A strange sort of reunion

2009-11-22T23:54:00.000-08:00

It is always weird to come back to something you wrote years ago and re-read it. It's partially nostalgic, partially taking askance at changes in opinion, and partially a reunion with some good and formative times.

Memories aside, the real reason I came back to dust off this internet artifact was to say:

If you've somehow stumbled upon this blog, you should check out my current writing pursuits at:

www.troikapress.com

-Matt

The End of Radical Traditions

2007-06-17T20:36:00.000-07:00

Two days ago I attended my last debate tournament as as a competitor.

Yesterday I graduated from high school.

Today, I am announcing the official retirement of Radical Traditions.

As history marches inexorably forward, a new chapter is turned.

Next month I will be teaching, coaching, and judging debate with CFC.

Next year I will be going to college.

I intend to write in a blog again, perhaps a Radical Traditions 2.0.

These transitions do compel a new kind of feeling. I feel reminiscent and content as I look back over my high school career. I can't ask for much more there. At the same time, I feel fond despair as goodbye is "such sweet sorrow." To top it all off, I feel incredibly excited for new locations, new friends, and new experiences. I didn't cry at the last night of the tournament. I didn't bawl at my graduation. I haven't shed hot tears about ending this blog.

But, unlike when one has a birthday, I do feel different (as well as uncharacteristically introspective.) I feel like a character riding off into a sunrise, rather than a sunset. Not that high school was darkness, but now the world dawns anew in a bright, wild, and colossal light. I like what Taylor Carlson said at my graduation ceremony, "it's not an end ... it's a christening ... it's a knighting" Now I intend to earn my spurs. Farewell ... for now.

Who Are You?

2007-04-29T20:03:00.000-07:00

I know I've already talked about Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead. I have an excuse about bringing it up again though. First, I read The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. Second, I wrote an essay for a scholarship on The Fountainhead, so I had to do some review. I came to a bit of a different conclusion than my previous post.

Ayn Rand was right about one thing; one thing that is central to the book but one I honestly overlooked (or at least didn't mention in my other post.) Previously, I had critiqued the idea of selfishness as a value. But the point of The Fountainhead is about defining yourself. Ayn is contending that you should be a "self-sufficient man" in the sense others should not define who you are or what you believe. Here is where Oscar Wilde comes into play with an excellent quote from Dorian Gray, "… to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of some one else's music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly – that is what each of us is here for."

Too many people are letting others define them, it is true. Why do you think Dr. Phil and Oprah are still so immensely popular? They tell you how to think, what to read, and, effectively, who you are. Culture seeks to define people, what they wear, what they like, and who they are … and this is what Ayn Rand sought to critique in her book.

I think she is right. You should not let others define who you are. They will ultimately define you wrong, not only because they are separate individuals and therefore incapable of totally knowing you, but also because an imperfect thing determining the values, truths, and ideas of another imperfect thing has an exponential factor of problems. That's like … wrong squared.

Dorian Gray, however, demonstrates that you cannot necessarily define yourself either. What we desire, what our nature compels us to do, and what we feel is right is not necessarily good, or just, or right. Often, it is neither right for ourselves or for those around us. The whole idea of Dorian Gray is a completely self-absorbed individual whose own soul becomes ugly and decrepit; his natural definition of his rights, wrongs, and values cause his ultimate destruction. On the other hand, if I feel a strong and very natural urge to punch someone, that is certainly right for me … but not for anyone who I decide to bash in the face.

So, you obviously can't let others define you. That much is given and accepted. But you can't really follow the Disney-fied ideal of "listening to your heart" because that will cause problems for you and others. Where then shall we turn for the definition of our ideals, goals, aspirations, truths, values, and character? How about the One who not only knows us, but created us? God can define what man cannot, and he will get it right … if we choose to listen.

Ode to (Un)Common Sense

2007-04-16T15:21:00.000-07:00

My last audio post sounded far too much like the National Public Radio folks … I have a weird taste of … quasi-British in my mouth. Hopefully an ode will be a bit more fun.

Direct Link

A Country's Guilt

2007-04-05T22:10:00.000-07:00

I was at debate last Monday, and an interesting thought was presented. While I don't know the actual opinion of the team, they argued for the purposes of the debate round that the United States should front the bill for a new prison facility in Afghanistan in order to prevent instances of torture and other abuses. Their rationale was basically that the United States should pay for past mistreatment.

This got me thinking, should a country have the whole of its citizens pay for the damages of some? Should later generations have to pay restitutions for the harms of their forbearers, such as slavery restitutions? In thinking it through, I would argue quite simply "no."

The basic reason is that forcing restitutions, economic or otherwise, harms those who are themselves innocent of the crime. When punishing an offence, punishing the entire population of the country will cause more harm than good. Effectively, two wrongs don't make a right.

Take for example Germany after World War I. The payments required of Germany to war ravaged countries soon caused economic conditions in Germany to spiral out of control. Money printed by the German government became more valuable as a fire starter than as a currency. These conditions created an environment that prompted desperation and indeed, a measure of support for nationalist parties such as Hitler and the Nazis.

Now, I'm not arguing that forcing a country to pay for past grievances will cause a Fascist dictator to start a world war, but rather that the standard in determining the correct extent of legal damages is lacking. Even within the United States legal system, the criteria for determining the correct extent of damages owed is nebulous at best. Any measurement of harm done to a human being in dollars and cents is bound to be difficult to ascertain … especially if you don't want to cause harm to the payer for being compelled to give too much.

Germany also provides an example of how it is false to assume the entire country is guilty or in support of its government's actions. There was a German resistance group that culminated in the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. Furthermore, citizens themselves were involved in resistance groups that did not support Hitler and expressed themselves non-violently. Because not every German citizen supported Hitler, voted for Hitler, or followed Hitler's orders in committing atrocities, to say that the whole of Germany was evil is false.

The government is admittedly supposed to represent the people … but if the government commits a wrong, should the people have to pay for it? Should the actions of a governmental individual compel all of society to pay for that individual's crimes? In the slavery question today, should later generations be forced to pay the offspring of those that were harmed? Multiple generations of people came to this country in the 1900s … should they also have to pay for the harms of those before them? I say that punishment should rest where punishment is due … not some vague notion of a country's guilt.

So, the impact of these examples is that forcing economic restitutions is often itself wrong. It is wrong to take undue amounts of money as reconciliatory measure because often there is not a good standard for determining to what extent damage is owed. Even more important, however, is the fact that forcing citizens to pay restitution lumps them all into a general "guilty" category that is not only untrue but also causes even worse feelings of resentment and discord. The bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right.

Now, I have given thought to an alternative. As far as I can see, rather than continuing a cycle of harming one group to "fix" the harm of another, the solution is to forgive, forget, and move on. Direct damages should certainly be paid, but money isn't everything. Unfortunately, I doubt this whole "forgiveness" thing will catch on before there are a lot more payments demanded and received.

Upgrading to Speech

2007-03-27T17:55:00.000-07:00

Here it is, Radical Traditions' first audio presentation. Rejoice!

Direct Link

Smashing the Universe

2007-03-13T18:15:00.000-07:00

I was at Academy Northwest yesterday reading the little notes that students leave under the plastic see-through mats on the table. One of them sparked my interest. It's a hold out from Sophie's World, an introduction to philosophy that the class is studying. It asked, "What is reality? What if all of this is a dream?" I felt compelled to answer.

First, what difference does it make? There is no way to prove, really, that we are not in our own or in someone else's dream. There is also no real way to prove that we are. Especially in light of this, there is no reason to not live as we ought now. It doesn't make a difference to our world whether or not it exists in a very real sense. There are still pragmatic issues to confront, such as the monthly bills, and there are still philosophical truths to debate, such as morality. The true nature of reality is irrelevant to life and how we ought to live in it.

Second, since empirical proof is lacking about the nature of reality, we ought to look for the system of belief that most adequately and consistently explains the nature of things around – and within – us. Now certainly, a person may claim that we are all the figment of his imagination, and we have no immediate way to disprove him. However, G.K. Chesterton put together an excellent rebuttal. He said:

"Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions."

Basically, the idea that we are in some dream state may be consistent with all the evidence, but fails to explain the large things in a large enough way to truly placate the mind and soul. So, our search must be for a logically consistent yet truly all-encompassing belief system that explains both the nature of man and the nature of God. Personally, I ascribe to a worldview that not only explains the depravity of man, but also explains how God in His grace and love sought to reconcile the impure with a most Holy God. As a believer in "mere Christianity," I have found that system to be the best explanation as to what is real and what is not.

But the question of how we ought to behave still remains, no matter what philosophy or religion you may ascribe to. How shall we then live? I again turn to Chesterton, who said it most excellently. We have got to "smash the universe." Try as I might, I can't quite put my own words up to rewriting his quote … or significantly cutting it.

"Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination … he is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself." (I've been on an Orthodoxy binge, in case you couldn't tell.)

So, to whichever student wrote that question about the nature of reality and placed it underneath the mat, I admittedly haven't answered your dilemma. But, I do contend that it is irrelevant. The real question is what should we believe and then how shall we act. That is a personal choice … but Christianity provides a big enough answer and a clear enough system that I am compelled to go smash the universe "for the sake of itself."

Are you confused?

2007-03-04T21:45:00.000-08:00

Last night I went to a Kitsap County Young Republicans meeting, but sometimes I'm hesitant to tell people about it. Republican and Democrat are two of those magical political words that will immediately turn people on or off. For instance when I was calling to "get out the vote" in the last local election cycle, something blatantly political, I told a caller (quite cheerfully I imagined) that I was "Matt Pitchford from the Kitsap County Republica-." That's about as far as I got, because this random caller proceeded to yell obscenities and slam the phone down. The word "republican" invokes such angst in some people, that I am sometimes loath to actually invoke that word as a descriptive term. This problem is further compounded by the fact that more and more I am becoming disillusioned with the Republican Party itself. ( Spending issues anyone?)

