these martyrs (as have I been) as you read their story through the words of someone who knew all three. Read the story HERE.

Theresa Olive

allthesetheresa@yahoo.com

 

Well, Philly's psychics didn't see this coming:  the police have begun shutting down all seers' shops in the city.  Apparently there is a 30-year-old law on the books banning visions-for-profit enterprises--yes, you are probably wondering, this does also include astrologers, phrenologists and tarot-card readers.  It appears Philly's council, three decades ago, might have been concerned about mediums' mendacity:  defrauding folks.  In any event, the Philly police have recently begun enforcing the law.

Which the shop owners should have seen coming.

The future looks bright,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

 

I have this friend (I’ll let you guess which one. Let’s just say he’s been featured before….) who can’t seem to pick a career path. “Maybe I’ll be a teacher”. Then 2 month later..”Maybe I’ll be a therapist”…..(March, April….)….”I’m thinking about going to law school”. Finally I said “Aaarrgghhh, JUST PICK SOMETHING!!!”.

Then I felt guilty. I had broken a rule that someone told me about just a few days earlier; something along the lines of “stay on your own side of the street”. This apparently means don’t tell other people how to live their lives. I think it came from the Al Anon 12 step program, but I have a feeling I’ve heard it somewhere before. Oprah’s probably said it a few times. I see the basic point, i.e. don’t get caught up in fixing other peoples problems as a way of avoiding your own. I think someone even more important than Oprah said something similar 2000 years ago.

My problem is this-like many other wise statements, this idea has been taken out of context and then blown up out of all proportion. We are now so afraid of getting involved in each other’s lives that we have become completely useless “friends”. When I was in college, one of the lay staff at church talked about how we walk with each other, but only in parallel, our paths never crossing. We are experiencing the same things as the person next to us but never sharing those experiences. I sometimes wonder if that’s why so many of us go to therapists to help shed some light on our lives. We are desperate for someone to comment, give their opinion, say SOMETHING! But we have been paralysed by our fear of breaking this “golden rule” as well as the scriptural ones we rightly pay more attention to, but can be just as easily exaggerated.

I don’t want to be a useless friend (or sister in Christ). I don’t want useless friends. I like to think I can take a little truth spoken with love, and I can speak it into my friend’s lives without causing a rift. There is a risk, I know. I might find out that my butt really does look big in those pants. Thanks for letting me know!

Read on HERE.

Philomena

 

I've posted before that I am a skeptic not just of "global warming" but also, and more importantly, of the debate behind the topic.  Now, two Canadian scientists are trying to shed more light on both problems.  At its core, you have disingenuous people pushing theories that are not fact.  The media finds a drama to sell and pushes it.  Politicians see a way to get ahead, and we are off. 

One technique of the pro-warming group is to assert that "all credible scientists agree" on global warming and its source.  This paints dissenters as fringe wackos.  But, it is not true.  Also, what if there is a scientific explanation for the warming, such as a change in the sun?  If that is true, then the planet is warming but it is not by human hands.  That is, essentially, what the scientists in this article are explaining.  It is worth a look.

Why does any of this matter?  Well, two reasons.  First, we cannot base public policy--which has serious economic and behavioral ramifications--on the same grounds as choosing the prom queen:  popularity with the 'in' crowd.  Second, combating global warming by shutting down cars and factories costs society wealth--either in lost production (and therefore real people's jobs) or in clean up costs.  That wealth could be used to combat actual--not theoretical--problems in this world:  AIDS, malaria, or cancer.  For a sense of the cost of Kyoto versus the cost of malaria, look at this page (Kyoto) and this page (malaria).  What a tragedy.  As Tim Patterson, of Carleton University in Ottawa, notes: 

"All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa...We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."

Read on HERE.

Thomas More

 

You should read this article.  Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has taken on the 'Evil' McCain-Feingold law.  It was passed in the name of "reform."  It is far from it; in fact it makes things worse, much worse.

A bedrock principle of our republic is freedom of speech.  Congress shall make no law abridging it, says the Constitution.  The main purpose of that provision was not to make sure exotic dancers could practice their trade, or that juveniles could curse in public settings--both of which are allowed by case law under our freedom-of-speech jurisprudence.  No, the 1st Amendment was drafted in the context of the King of England suppressing his citizens' objections to his policies.  The Founders did not want this for our new country.