Recently I've been reading a book called "Are you Liberal, Conservative, or Confused?" Through the book's definitions, I'd call myself a conservative. Most of the political tests I've ever taken have placed me in the same place - Conservative. But even the term conservative carries negative connotations to some, of a miserly old man too afraid of change to actually better himself or society. No, conservative does not fully express my political philosophy.

So, what should I call myself? Well, I've been thinking about it, and I've decided to make my own label. I've started calling it - "Christian Libertarianism," although even that isn't a new or novel idea. Now, libertarians are known primarily for their attitude regarding freedom. Libertarians contend that you should do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people and that you should do all that you have agreed to do. The distinction between Libertarianism and Christian Libertarianism comes down to morality.

Libertarians say do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others; however, the definition of "harm" and "other people" must be defined by some morality, or else you have many of the problems existent in our society today. Abortion is an issue of defining what constitutes a human being or not. That definition, in a purely libertarian worldview, is a fairly subjective term. Who should have the right to define the human-ness of others? Or we could look to problems with drugs, or sex, or even suicide. These are decidedly moral areas that the libertarian philosophy does not clearly answer.

Libertarianism isn't enough in and of itself. You should be free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm other people and you should agree to do all that you are engaged to do, but you need an added element of morality otherwise the resulting grey areas cause some real dilemmas. So, I call myself a Christian Libertarian because the Christian worldview provides a context to freedom that delineates right and wrong, while allowing the greatest amount of freedom to society and relegates the government to those few services that private individuals cannot provide. While my quest for a unique label certainly wasn't successful, I think I have found one that allows Christian morality to be mixed effectively with my political philosophy. Care to join a new third party?

Human being: y/n? Y.

2007-02-15T11:14:00.000-08:00

I downloaded Ubuntu recently (Dapper Drake with Long-Term Support, not the bleeding edge one). Installed it, dual-booting with my WinXPHome now, and debugging it. Ubuntu is a type of Linux, which is an open-source alternative to Microsoft Windows.

There are some interesting differences I've noticed. First off, Windows shoves everything in your face - you have to get rid of stuff to feel like you're not suffocating. This is true when installing the OS (operating system) itself and then also later when you install programs. With Ubuntu, the problem is the other way. "Ok, I installed that new program. At least, I think I did. Where did it go?" Granted, if you use the GNOME desktop system (it's default with Ubuntu) it's not as bad, but my brief forays with Kubuntu (Ubuntu with the KDE desktop) had me digging six layers deep into folders that I was scared to be in, let alone launch anything from them. (KDE had a launch-line, though, where you could launch your programs by typing text. That was cool, in a retro sort of way.)

Another difference is the security software. In Windows you have Windows itself throwing its own firewall at you, and you really should have a 3rd-party one plus virus protection. (Avast! is a favorite of mine.) Haven't seen anything of the sort in Ubuntu yet. Granted, you probably won't *need* as much protection, since most of the viruses out there are written for Windows machines, but why the heck not? Ubuntu runs so much faster than Windows (yet another difference) that I'm not exactly worried about having another program running in the background.

It's been a good learning experience. When I first installed Ubuntu I did research on the different file systems. Good times. Ended up using ext3 for Ubuntu itself, leaving the two NTFS partitions Windows uses right now, and created a FAT32 "sharing partition" that both OS's can read and write to. (Ubuntu can read NTFS but can't write to it; Windows can't even see ext3.)

Networking/Internet wasn't a problem. I've gotten enough training from a certain very smart Uncle of mine that it was a breeze figuring out what needed to go where to get connected. I haven't tried anything strenuous yet, like downloading and seeding .torrents at the same time. That never worked on our network before (slowed the other comps down way too much, even with the download and upload speeds set to minimums), and I'll honestly be surprised if it somehow works now just because I've changed an OS. But hey, you never know.

The primary challenge right now is getting everything that I use daily up and running on the Ubuntu side. (Favorites, etc.) After that I'll eventually have it to the point where the only reason I use Windows is for WoW and Vent.

The real reason I'm doing this all is education, honestly. This stuff has been out there for long enough that it's viable, and I think I should know more about it than "Well, it's free. And guys in suspenders and beards say it's better." Besides, I'm tweaking my computer. I've *always* had fun tweaking computers. :-D

-"Pops"

Random Ramblings from (One of the) Two Young Whippersnappers

2007-01-08T09:24:00.000-08:00

The poor poor neglected blog. Why? Why have you become so... un-posted-in?

I went and saw Eragon. Without spoiling it at all, it felt like they took 4-6 hours of material crammed it into two. The result was visually stunning (sometimes), emotionally detached (though they did a good job with the protagonist's brother), and altogether too rushed for even my considerable ability to suspend disbelief. One major *plot* difference between the book and the movie that I was disappointed in was the dragon herself. In the book she's just a kid along with Eragon - they had to *learn* *together* how to do all the things a dragon and her rider could do. In the movie Saphira seems to have it all under control and it's only Eragon making the mistakes. All in all, just go read the book. While I make this suggestion for nearly every book-to-movie story anyway, in this case it really will be time better spent.

While we're on the subject of media, I recently acquired the Zombie Survival Guide. It's fascinating reading, researched very thoroughly, and the author has some unique insights I would not have thought of (especially if a moaning putrid corpse was trying to sink its teeth into me). I have yet to double-check his "Outbreaks" section (because I haven't read that far yet,) but most of the outbreaks he lists seem to be within the last 20 years which will be a boon for both double-checking and belief. It's silly to think that a zombie outbreak will be the end of the world (God has *way* more imagination that that), but it could easily be the end of a small or even large city. I choose life.

More entertainment! I read "Voyage of the Slaves" awhile back, Brian Jacques' new book in the Castaways of the Flying Dutchman series (Along with "Castaways of the Flying Dutchman" and "The Angel's Command"). While I enjoyed his writing as much as I always do (his descriptions are excellent examples for aspiring authors!), the plot was pretty much his standard act with some changes here and there. (Slaves get captured, slaves get free, climactic battle at the end between good and evil with a good guy sacrificing himself for others, and the bad guy goes insane. Classic Jacques.) It's true that if something works for you you should keep with it, but it's also true that if you don't like Brian Jacques' previous works, you probably won't like this one either. You weirdo.

Mental_floss is awesome.

Credenda/Agenda magazine had a cover story ("Thema" in C/A-speak) that was a good reminder about what really holds the universe together. Read the entire article before you make any conclusions about Jones' sanity (although with the flak they get out there you certainly wouldn't be the first!). It's called "Against Gravity." (Note: They don't have the most recent issue up yet, sorry I can't get you a direct link. It should be up there soon since I have my grubby little paws on a hardcopy already. Read the other issues while you're waiting; it'll be good for you.)

I don't have the geek-energy built up to rave too much about the new Nintendo Wii (pronounced "whee!") since I expended most of it yesterday roleplaying with friends (stupid mummy-monster killed my character!). Suffice it to say that the Wii is not only cool technology-wise, it's totally fun game-wise and playing-with-friends-wise (which as we all know is the important reason *to* game). ExciteTruck, Rayman: Raving Rabids, Wii Sports, Red Steel... Good times, mate, good times!

Here's a question for you: At what point should a Christian's quest for right liturgy (defined as "what a congregation does,") give way to love for his brothers and sisters? Or more specifically, if you're serving in a capacity that you are proficient in and appreciated for, yet the music the congregation sings every Lord's Day is silly at best and trite/irreverent at worst, do you leave or stay? Should you love God's people by serving them, or should you love God by worshiping Him with reverent music that takes (oh my gosh!) a modicum of skill? Is one more important than the other? Is there even an objective answer, or should it be subject to the believer's conscience?

That's all for this time. - "Pops"

Youth of the Nation

2006-12-04T17:17:00.000-08:00

I love my youth group. It challenges me to grow in my relationship with God, rather than playing "chubby bunny" games. I just wanted to say that up front … because there is something that I think needs to be changed in all youth groups, or at least all that I have had the opportunity to visit or attend. Indeed, this problem comes from outside the youth group, an issue that ought to be addressed right here and right now that is indeed applicable to all teenagers:

You should not have a significant other. Take it from me, one who has been the entire range of ages from 12 to 17, that you do not need a boyfriend or girlfriend.

I ask you, what is the purpose of having a boyfriend or girlfriend in this sense? Why date? Presumably, you are looking for someone you can spend the rest of your life with … you are looking for a marriage partner. If this is the purpose, why start when you are in junior high? Are you even going to get married at 19? From a purely pragmatic point of view, the answer is probably no. I wouldn't be ready to start and support a family at that age. It takes a special kind of divine providence to get married so young. Such providence is not unheard of, but this does not give you the right to create and discard boyfriend/girlfriend relationships willie-nillie.

If you answer that the purpose of dating or a boyfriend or girlfriend is anything other than marriage, you are mistaken. It is either an unwholesome or non-honorable end, or an unnecessary step in an otherwise normal friendship.

One of my very favorite quotes, ironically enough, from my youth pastor is "Love is not a ditch. You don't 'fall in.'" Love is not an infatuation developed at first sight. Love is a relationship. A significant other is more than "I like you, you like me" relationship and it is more than an infatuation. If you aren't prepared to tie the knot and ascribe to 1 Corinthians 13 personally, forget it. Love has been twisted from a definition of sacrifice to a definition of infatuation. The motivation in a significant relationship must reflect the "true" definition of love. I would contend that most teenage "couples" forget this.

Ok then. Let's recap with a nicely ordered list of reasons and disadvantages to teenage angst in the relational department.

1. Too young. Although not necessarily exclusive to a relationship, the vast majority of cases demonstrate that teenagers are too young to have a relationship leading to marriage. This is true of maturity, responsibility, and the fact that often childhood sweethearts do not grow up into adulthood marriage partners. It may be God's will, but you better make sure.

2. What is love? Love is not the contemporary culture's definition of physical attraction mixed with a degree of hormonal unrest. Love is a relationship. As a teenager, if you actually have a desire for that relationship it becomes an issue

3. The pragmatic issues. The bottom line is that roses are expensive. If you can't fulfill the two part requirement of being in God's will and developing a truly loving relationship, save your money till later.

Now that we know what relationships are all about, we can address the issue of the youth group. Too often they mitigate the problem by simply encouraging people to be careful with their boyfriend or girlfriend relationships. I've even seen some boyfriend and girlfriend … interaction … in the parking lot before youth group begins. I think we need to separate the church from the culture in this regard. There are a lot of teenage relationships that fail to satisfy the two part test above, let alone the pragmatic requirements.

Therefore, I ask you to have a healthy and normal friendship with girls and boys alike. You can love girls and boys who are friends as fellow sisters and brothers of Christ without the messy and unnecessary side effects of a relationship that has the wrong purpose or no purpose at all.

Philosophy of Optimism

2006-11-27T22:54:00.000-08:00

From the time that we get up in the morning to the time that we go to bed at night, we are faced with a continuous line of choices. The choices may be simple ones such as which clothes we wear, what to eat for breakfast, or how to spend our free time. Our mood for the day should be one more of these choices. Happiness, sadness, optimism, and pessimism should not be determined just by external situations. We ought to choose to be optimistic.

One cannot simply choose not to make a decision in life. Not making a choice is also making a choice. Allowing our wardrobe to ebb and flow on or off our body is a ridiculous notion, yet I have often perceived the same idea heralded regarding our mood. A prime example from literature is the tragic character of Romeo. He was buffeted by each new circumstance. Calling himself "fortune's fool," he was incapable of circumventing depression, emotional pain, and eventual death because he failed to make a choice to look at his circumstances in a positive light. My attitude is one of the most important decisions I make. It determines how I feel, helps me accomplish things, and even encourages others.

To choose to be optimistic is a better choice. To be cheerful, even in the midst of hardship or difficulty, is an asset throughout all situations in life. I was the Senior Patrol Leader on a New Mexico Philmont Scout Ranch outing with my Boy Scout Troop in the summer of 2006. Several times during the hike circumstances became tough. It rained every day. The hikes were long and hot. Crew members tried to shirk duties or simply ignored responsibilities in the roster. Only after being encouraged to have a good attitude or witnessing leadership exhibiting a good attitude did the crew truly form a cohesive unit and begin to enjoy the hike. Having a cheerful outlook positively affected the troop and ultimately our entire Philmont experience.

You do not have to be happy all of the time. Depressing, rainy or grievous days do happen, but that should not prevent us from choosing to be positive. As C.S. Lewis noted, "Very often the only way to get a quality in reality is to start behaving as if you had it already." That concept applies to optimism. Simply acting optimistic on the outside allows the internal part of man to "toe the line."

In conclusion, optimism is a choice - the best choice. It is an active decision that demands deeds, but yet does not require a constant state of joy. By implementing this philosophy of conscious optimism, I can truly work to solve problems, develop relationships, and enjoy life. Winston Churchill put it best, " I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."

Yeah, what he said!

2006-11-10T12:37:00.000-08:00

I remember saying something about the role of confession of sin in the sacrament of Communion awhile back (i.e. it's not supposed to be there), so when I saw this post by (Pastor) Doug Wilson I decided to link to it here, just in case there are lingering doubts regarding my position. Basically, I agree with everything in this post. And boy, it's a good one.

-"Pops"

Wash-arado

2006-11-07T19:43:00.000-08:00

Here I am in Colorado, once again, for another (totally awesome) Communicators for Christ conference with all my debate and speech friends. I've already got ideas for blog posts ... but absolutely no time in which to write them.

I will have a 3 hour flight home though ...

... I'll talk to y'all then.

HAPPY BIRTHDAAAAAAAAY!!!

2006-11-04T21:59:00.000-08:00

Nate: It's true, ladies and gentlemen! I'm sitting here at the upstairs computer beside Matt Pitchford listening to The Princess Bride on the DVD player and having difficulty with the unfamiliar keyboard. Stupid keyboard.

For our first act, Matt Pitchford shall interview my goodself, Nate Mathews, who was the original instigator of this whole idea. So without further ado, I turn the keys over to Matt. Take it away, Matt.

Matt: Well, the only reason I decided to get this blog was if you decided to do it with me. As such, I think the good readers need some true insights into the co-founder of the esteemed Radical Traditions ... and I really can't think of a question that the readers could possibly be interested in. Ah well, some unverified rumors contend that you will be leaving the team ... is this true?

Nate: Alas, Mr. Pitchford, the rumours are hereby verified. Lord willin' and the crick don't rise I'll be joining the Air Force and shipping out as soon as I can. Which these days is a couple months. And while it's possible that I can continue posting, it should not be counted on. On the other paw, you've brought me back from the brink more than once, so perhaps I will continue. But I hear that you'll be going off to college soon yourself? What will the future of Radical Traditions be?

Matt: I am in the midst of college applications as we speak. As of now, I am waiting for letters of admission or rejection, but I certainly intend to scuttle off to some institution of higher learning. I will certainly endeavor to continue the blog throughout my experience "on campus." The posting will continue its haggard schedule, but Radical Traditions shall certainly not perish without an effort. What efforts do you intend to persue as you go the way of Maverick?

Nate: Oh I'll probably not be flying. My top five jobs will include things like Intelligence, Crypto-Linguistics, Music, Computers, and Communications. It just depends where the Air Force and God want me. A primary goal of joining the USAF, though, is establishing myself for the establishment of my household. But tell us, Matt, why the name "Radical Traditions?" Does the name refer to you and Nate? I mean I?

Matt: The name Radical Traditions was your idea, you know. I've always thought of the blog as referring to the fact that we are two "warrior-poets" thrust upon a relativistic and depraved quagmire that is current society. (Honestly, I had Nate help me put that sentence together. I was a bit too "brief" for his own tastes.) Basically, we are two traditionalists in a world that has become so twisted that our "old" ideas become radical in and of themselves. That's always what I've thought and espoused. Alas, we have spent far too much time engaging in conversation, reveling in each other's company, that we must draw this conversation to a close with one final question: What is the average velocity of an unladen swallow?

Nate: What? I don't know that! AAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

Exeunt, pursued by a bear

Happy Birthday!

2006-11-04T11:12:00.000-08:00

Today celebrates the very first anniversary of Radical Traditions! Now we can say - with a touch of pride - that we've been posting commentary and random ramblings "since 2005."

Thanks for reading - and here's to another fruitful and thoughtful year!

A Day at College

2006-10-30T21:44:00.000-08:00

I recently had the opportunity to stay overnight at Linfield College, complete with some interviews and sitting in on a class. I don't really know what I was expecting to find at college. I was even a bit nervous before I went, met my overnight host, and sat in on the International Politics class. Suffice to say, it was an enlightening experience.

The first revelation was that college is boring. I guess I hit campus at an "off" time, but there was still very little activity going on. I had fun in the library for a couple of hours, but it was a weird thing afterward. We sat around. A lot. We sat until 2:00 in the morning. For no reason in particular. We didn't really even talk about anything important. It was the longest period of doing absolutely nothing that I can remember. I used this opportunity to observe college students in their "natural habitat" but I really can't imagine doing that all year. For one thing - I'd be really tired.

The second revelation is that college will be hard. The proliferation of cussing, sexual references, and alcohol was astounding … even from several students who told me they were Christians and "led worship." I came away from campus feeling dirty on the inside simply from being around all the filth constantly being thrown around me. Unless a Christian student finds a Christian niche in which to fellowship and draw strength from other Christians and God, I can understand why so many young Christians walk out of the faith – sheer attrition.

My final and most startling revelation was that homeschoolers look different. That's right. My friends look different. College students do not. All the girls had the same make-up, most had the same hairdo, and the same type of clothing. I had trouble telling them apart. The guys weren't much better. There were three basic sub-types: the nerd, the jock, and the skater. Usually these cliques are entertaining attempts at humor, but at Linfield … they are real. The guys were either really big and buff with shaved hair, small and greasy with glasses, or loose with long hair. I'm sure I'm exaggerating to some extent, but I honestly mistook several people I met for other – completely different – people that I had met previously that day. I guess in college one is free to be an individual, and as individuals, they choose to conform.

In conclusion, this trip was really eye-opening. I definitely intend to put a lot of effort into my time at college because it is directly proportional to what you get out of the college experience. When I think of my brief overnight stay, I shake my head and marvel ... but such is life. I'm just glad that I was homeschooled and was able to develop the basis to my faith, because I can guarantee you that the world (even in college) is just waiting for us to get complacent.

Bumpersticker Sets Off Thinking! More on Page 3!

2006-10-25T22:30:00.000-07:00

Recently seen on a bumpersticker: "Evolve, d----t!"

I must admit, ladies and gentlemen, I laughed. And not a little giggle or silent snicker, oh no! It was a full out guffaw! And that was followed by... A head shake! At the pagans who were being silly again, screaming "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" whilst the rest of the world spins with a sovereign God at the helm of both the natural and the supernatural.

The sight of the bumpersticker neatly collated itself with a thought process I've been having for awhile, though. About evolution, that is, not pagans being silly (which is not a new thought in my brain). If the human race is still evolving, then why aren't those who believe we are (still evolving) acting like we actually are (still evolving)? If we're still evolving, how come those who believe we are (still evolving) aren't getting kids to start making babies as soon as they're physically capable? Why aren't they stretching for that next dynamic step in the evolutionary chain? They're on somewhat of the right track by no longer caring for the weak and old (the "death with dignity" movement and senior euthanasia come to mind), but abortion doesn't make any sense in an evolutionary mindset. Neither does liberty (something we have too little of) or equality (something that's been perverted).