So McCain-Feingold comes along and bars groups from talking about federal candidates near federal elections.  When would be better to have a debate about such candidates?!?!  This law is an affront to our very political order.  Plus, as Romney points out, it does not work.  As McCain tries to force money out of politics, he actually forces it into the shadows, where citizens can get less information about who is spending what.  Columnist George Will has noted, too, that there is more money spent by Americans on pork rinds than on politics, so the notion that we are spending too much on politics is debatable.

Here's a couple of the highlights from Romney's article, but read the whole thing.

Read on HERE.

Thomas More

 

In a near-perfect confluence of old friends, new friends, children, adults, historical sights, and perfect weather, four of your humble bloggers gathered for a long weekend at Casa de Lucy.  Setting a new standard for hostesses and mothers across the country, Lucy opened her home to us travelers and our cohort of children.

The point of the trip was to show the kids some of the famous sights in the nation's capital.  We did about as much as possible with four and six-year-olds.  They loved it and were absolute troopers.  (Not-so-surprisingly, if you think about it) the highlight for them was not cherry blossoms, the rose garden, Mt. Vernon, the Capitol, the Lincoln Memorial, watching Marine One land, or even the Oval Office--and all these pearls were thrown before these sw...kids.  They did enjoy each of these immensely.  But the highest highlight was running threw a steam vent together by the Washington Monument ("Mom-ument" for some) and playing in their new friends' sand box at Lucy's home.  Sights are nice, but playing with friends...that's divine!

Lucy's Rivendell was a home away from home for our entire band.  We had such perfect weather we could come back from a long day of touring, and have a fun meal with the kids and old friends sitting out on the porch, looking at the spring springing all around the yard.  We caught up with old friends, talked about life, watched the kids play, and, for some, got to know new friends.  It was wonderful.

Read on HERE.

Thomas More

 

The U.S. Exceptional?  Yes!

A friend sent this to me today.  I thought it was worth sharing...

I heard this yesterday and found it today.  Bill Bennet is talking about Virginia Tech specifically but it's not just about VT.  It's about what we as a country are.  Here is how Bennet captures the American spirit.

Here's what Ronald Reagan said at that time, and think about this in regard to what some people are going to pronounce over the next days and weeks. Ronald Reagan said this, "We are not a sick society. A sick society could not produce the men who set foot on the Moon, or who are now circling the Earth above us in the Skylab. A sick society, bereft of morality and courage, did not produce the men who went through these years of torture and captivity in Vietnam. Where do we find such men? They are typical of this country. They are typical of this land as the founding fathers were. We find them in our streets and our offices and our shops, and the working places of our country, and our farms." And I might add, in our military.  We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the Dark Ages, Pope Pius XII said, "The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on Earth.

And then I end the book. So, so there. That's all I have to say about that. Liviu Librescu, a professor at Virginia Tech, was such an American, by adoption. He adopted this country, taught aeronautical engineering, and yesterday, saved young Americans. Eisenhower and the American military liberated the death camps, saved people like Librescu. Yesterday, he returned the favor, and stood in the doorway while students were able to escape. He survived the Holocaust and Hitler to do this. So the message, the story, it's said on this show, the beat goes on."

I believe Bennett and Reagan are correct.   No country has spilled more blood and spent more treasure to free OTHER people than America.

Read on HERE.

Didymus

 

On a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court just upheld a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  It is a procedure where the baby is partially delivered, and then the skull is crushed to abort the birth.  To understand how gruesome it is, you should read about it.

The Court did not strike down all late abortions, and women can still have abortions where the baby is dismembered in the uterus and then extracted.  Opponents of abortion say this will not reduce the total number of abortions, it will just change the method.  Abortion advocates fear this is the first step in the federal and state governments moving to regulate, and thus limit, abortions.

The case is legally and politically significant in that it shows the importance of judicial nominees.  Both of President Bush's recent appointments--Roberts and Alito--voted with the majority.  They joined Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.  Just a few years ago a very similar law was struck down by the Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.  But the recent additions to the Court resulted in a changed position; 4-5 has become 5-4. 

Now in the minority, Justice Ginsberg wrote "Today's decision is alarming,"  in that it "refuses to take ... seriously" the Supreme Court's past decisions on abortion.  Good. 

Read on HERE.