Even if the theory of evolution is true as far as origins, the fact that we (in general) care for our old and sick
is a serious problem. Quite frankly, even if all the evolutionary-origins bullhonky was true, WE'VE STOPPED EVOLVING. If we were still evolving, nobody would whine about the US invading other countries, because hey, that's just survival of the fittest! You can't be on top? Tough, you're out of the gene pool! Murder would be fine, promiscuity would be encouraged, but don't you dare use birth control or abortion! If we as a species were actually evolving, folks, we would have a TOTALLY different set of social mores! And if one culture started falling behind, another would swallow it up.

Well, we're not evolving. We never did, in a theory-of-evolution sort of way. We were created in the image of God, by God, and even if that image is now distorted and corrupted by sin, it doesn't change the base nature of that image. There are standards because God exists. He *is* the standard, against which all other standards are measured. There can be a Christian society because (and only because) God has redeemed His people by His Son. Glory be to God.

And the bumpersticker is still very funny. Glory be to God.

Freedom's Challenge

2006-10-16T21:37:00.000-07:00

Freedom is a majestic word that entails so much. It is a word that brings to mind bald eagles soaring high, the Flag waving majestically in the wind, or Founding Fathers debating at the Constitutional Conventions. Freedom is a word that brings to mind such quotes as Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death," or Abraham Lincoln's "Freedom is the last, best hope of the earth."

It should be noted that freedom itself carries a responsibility. Just as the right of voting carries the reciprocal responsibility of actually participating in elections, freedom has a reciprocal. The responsibility of freedom is to keep freedom, for this and subsequent generations. As Abraham Lincoln said, "From where can we expect the approach of danger? I tell you, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide." The responsibility of freedom is to not commit national suicide, something that we are unfortunately failing to do as a nation. Therefore, we must remember the value of freedom and choose it above tyranny.

Not making a choice is a choice. A philosophy of apathy is a sure route to destruction. If we don't choose freedom, tyranny is the default option. Throughout history, we can see the idea of national suicide is not a new one. George Orwell in his book 1984 and Aldous Huxley in his book Brave New World both envisioned societies that had effectively committed suicide. The people, except for the rare individual, did not care enough about freedom to do anything about the government. They didn't understand that to not make a choice is a choice. To sit still in today's world is to effectively fall behind.

Unfortunately, as a nation we are failing in this regard. There is both a lack of understanding and a lack of participation. For example, the Zogby pollsters found that 75% of teens could name the Three Stooges (Larry, Moe, and Curly) but only 42% could name the three branches of government (Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.) There is a lack of understanding in the generation that will soon have to be in charge of the political system - and this is a bad thing. Aside from the lack of understanding of the political system, there is also a lack of participation in the political system. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, just a little over 50% of the population participated in the 2000 Presidential election. This number has decreased by 10% since some forty years ago. This percentage is the national statistic - turnout for local and state elections are even lower. When there is such a widespread lack of participation in the system that allows voting in the first place, there is a problem.

We must, therefore, remember the value of freedom in our life. Remembering this value can be done through education and demonstration. First, it is important to educate the upcoming generations about the importance of freedom and its foundation in the United States system. Second, we need to demonstrate our appreciation through significant, if small, actions. For example, standing as the flag passes by during parades or taking of one's ball cap for the national anthem are important actions that help solidify the concept of respect for freedom throughout life.

In conclusion, Freedom's challenge is to prevent national suicide. Unfortunately, this is something we are failing to do as a nation. Therefore, we must remember the value of freedom and actively choose it above tyranny and apathy at all times.

If... Then...

2006-10-13T23:49:00.000-07:00

If civil government's purpose is to protect its citizens from outside and inside threats (defense and justice),

Then why should we have a Pledge of Allegiance?

Ethical Handicaps

2006-10-09T09:07:00.000-07:00

I was perusing a discussion on the national homeschool debate forums when I ran into this tidbit from a poster.

"The search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning." He went on to clarify, "I did not say there are no absolutes; I said there are little to no absolutes in ethics. That's a difference."

I've already posted about the need for absolute truth, but I think it's worth discussing the need for absolute truth in ethics. I could care less whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. How we live, interact with others, and choose right and wrong has a far more pertinent impact on life in general.

There must be an absolute, without it we cannot have progress or work toward any goal, especially in ethics. Without an absolute standard, we cannot say that the world is becoming better, worse, more depraved, or more enlightened. We don't know whether any action is good, bad, or simply neutral. We don't know anything about the realm of ethics. In short, there can be no ethics without absolutes.

Practical experience also tells us that there must be some kind of absolute in ethics. As C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity, "though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognize the same law running throughout them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. ... [Furthermore] If no set moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."

What we see in the world, as summed up in Lewis's quote, is that there has never been a totally "opposite" ethical system. There has never been a society that valued falsehood, cowardice, cheating, or dishonor. We also can plainly see that we are able to evaluate different systems by some standard. That standard must be an objective absolute standard or else there is absolutely no basis for differentiating between systems of ethics.

In contrast to the poster's belief that the "search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning," in reality there can be no ethics without absolutes.

Straight Outta Lynwood

2006-10-05T15:34:00.000-07:00

I picked up Weird Al Yankovic's newest album, "Straight Outta Lynwood," and I must say I really do enjoy it. There're only one or two yawners (Confessions Part III and Do I Freak You Out in particular), but the rest are very good. An interesting thing to mention is there are more originals than he usually does, and I think the CD is better for it. Of course, maybe that's just because you don't have to do much to music these days to make it sound ridiculous. Ah, the poor satirists...

-"Pops"

Wherefore?

2006-10-02T22:03:00.000-07:00

I detest drama. No. That is too little emphasis. I detest drama. By drama, I do not mean the noble and ancient art of theatre. This form of drama that I refer to is the phenomenon so often demonstrated in relationships. I am referring to the pining, sappy, over-emphasized, craving, over-analyzing, insipid, reactionary drama of contemporary culture.

Being homeschooled, I consider myself blessed that I avoid the majority of this problem. The "did you hear what she said?" "can you believe what he did?" "know about her?" kind of gossip that pervades even the Boy Scouts, debate league, and youth groups that I attend. Whenever I see drama, (Of which, thankfully, I am mostly ignorant.) I ignore it. If someone calls me out and asks me if I want to know the latest insider gossip and/or latest relational drama, I have to pull out the oft too-harsh-sounding, "I don't care!"

It's true. I don't care. I couldn't care less! I don't want to know about so-and-so. I don't want to know about your boyfriend/girlfriend woes. I don't want to know what s/he said that made you so mad, sad, or glad. I just wanted to talk to you about what's new in life (or whatever.)

I guess I should preface the rest of this post with a qualifier. I enjoy reading Shakespeare. I am taking a Shakespeare class this semester, and I am really excited about reading more of his plays.

That said, I really do not like Romeo. The play is well written and Mercutio is my favorite character. But Romeo! Romeo the quintessential lover, the bard of spoken infatuation, the man's form who weeps "womanish tears." I want to take him, buffet him soundly by the ears, and tell him to get a grip. He is infatuated with the idea of love. He loves Rosaline with a undying passion ... until he sees Juliet. Barely five minutes pass and he kisses her as a lover. GAH! It seems to me that Romeo has a "drama" problem. Moving from relationship to relationship, from crisis to crisis.

Therefore, I encourage you not to be another lost romantic, another Casanova, another Romeo. Get out of the narcissistic pit of infatuation, boy/girl acting, gossip, and image and step into the glorious light of a relationship on the basis of real conversation, enjoyment of the other person's unique personality, and (dare I say) crisis-free fun.

Afterward: "Pops" once called a blog, "A place to complain and pour out your emotions online." I just broke the once proud tradition of Radical Traditions of being intellectually-based, hard-hitting political commentary and spiritual thinking. Romeo drove me to it. My sincere apologies.

Baptism

2006-09-29T13:23:00.000-07:00

If there is nothing spiritual that happens in baptism, what use is it? If it is merely a "public identification with the Church," why is it not performed in full view of downtown? Repeatedly? Maybe we should sell t-shirts that say "Got Baptism?" You know, since it's public and identification and stuff?

Heck, if it's merely public identification with the Church, why restrict it to those who've made a proclamation of faith in Jesus Christ? If you walk in the door three or more times a month, hey! You're identified with the church! Here's some water!

And if it's merely "public" "identification" with "the Church," who cares how the H2O is administered?

Sorry, not buying it. Either something spiritual *does* happen during and at the moment of baptism, or else Christians need to match their actions with their beliefs.

- "Pops"

Cynical Idealism?

2006-09-29T13:15:00.000-07:00

Idealism = Action
Cynicism = Reaction

Wash, rinse, repeat.

The defendant rules – Not Guilty!

2006-09-25T15:07:00.000-07:00

Yep! We finally have an international precedent that the United States can really benefit in implementing – asking the defendant for the judicial ruling.

Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Fortunately, we are already seeing the promotion of this new doctrine in the United States. As the Weekly Standard points out, even the Senate Intelligence Committee forgets the evidence in order to favor the validity of Saddam's own testimony.

At least this idea was discovered in time for Saddam Hussein to benefit from it. Abdullah Al-Amiri, the chief judge presiding over Saddam's trial, expressly said, "You were not a dictator. People around you made you … a dictator."

Brilliant! Next time we have a mass murderer on trial in the United States, we can forgo the jury, judge, lawyers and cost to the judicial system … just take the defendants word for it.

A bit of defribulation ...

2006-09-25T14:59:00.000-07:00

*Clear! Ca-GZT!*

Consider Radical-Traditions resurrected. Posting will now have the usual semi-constant schedule. Rejoice, for the whippersnapping has returned.

:-)

-Matt

My Truth

2006-09-21T21:27:00.000-07:00

I recently signed up for an online English and Composition class. One of the requirements for the grade was a discussion on Plato's transcript of a Socratic dialogue with Meno about the origins of virtue. On the discussion board, I am one of the few to argue, as Socrates did, that virtue couldn't be taught and is inherent in each human being.

I have gotten plenty of responses. After developing a fairly lengthy conversation with another student, she concludes: "I accept your opinion and appreciate your effort for trying to persuade me to your truth." She was very nice, but essentially asked me to agree to disagree.

This got me thinking a little bit … my truth. Can truth be multifaceted? Do multiple forms of it exist?

If we want it to remain truth … no.

Truth is defined as "conformity with fact or reality." I have never found a fact that worked "both ways." While one person's interpretation of a fact may certainly differ from another, the fact in question cannot change – or else it ceases to be a fact.

So if I hold that human nature is flawed, for example, and you do not … how can we resolve to disagree? These statements are directly contrary to one another. For one to be true, the other must be false. George Orwell identified it as a part of "doublethink," holding two adverse truths in the mind simultaneously and conveniently erecting a barrier between them.

In a discussion for truth, all roads don't lead to Rome. To simply differ is to halt all discussion and remain content and unchallenged. Unfortunately, this is what our culture applauds: not the discussion to find truth, but the allowance of all contrary "truths." If truth is not an absolute … if there is no right answer … what is the point of searching?

Maybe it's the debater in me, but I want resolution. I want more than to go our separate ways. Convince me! Show me why I'm wrong. Give me a reason why you value your idea of truth (for that's all it is, an idea) over mine. "Just because" is not a valid answer.

In conclusion, the differences between my idea of truth and someone else's may be substantial. That is something worth discussing. Therefore, let's discuss it! Simply parting our separate ways doesn't help me understand … nor come closer to understanding reality.

Hahahaha

2006-08-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2308

:-D

Some Stuffs

2006-07-20T22:01:00.000-07:00

Read the Red Book! It's the primary reason I haven't been forthcoming in the blogging department. It's going to be totally awesome.
Going to Philmont! I'm off tomorrow for Philmont Scout Ranch. Two weeks of hiking, sun, and fun in New Mexico. Rejoice!
College! It is becoming more a part of my attention. I am touring some West Coast colleges this August to balance out some of the East Coast colleges I went to in June. The SAT was acceptable; now I just have a senior year before being thrust into "real life."
Worldview was awesome! I had a great bunch of guys in my small group, I learned a lot in the lectures, and I had a blast playing Ultimate Frisbee.
It is a pity the world did not take a vacation with me. I came back from Worldview and found that Israel was at war. It seems to me that if you mess with the bull, you will eventually get the horns. Lobbing missiles indiscriminately into any country usually elicits some sort of response …
Despite tumultuous world events, life generally rocks!! (*sings*)

-Matt :-)

Ayn Rand ... My Convenient Hero

2006-07-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

"Hey," you may be asking yourself, "since when did "two week hiatus" correlate to a month long vacation?" Well, it can. I now have a self-sufficient ego, dontcha know? The virtue of selfishness is apparently the "Fountainhead" of all human achievement.

It's amazing how convincing fiction can be. Dan Brown demonstrated this fact recently with the Da Vinci Code. Fiction has been called "the lie that tells the truth," as is aptly demonstrated by Ayn in her books, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged."

She presents a convincing drama, as well she should … she created the world in which the drama takes place. Her beliefs don't conform to reality, however. Rand believed that selfishness, the concern for one's own interests that are independent from other influence, was the true value. No one could possibly achieve selflessness. As the Atlas Institute (After her book, "Atlas Shrugged") points out, "Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others."

She paints vivid pictures in her books – that the only real and alive people are those that understand their innate capacity for greatness … and fight other sheepish characters to obtain that greatness.

This makes sense, if you don't have a Biblical basis. Economics rests in part on the idea that individuals will do what is best for themselves: good job, cheaper goods, quality products, and so on. Obviously, theology is the only way to combat this idea.

The Golden Rule comes readily to mind. "Do unto others as you would have done to you." Beyond that, to demonstrate the love of Christ involves servant-hood. As Mark asks in 8:36-37, "And how does a man benefit if he gains the whole world and loses his soul in the process? For is anything worth more than his soul?" In context of eternity, self is microscopically insignificant.

Let's do an experiment and take both the ideas of selfishness and selflessness to the extreme. If everyone embodied the ideas of these values, there are markedly different results. On one end we have a world where everyone is out for one's own good. Despite the Atlas Institute's assertion, selfishness in any context can be detrimental to the well being of others. We have a vicious world where competition, something that can produce good ("Iron sharpens Iron") is used solely to rend others apart. To be completely selfish is to not love, feel compassion, or value anything other than one's own reality.

The other extreme is a utopian ideal, certainly, but sounds remarkably similar to the Fruits of the Spirit or the idea of Love expressed in 1 Corinthians 13. Clearly we are called to be selfless and love others as Christ does, rather than fixate upon our own interests. In a purely esoteric sense, I find that I feel better when I perform an act of kindness, make others feel better, or help a friend rather than doing what I want, making myself feel good, or helping myself to my desires. Some unconscious part of myself obviously wants to focus on the well-being of others, rather than my own.

In conclusion, Ayn Rand wrote some very interesting and very weird books. Without a basis in Christ, I found very little rational argument against promoting your own self-interests. However, to be selfless … so concerned with others you don't think about yourself (and therefore humble) is obviously the right course of action. Take up your cross and die daily. Easier said than done, yet it is our commission.

Why I Read Doug Wilson

2006-07-18T10:10:00.000-07:00

Quoted from his blog post of 7/15.

"I take this particular point (that there are covenant members who were unregenerate from the beginning), make a small pile of it in my front yard, and borrow a cricket bat from one of my British friends, and I wale on it. Then when the cricket bat breaks, I go to the shed and got the snow shovel out, and pound that point a little more."

(Lest there be any confusion, the word "read" in the title of this post is present-tense. It's not like I've given up reading things by Doug Wilson because of this quote or anything. This quote is just another reason why I *continue* to read things by Doug Wilson.)

And now for something... completely different.

2006-06-29T22:41:00.000-07:00

On a sillier note, this made me very happy. Because let's be honest, here, folks: it's about time!

-"Pops"

Encouragement, anyone?

2006-06-29T22:24:00.000-07:00

This blogpost by Douglas Wilson on the subject of Communion really encouraged me this week. Sometimes the (good) habit of making sure I'm right with God before I come to His table becomes so, well, *habitual* that I forget why I'm there in the first place.

-"Pops"

Heard Around the House:

2006-06-13T10:24:00.000-07:00

By way of my brother:

"So now that al-Zarqawi's dead, the real question is "What's left of the terrorist leadership in Iraq?" And I think the answer is obvious. After two 500 lb. bombs, there might be a toe over there, a few fingers over here..."

Hiatus

2006-06-03T21:25:00.000-07:00

If you can call taking the SAT test, participating at Nationals Speech and Debate Competition, and taking a whirlwhind tour of a whole lot of East coast colleges a hiatus ... I'm taking one. I'll be back in two weeks, hopefully without a sunburn and definitely with stories to tell.

Updates to follow!

Pandering for Power

2006-05-26T17:29:00.000-07:00

When Reuters reports that a big winner in the recent passage of the United States Senate immigration bill is Mexico's President Vicente Fox, there must be something going painfully awry.

The House has yet to pass the immigration bill, but they may find it hard to resist urges from such countries as the Dominican Republic. America certainly should consider its policy implications on other countries, but not at the expense of its own welfare. The problem is apparently that the politicians in Washington D.C. are pandering to the illegal masses in order to secure votes – and with those votes, power.

Some of the items in the bill, such as declaring English the national language, are warranted. However, creating an amnesty program for illegal immigrants who have been in the country for more than two years is not going to work. First, how do you enforce it? How do you know whether someone has been in the country for more than two years? You don't know. If we did, we wouldn't have an enforcement problem with illegal immigrants anyway. Second, we are tacitly recognizing that by simply creating a majority (or a vocal minority) of people who want the rules to be changed you can do whatever you want. Simply because the there is a large number of illegal immigrants does not make their actions right.

Even the Senate bill qualifying illegal immigrants for Social Security seems to forget the basic problem with illegal immigration … it is illegal. In case anyone has forgotten, illegal remains defined as "prohibited by law." Laws exist for a reason. In this case, I would contend that we have immigration laws and border security in order to ensure national security and in order to ensure that America stays American.

As a quick aside, I'd like to address Senator Harry Reid's claim that "This amendment [to make English the national language] is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish." I have trouble formulating coherent words at the keyboard on this one. The "race card" is played so often, it has become quite redundant. Certainly, it may be justified upon occasion. This is not one of those occasions. To make the national language English would help immigrants more than anything else. It would help them to integrate into society and truly have advancement opportunities. Chinatown, Little Italy, and other non-English communities are a prime example of what tends to happen. The original immigrants' children serve as translators because the kids understand that to truly take advantage of all that America has it is best to speak a language that everyone else understands. This amendment is not racist; it is a necessary step to integrate all cultures into a truly "diverse" "melting pot" where all can benefit from social mobility so unique to a freely democratic society.

To get back on topic, whether we even need illegal immigrant labor in order to keep prices affordable is a matter of some dispute (despite my previous "Fence Hopping" post.) This bill just demonstrates the disconnect between the populace and its elected representatives. Even as 10 percent of the entire Mexican population lives in the United States, border security remains a negligible issue (some measures were taken in the bill, but not enough to protect some 2,000 miles of border), amnesty continues to be a viable option, and politicians throw out proposals in order to demonstrate their willingness to be re-elected.

I certainly think that we should propose legislation. I agree we should talk about the issues. We should not back down on the rule of law that makes this nation great. We should not condone illegal activity in the name of business. We should not propose legislation in order to stay elected. We should not pander to a growing number of illegal citizens and the subsequent voting block in order to remain in power. The democratic process is a wonderful thing. However, when one becomes too concerned with the process to actually do something about an unpleasant issue, then democracy begins to die from within. As Abraham Lincoln said, "as a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide."