Thomas More

 

The recent controversy surrounding Don Imus has made for some very interesting debate and comment.  The best thing I've read is a piece in the Kansas City Star by Jason Whitlock entitled, "Imus Isn't the Real Bad Guy."  It is worth reading.  See it here.

Didymus

 
I read this this morning and thought it was worth sharing. It's a comment by W F Deedes on the positive influence of Christian teaching on society as a whole and how we try to compensate when that influence is lost. As usual, I think he hits the nail on the head.

Read on HERE.

Philomena

 

My boss is always complaining about not having enough money, much to the amusement of us lowly minions who work for him. Any sympathy he might have had was finally lost when his salary and those of his academic peers were published on the internet. (How many zeros is that??)  It’s particularly frustrating to the student at the bottom of our totem pole, who is sustained by whatever happens to be the vending machine. Conversely, the same student’s parents, who he relies on for money, also frequently complain about their meagre finances. It leads us to the generalisation that the more money someone has, the less well-off they consider themselves to be.

I also succumbed to this mindset recently. My own finances have been a little dire, since I dived recklessly into homeownership. But my mother recently came to my rescue (proving you’re never too old or too proud for a hand-out from mom). Did this relieve my financial anxiety? Strangely, no. I breathed a quick sigh of relief and then tightened my grip on my new fortune.

Read on HERE.

Philomena

 

"There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado," North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said.

He described the situation as a "'tragic rush to accuse' by an overreaching district attorney."

"I think a lot of people owe a lot of apologies to a lot of people,"

"Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges,"

"This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor,"

So ends the Duke Lacrosse case brought by (soon-to-be-disbarred-and-sued-for-civil-rights-violations) District Attorney Mike Nifong.  Note that the AG found the players "innocent."  Usually a prosecutor will dismiss with a statement that they "could not prove someone did it."  Not being able to prove someone did it, beyond a reasonable doubt, is worlds different than a prosecutor saying someone is innocent.  This is damning to Nifong.  And it demonstrates the exact reasons the Constitution's Framers were so fearful of government power. 

Read on HERE.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

                                  In the course of my preparing to attend an Orthodox Christian seminary, many of my friends are asking the most essential questions.  What most want to know, and they cut right to the chase, is whether or not I shall have to grow a beard in order to be an Orthodox priest.  No one, happily, asks about doctrinal matters (e.g. what do the Orthodox have to say about the filioque?) or about worship (why do you stand for the whole service?) or about spirituality (why do you fast during Lent?).  They want to know about the beard.  "Are you required to grow one?", it usually begins, "and what if
you can't grow one?".  The immediate serious answer is that a beard for an Orthodox priest is customary but not mandatory - and certainly not mandatory for those men challenged by whiskers.  And the reaction to the issue is easy to predict given the sex of the questioner. 

Read on HERE.

Nicodemus

 

There is a difference between having a constitutional right to something and having the Constitution require the government to pay you for something.  For example, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun:  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  But there is no constitutional provision, nor is there a case that I know of, that requires Congress to pay for guns for people who want them, but can't afford them.  Whereas with trials, the 6th Amendment does say that a person receive "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."  Thus, if I can't afford counsel, the Constitution requires the government to pay for one--that's where we get public defenders from.

What, then, does the Constitution say about abortions?  Well, nothing.  As most know, however, the Supreme Court--in Roe v. Wade--found a constitutional right to an abortion in the Constitution--implicitly rather than explicitly.  Thus, Congress and the states, cannot pass laws prohibiting abortions.  Roe, however, does not require Congress or the states to pay for those abortions.  Essentially, if you want one, the government does not have to help you pay for one.  This is true for guns, too.  It is also true for countless other medical procedures--you can get a face lift, tummy tuck, or 'enhancement' all you want, but the government does not have to pay for it.

The distinction between a right to a procedure, and paying for the procedure, seems to be lost on Rudy Giuliani.  When he ran for NYC Mayor, he advocated for public-funding of abortions.  In this recent interview, he stuck by that position:

Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in Florida's capital city.

A video clip of the then-mayoral candidate issuing a similar declaration in 1989 in a speech to the "Women's Coalition" appeared recently on the Internet.

"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the speech that is posted on the video sharing site YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."  (Emphasis mine.)

He says not paying for an elective procedure is the government "denying" a right. 

Read on HERE.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com