Seek the Truth - Again

2006-05-18T22:27:00.000-07:00

Although The Da Vinci Code novel came out in 2003, the May 19 movie release date finally urged me to get informed. I know that there are people who base their perception of Christianity, church, and religion from the ideas in the novel, so how much more would a visual representation create an impact on the masses?

In view of the increasingly large amount of information and critiques presented of the Da Vinci Code's material and claims, there isn't much point critiquing it here. Even the Discovery Channel quoted an author of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (on which Dan Brown's novel is based) as saying: "There is absolutely no evidence [that Christ was married and had a royal bloodline], but it does make an interesting hypothesis."

Indeed, the media furor reminds me of the Y2K bug. A problem was identified and swiftly dealt with in the fall of 1999. Yet in December of 1999 there were still people who predicted the end of the world was nigh and we would be hurled back to the Stone Age. Today there are still people who take Brown's fiction as cardinal truth.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 tells us, "there is nothing new under the sun." That statement definitely applies to the whole controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code. All throughout the history of Christianity there have been claims that Jesus taught something hidden. His recorded words in the Bible are simply the surface. In the depth of Jesus's real teachings lay hidden what He really came to earth to say: be it a sacred feminine or secret cult. This is the idea behind the Gnostic Texts, Aldous Huxley's writings, or even claims that Allah and the Christian God are the same. The Da Vinci Code is simply again trying to go beyond specific teachings … this time in order to entertain.

This idea that there is something hidden or beyond the stated Word flies in the face of what Jesus Himself said. There are several examples, but two fit readily:

John 6:47 "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

John 14:6 "Jesus answered and said, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Certainly some of Jesus's parables require analysis and interpretation beyond a surface level, but the core of Christ's message is readily available to the "uninitiated" and the life-long Christian.

As a piece of literature, and probably as a piece of entertainment in the theatre, Dan Brown's work is great. He writes very well. One only has to approach the ideas within as false. So then, I urge you to get informed. Read the book. See the movie. Be prepared to discuss it analytically. Do not go crazy overboard. Remember that this is the same sort of thing we have been seeing since the beginning of the Church. As the movie's tagline states, "Seek the Truth." To apply it to a Christian life, we could say "Keep the Truth … and Spread the Word."

Culture, Religion, and Henry Van Til

2006-05-15T15:06:00.000-07:00

Quote: "Culture is religion externalized." - Henry Van Til

I attended the First Annual Christian Heritage Homeschool Conference (get your tongue around that name!) awhile back and picked up some pretty nifty things. Like that quote up there. I listened to some things I didn't agree with as well, but the main speaker, Douglas Phillips, was spot on in just about everything he said. (Like the number of commas in that last sentence?)

But I digress. Take a look at that quote again. Do you realize how rife with application that quote is? Don't believe me? Look again! Those four words have so many implications it makes me giddy.

Point: All men are inherantly religious.

This is dangerously close to anthropology, but it is true. One of the things that makes men men (mankind, as in "of the race of men") is their spiritual nature. To put it simplistically, we have souls, dogs do not. Because we have a spiritual nature, we do things *of* a spiritual nature, or at the least, we do things in a "spiritual" way. One man may commune with the Lord of Hosts, and another may never miss an episode of his favorite TV show. One man may help the poor and destitute because God has commanded it, and another may kill those of a different skin tone because his is the only "true" skin tone. No man can be totally divorced from his spiritual nature and be human. We all have our gods. We all worship something.

Point: All cultures are religious.

Since men are inherantly religious, and since cultures are made up of men, cultures are religious. This is merely a logical progression from the first point, but it is also a point that can easily be seen in the annals of history. Every culture has someone or something it reveres, whether it's a statue that's called a god or some abstract ideal. The Greeks had "noble manhood," the Americans have individualism. Et cetera.

Point: There is a distinctly Christian culture.

This is the point I'd never really thought about before, even if I'd already lived by it. There really is a distinctly Christian culture. Now your thoughts of multicultural tolerance and pluralistic diversity will rise to the top, I know, because mine did as well. "But all cultures are different, so the applications of Christianity will be different." Perhaps, but only if you mean that some areas of one culture will be more affected than the same areas of a different culture. The savages in Paupa New Guinea are saved and are told to put on clothes, marry only one wife, and quit killing each other. The savages in America are saved and are told to stop hoarding clothes, quit lusting after your neighbor's wife, and care for the widows and orphans. However, the teachings of the Bible if followed will inevitably move the culture towards a specific end, because the teachings of the Bible are specific. Love God, love your neighbor. By loving God, you will be loving your neighbor. By loving your neighbor, you will be loving God. There is no room for cultural differences when it comes to these fundamental truths, and any difference in these fundamental truths will be accounted as sin, not "cultural diversity."

Back when Jesus the Messiah was walking the earth instead of sitting beside the Father, he said "By their fruits ye shall know them." He was speaking of false prophets, but it is so with culture and the people that make up the culture as well. "Culture is religion externalized" is not some stuffy quote for scholars with 50-pound heads to sagely nod about. It's the way of the world. How is your soul? Thus shall be your religion. How is your religion? Thus shall be your culture.

Scared yet?

The World is Flat

2006-05-13T21:49:00.000-07:00

It appears that Ptolemy, Eratosthenes, and Pliny the Elder were wrong after all. The world is flat and actually getting flatter. Perhaps not in a physical sense (I suppose definitions are important), but certainly in an individual's ability to contact, communicate, and compete with other individuals on the globe.

This isn't just my idea. More accurately, I'm quoting Thomas Friedman and his book, (coincidentally) "The World is Flat. Ever since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the world has been getting progressively smaller. Countries, companies, and individuals within countries now have new opportunities that could not have existed more than 10 years ago.

Because billions of people are becoming a part of the competing system of capitalism, the contest to get any job becomes more difficult. Outsourcing of jobs, the "giant sucking sound" of capital, factories, and labor to other countries that can do the same job quicker, better, or cheaper, raises the question, what is the U.S. to do to stay on top?

Our economy certainly is in good shape. It continues to create wealth, expand, and benefit its consumers; however, very soon it will be overtaken. Our economy is running fine, other economies (like China and India) are on fire.

We can't race these economies to the bottom; we cannot simply produce goods and services for less cost like other countries can. If you can get three software engineers in India for the price of one in America, why not go for three? America must therefore continue to race economies upward. We must continue to use innovation, imagination and invention to create new a better technologies.

In order to keep America on top, we must first move upward as individuals. Education is the rocket ship in this medium. As individuals we need to educate ourselves in order to be more competitive in the global marketplace. The second, and just as important, move is horizontal. As Americans approach the higher rungs of the educational ladder, individuals need to branch out horizontally. This lateral moving requires depth and breadth of understanding in order to make yourself employable even as the marketplace moves and rearranges around you.

At this point, America as a whole is lagging behind. It seems that too many people take a good job with lifetime employment for granted. This lazy man is competing against Indian and Chinese "Zippies" who are eager and determined to succeed. They have drive. For example, if you are a "one in a million" in China, you need to remember that there are 1,300 other people just as gifted as you are.

Therefore, this is a call to action. Get an education, work hard, compete hard, think hard, imagine hard, and play hard. Remember, the playing field of global economics and politics is being flattened. Where will you be?

(Can't) Talk of the Times

2006-05-05T21:09:00.000-07:00

Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to go to a debate. This was the real deal. Sponsored by the Seattle P-I's "Talk of the Times" series at the Seattle Town Hall. I didn't know Seattle had a town hall …

To clarify, intelligent design (ID) is the theory based on nature's clear design and "irreducible complexity" there is an "intelligence" that created or guided all of creation. It does not claim to know that intelligence, but simply presents the idea that such a "creator" exists. This is different from creationism, defined by Merriam Webster as "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." However, the similarities between creationism and intelligent design are fairly apparent. In the not-so-old Dover School case, the judge ruled that ID was too much of a "religious alternative" to evolution and could not be taught in the school.

Nevertheless, the debate I attended was regarding ID versus evolution. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute supports ID and went head to head with Peter Ward, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, in an engaging discussion of ideas … at least that's what I expected.

Unfortunately, Peter Ward tried to substitute flippancy for facts. Stephen Mayer presented far more evidence, quotes, analysis, talking points, rebuttals, and critiques than Ward, who would simply interject with comments like "It [ID] is not a theory," "you know if President Bush supports ID [obvious pause]," and "because evolutionary knowledge helps scientists to understand the mutation of viruses and ID does not, all you ID people can't use immunizations and remain intellectually honest!" I was disappointed that Ward did not adequately address the ideas and arguments presented by Meyer.

One other point that Ward kept repeating was that teaching the controversy between evolution and ID to students, such as a ninth graders, would be detrimental to their educational career and dull their intellectual curiosity. One only need to look over the crowd of 200+ people present to see that people want to know more about the controversy. Curiosity is actually diminished and incomplete ideas are ingrained in students' heads if other positions are not at least mentioned.

John Stewart Mill wrote about the "free market place of ideas." He asserted that the truth has a unique ability to survive and rise to the top of human knowledge when placed in direct conflict with other ideas. This is my primary issue with evolution today. Unlike the Scopes "Monkey" Trials that fought for evolution to be presented in a classroom, proponents of evolution today seek to remove all discussion from the school. The free market of ideas only works when there is contention and debate over ideas and theories. Covering up other points of view only harms the discussion seeking truth, be it evolution or ID.

This issue is certainly an important one in today's culture. However, we also need to look at the "big picture." If schools are not even able to discuss critically something that contains religious inferences, how is that preparing students for life? Quite frankly, if students don't hear about evolutionary criticism from an "objective" context, they will have to muddle it out when they hear about the controversy from their parents or even the news media. The suppression of other points of view in support of any truth has dangerous implications. If one can't talk about the origin of man, what won't we be able to talk about next?

Insights into Israel

2006-04-27T21:24:00.000-07:00

In penance for straying another two weeks before posting, I have another post within two short days of another by good sir Nate.

In a request for a guest literature program, I had Ben Feehan write me a blog article. He did so. The topic of this post reflects his writings:

Ruins have always intrigued people. Like the collective gravestone of an entire era, the weathered remains of ancient cities and fortresses have a certain unconquerable mystery about them. Spend any amount of time amount of time around an archeologist and his dig and you will find just how deep this intrigue goes. Not unlike your cliche'd miser or mad scientist, these dedicated souls will go to nearly insane lengths and spend years of their lives reconstructing shattered crockery, collecting the tiny scattered rings that were once armor, or meticulously combing battlefields for a stray button. The non-obsessed shake their heads and ask the inevitable question: why?

I recently had an opportunity to travel to the thoroughly ancient land of Israel. Apart from being interrogated at the airports, getting caught in the cross-fire of a violent street battle perpetrated by seven year old Arabs with be-be guns, and discovering that Israelis drive like scarcely suppressed maniacs, we visited ruins. Lots and lots and lots of ruins. Some were Roman, with your typically romantic, forsaken looking pillar, raising its carved cornice in defiance to the march of time. Others were merely dusty piles of weathered stone in tiny squares, indicating the foundation of a long since vacated house. Still others were impressive tunnel systems or the toppled remains of once towering battlements, the crowning achievements of legendary kings. Yet one thing they all had in common: they were all desolate and all but useless. By about the eleventh such site in half as many days, you seriously begin to doubt the sanity of archeologists and practical historians in general. What on earth made these places so exciting?

A clue to this mystery can be found in a look at the land of Israel itself. All across the country are some of the most important sites of three of the five major world religions. Sites so important that Christians, Jews, and Muslims have, rightfully or not, pulverized each other them for the past centuries since the inception of each their respective religions. I think it can safely be said that if the Balkans are the powder keg of Europe, then Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, is the nuclear warhead of the world. Like many secular peacemakers throughout time, we ask yet again: why? Why does some rock under a golden dome make such a difference or an ancient wall matter so much?

The answer to this question is the answer to all the others, and is apparently yet to be discovered.

-Ben Feehan

"Christianity and the Enviroment"

2006-04-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

PBS Interview on "Christianity and the Enviroment," from Right Mind.

Well worth reading.

The Physics of Hollywood

2006-04-13T22:30:00.000-07:00

As an (less than) avid physicist-in-training, I have to deal with a lot of formulas. Gravitational constants, friction equations, and the ever popular E=MC². Formulas can be applied to everything that moves (and some things that just revolve.) Recently, I've come to realize more and more that Hollywood has a formula.

More specifically, it uses a formula on us, the buying public. The repeats, remakes, sequels, spinoffs, and plain old copies prove it. How do I prove this to thee? Let me count the ways:

1. The Wild versus Madagascar
Madagascar features an endearing story of a zany group of zoo animals consisting of a lion, giraffe, zebra, and hippopotamus. It all starts when the zebra escapes his spoiled captivity in the New York Central Park Zoo to go to Madagascar. The rest of the group finally finds the runaway and joins him (along four zany penguins in finding freedom in Africa.

The Wild features an endearing story of a zany group of zoo animals consisting of a lion, giraffe, koala, snake, squirrel and other miscellaneous animals. It all starts when the lion goes missing from New York Central Park Zoo and the others band together to find him (along with the help of some zany penguins along the way)

I (obviously) haven't seen The Wild, but it bears a striking resemblance to Madagascar.

2. Finding Nemo versus Shark Tale
Finding Nemo is an epic underwater tale full of love, adventure and a host of wacky characters. Nemo, a young clownfish, is captured and put in a dentist's fish tank. His father (Merlin) sets off on a transatlantic ocean journey to save his son accompanied by the forgetful Dory.

Admittedly, the Shark Tale's story does not mirror Finding Nemo's as closely as my first example, but we have another comedic tale of loss and gain. Oscar, after falsely claming to be a shark slayer, gets into trouble with the shark mafia. With the help of the don's own vegetarian son, he eventually ends up working a car wash.

Although both summaries are (very) abbreviated versions, you get the idea. Two fishy stories by two different companies less than a year apart certainly denotes some amount of repetitive similarity.

3. The Evidence versus CSI, CSI Miami, and CSI New York
Aside from distorting jurors views about what real life investigators can really prove or disprove, the Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) series has turned into a successful television spot. The investigators must solve complex mysteries based on minute pieces of evidence located at the scene of the crime. The Evidence seeks to grab a piece of the pie by doing the same thing with better camera effects.

4. Reality Television
I understand that my perfect three points for speeches, essays, and the like are up, but reality television also has formulas. The Real World series should be sufficient evidence to support this point, but another American Idol spinoff should solidify my claim.

So, it seems that we are fed formulas. Either Hollywood believes Americans to be unable to denote the similarities, or Americans really do crave things almost exactly the same. Whatever the case, popular culture unfortunately seems to be racing as fast as it can towards mediocrity, repetition, and unoriginality in the visual arts.

Immigration Woes

2006-04-06T22:02:00.000-07:00

First, and unrelated to the post, I would like to apologize. It has been two weeks past due since my last post. Suffice to say, the Rocky Mountain Classic in Colorado was worth it. I had the time of my life.

Unfortunately, the world at large did not take a hiatus along with me. One of the biggest issues I kept up on while I was away is immigration.

First, there were the rallies. Certainly, the right to peaceably assemble "shall not be infringed," but usually American protests involve Americans. These protests were apparently held by a host of Latin American countries …. at least that is what I can infer from the flags They were purportedly carried because of cultural unity, not a lack of loyalty to this country. I beg to differ.

It is not an issue of loyalty, but an issue of assimilation. My mom has told the story of her great aunt, who was brought home from kindergarten because she could only speak Norwegian. She could not return until she spoke English. Now we have some proposals for "Spanish-only classes."

The next thing to garner my attention was a proposal in New York State. They introduced legislation to allow resident immigrants the ability to vote in local elections if they have resided in the city for a period of six months.

The whole point of citizenship is to disallow people who are not citizens to benefit from the rights without the responsibility. This bill puts forth an interesting notion. Voting with a green card is already recognized as a right. A green card, or United States Permanent Resident Card, is just that, a permanent residence visa with some routes to naturalization.

Voting with a green card makes sense, because obviously the resident went through a legal channel to obtain such a card and intends to stay. The holder of said card has a means of employment and does pay taxes. However, there must be regulation of identification at the polls, else simply allowing resident voters (in the very short time period of six months) seems to bring back ideas of simply collecting buses of people to go vote for a candidate in the polls. This is a bad idea without enforcement. Otherwise, it seems to make sense on its face ... for local elections.

The bill seems to be a spring board for federal elections, something that should not be allowed with a green card. The federal government should continue to be run and elected exclusively by citizens an argument that also makes sense on its face.

Finally, there is the apparent compromise in Congress. Well, this morning it was a compromise. Tonight it has reportedly hit a dead stall. The plan would allow citizenship for about 11 million illegal immigrants. Increased border security and regulation of future immigrants is certainly a good part of the new deal, however simply allowing those presently breaking the law to become lawful is a bad idea.

To quote Josh Dasher (not for the first time), "It's like a criminal game of hide and seek. If you come here, and don't get found by the law, you win! You can stay." This new proposal does not seem to provide a solution. While it certainly claims not to grant amnesty, that is what the new compromise bill would do; it seems unlikely to really solve the problem.

There are greater issues at work than economics; something that should not be forgotten. It's pretty much a given that we need better border security. Without assimilation, regulation, prevention, identification, and repercussion for illegal activities there will only be a partial solution.

The Key

2006-03-22T19:55:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is another speech and debate tournament. One outside of the debate subculture may wonder why it is such an enjoyable activity. Why do a bunch of teenage homeschooled kids want to dress up in suits and talk to judges for 10-12 hour stretches? There is one simple answer, for me at least - people.

Certainly there are other factors. The thinking and argumentation involved is stimulating. The competition is inspiring. The opportunities for travel and scholarships exist. The skills gathered are important to life. Taken collectively, these are reasons why I debate, not why I enjoy debate. There must be something else.

The friendships, the fellowship, and the interaction on a personal outside-of-the-competition level provides a ready theory. I've never met a debater I didn't like ... although some took some getting used to. All throughout my life, this theory receives distinct evidence to support it. Summer Camp is not necessarily enjoyable ... it depends on who goes with me. Hiking in the middle of nowhere was a blast, with a specific crew of people. That same hike with other, not as amiable, people was a drag.

It's not like its just my life either. My dad had a job in college as a janitor's assistant. Scraping gum off the underside of a desk is not the most exhilarating of activities. However, he had the time of his life. Why? The people doing it with him. He still corresponds with several of the friends he made doing a seemingly tedious job.

This, therefore, is a post not just about reminisces, but about future ideas. Quite frankly, with all the extemporaneous preparations I've been doing, I'm tired of current political events for the moment. So then, my goal is to be one of those people that make a boring task or duty enjoyable through my attitude.

Being cheerful, even in the midst of irksome tasks and weighty responsibilities is no easy thing. One thing I've learned is putting cheerfulness on the outside first. If you pretend to be cheerful (not sarcastically ... we've had this discussion before) and smile about it, you actually begin to feel cheerful. When you're cheerful, quite often others will join in.

I think it is important to clarify at this point that being cheerful among friends is not "acting out." It is simply a personal attitude that is plainly visible but often unnoticed in a direct sense. One's desire to enjoy the activity and each other's company is the true key to Joy.

That is one of the reasons, aside from all I will learn, why I so look forward to the tournament tomorrow. I am going to interact with some refreshing and cheerful people with an attitude towards life that truly will excel. The key isn't what you do, it who you do it with.

MyThoughts on MySpace

2006-03-16T22:04:00.000-08:00

Everyone and their dog has a MySpace site. A bold assertion? Probably. But it is definitely popular. An estimated 48 million users were registered as of February 3 … with membership growing every day.

MySpace is the largest social networking site on the web at this time. It allows photos, postings, blogs, comments, videos, music, instant messaging, web based email, and all manner of such networking activities. Don't ask me too much more than that … all I know is what Wikipedia tells me. I don't know firsthand, because I choose not to have a MySpace.

"Gasp!" "Shock!" "Horror!" "Why not?" Such is the reaction of a large number of my friends and even my casual acquaintances. I offer my email; they offer their MySpace. Well, this post is an answer to why I don't have a MySpace … and why I won't get one.

The first consideration is my time. The Rebelution writes much more extensively on this topic, but we all need to be aware of and guard our time effectively. I have enough trouble responding to email, posting to the blog, and finishing school to spend any time on MySpace to do anything. There are a myriad of endeavors that I should be doing … and chatting isn't one of them. I believe in networking. I do not believe in an all consuming web service. As Ben Franklin once said, "Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that the stuff life is made of."

My second consideration is the situations presented. I would rather not put myself in situations where I input filth into my senses. I don't want to read your cussing to try to make some sort of point. I don't want to listen to some random song about my-girlfriend-left-me-so-it-hurts despair. I don't want to look at alluring over-stylized pictures of yourself. I don't want to have to interact with possible predators. Even if these situations don't occur, MySpace makes it too easy for my liking. The spirit is willing but the flesh is proverbially weak. I'd rather not even toe the line. I won't put myself into a situation that could present material expressly against my personal beliefs and convictions.

One may argue that I can simply disallow those I don't know from commenting or otherwise talking to me over MySpace. Well then, what is the point of having MySpace? I can achieve all these same networking benefits over more "conventional" means without the time issues and other considerations.

I would contend that some I know are addicted to the web and MySpace in particular. But even becoming obsessed involves a decision. That first initial step to create an account is not something I intend to do. Even if I prove to be on the wrong side of history (so to speak), it's better to be safe than sorry. As a friend once remarked, "The Internet is like alcohol, one chooses to be addicted."

I have one final caveat before I conclude. I believe in globalization. I love the book "The World is Flat" by Thomas Freidman. The world is becoming more "flat" and streamlined. People are becoming much more able to communicate, collaborate, and compete with one another. MySpace could arguably be a part of that "flattening" process. This remains one step I would rather not take. The benefits of socialization are outweighed by considerations of time and the influx of junk. You want to talk to me? Send me an email … or to go even more archaic, call.

Legal Cheating

2006-03-09T11:15:00.000-08:00

Homeschooling is different. We had this discussion in American History one Wednesday. A previously homeschooled college student received an essay packet for a final in English. For clarification, she asked if the essay-final was a "closed book" or an "open book (notes and research allowed)" test. The class was dumbfounded. The teacher didn't quite know how to react, and responded: "Of course it's open book … what else would it be?"

The public school system, whether in high school or college and evidenced by its representative English teacher, expects cheating. A closed book test involves honesty, and apparently that can't be expected in the public school system.

I would agree that it is better to be safe than sorry. By not even giving the opportunity for cheating via the closed book test, there will not be any cheating. Well … that's what some schools think.

Mill Creek Middle School in Kent, Washington, has allowed "cheating." Instead of requiring students to regurgitate "rote memorization," the school now allows online research during the midst of tests … from the weekly vocabulary quizzes to the end of the year final.

One school official rationalizes that it's not cheating because "we changed the rules to allow it." All right then, why was it once considered cheating? I concede that the point of academics isn't to spew back random information. You have to be able to find, analyze, and present information in order to be successful in most of life. However, you need to learn more than finding definitions online. If a student is allowed to research and compare notes digitally in the midst of a test, there is no reason to listen to the lecture or study the material. It becomes an even worse kind of regurgitation … repeating the words of others without previous exposure to any sort of information. No learning takes place if you cheat. Providing a means to allow what is normally considered cheating seems to be very irresponsible.

This reflects poorly on the public school system in general. Certainly each school and teacher is different … but therein lies the problem. Some schools and teachers don't care about quality or completion of work. Another college example is where an American Literature teacher told another friend and the whole class, "I don't expect you to actually read the material … but try to." So much for instilling a sense of responsibility and work ethic.

So, in conclusion, there is a problem in the contemporary public educational system. It was recently portrayed by the legalization of cheating by changing the rules at the middle school. This is only a symptom of the dysfunction of education. The system is obviously not teaching ethics of work or the importance of morality. It isn't creating a dynamic atmosphere to prepare kids for adulthood and life. Instead it seems to separate the environment from reality. If you aren't educating for life, you are wasting five out of the seven days of the week on a consistent basis. As Mark Twain quipped, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

Stick and Stones

2006-03-03T22:49:00.000-08:00

Statements, such as, “You’re dumb,” “That’s a stupid idea,” or any other insulting dig, are apparently acceptable … if you attach the caveat that you are “just kidding” or “only joking.” This seems to be the prevailing idea of many people in our American society. They can say whatever they want without regard to propriety or reason, as long as they qualify their statement with a satirical implication. I readily admit that I engage in this practice. I reason to myself that it is all in good fun.

C.S. Lewis wrote in the Screwtape Letters, "Humour is for them [the English] the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame." What C.S. Lewis wrote sixty years ago is definitely applicable to the United States today. Words have power, even when spoken in jest. The Psalmist exhorts (34:13), "Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile." This is not "keep thy tongue from evil … 'except when making a funny'"

Have you ever noticed that the people who dish out sarcasm and caustic wit first can't take it back in equal measure? I am sure we all can think of plenty of personal examples, but this is true even on the national stage. Ted "Nothing is Sacred" Rall has plenty of caustic material on his web based comic and column site. When Ann Coulter sarcastically remarked, "Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions." Rall cleared up the situation by saying that Ann Coulter lied and he would sue if his readers voted for him to do so. Simply browsing his site, there are plenty of "lies" flying around there too. He can make fun of everything, but no one can make fun of him.

This is not a post advocating the stopping of "fun." This is a post urging caution. Even among friends, the group dynamic is an important aspect to consider before showing one's wit with words. Not only should we be "slow to speak," but we must be sure to be "slow to anger." In doing so, we can remain friends with our comrades and form friendships with others. This is a thought, a ramble (read the description - "random ramblings"!) Speaking to me (and Mr. Rall), the author Jonathan Swift noted, "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." I intend to go about trying to find and change myself in that glass before I start criticizing others.

"Trust, but Verify"

2006-02-23T17:38:00.000-08:00

The biggest controversy of the week (maybe the month! ... maybe the year!) is the acquisition of P&O (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company) by Dubai Ports World. The issue's controversy comes down to national security. Dubai Ports World is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

The Seattle Times carried a story by Dick Polman that observes,"According to a bipartisan congressional letter of protest sent to the Bush administration on Thursday, money for the Sept 11 hijackers was routed primarily though the UAE banking system, and the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components into Iran and North Korea." Indeed, two of the 9/11 hijackers had passports showing the United Arab Emirates as their home.

As of right now, I believe that these accusations can be refuted. It is important to make a distinction between the people of a country and the government of a country. Nuradin M. Abdi was an American indicted for providing material support to Al Qaeda. His trial may acquit him, but the American government (obviously) did not condone such an action. Much in the same way, the nexus of banking in the Middle East, the illegal smuggling, and the terrorists all reflect individuals within the UAE, not the government (and the Dubai Ports World) itself. Certainly a government is made up of people, but the people and religious leaders in the United Arab Emirates do not support terrorism.

As the President pointed out, "After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The UAE remains a partner in the global war on terrorism. As General Peter Pace said, "In everything that we have asked and worked with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."

It even turns out the security role proper is not part of the Dubai deal. As the National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said, "This transaction has been incorrectly reported as being about port security or port ownership. No. It is about managing port operations. Port security remains the shared responsibility of local port authorities, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Department, the Coast Guard and others." Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations says, "Among the many problems at American ports, who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."

It is also true that the UAE intends to "'maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements.' … DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel."

Many political commentators have speculated that the United States is trying to get on the UAE's good side in order to help ensure a reliable base of operations in the Middle East … possibly against Iran? Having a friend in the Middle East isn't a bad thing … so if the security checks out, there is every reason to enact this policy.

One final point that bears addressing is the Democratic position. For a party that decries racial profiling in airports, isn't it a twist to profile a whole country?

Then there's Hillary Clinton. "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments,” Clinton said, in a statement posted to her web site. "I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments.”

Isolationism isn't a good idea in general, but this bill is especially backwards considering the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations notes, " But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies."

To begin to wrap up, perception can be in some ways more important than reality. In this issue it looks like the President is not as concerned about security as the Democrats. It looks like he is handing over security to a foreign power. It looks like there was not enough review. It looks like there was no information flow in the government. In this political "hot potato" issue, the President and the administration have to fight an uphill battle to look credible, informed, and concerned about security.

In conclusion, it seems that there is some justified reasons to proceed with this deal. It is also obvious that there are some large security issues that need to be discussed. Security is apparently already a problem, Dubai or no Dubai. We ought to sit down and consider the facts as a nation. If that involves putting a 45-day moratorium on the deal, so be it. No politicking, just a real discussion about the concerns of millions of Americans. President Ronald Reagan's statement on the USSR aptly applies to this situation: "Trust, but verify."

Equal Justice for All

2006-02-20T13:00:00.000-08:00

Does the law really apply to everyone? If that is the case, Logan Clements wants to apply the concept of eminent domain to Justice Souter. "Eminent domain" is basically the government's power to expropriate, or seize, private property for government use. Eminent domain is mentioned in the Constitution, although it is not called "eminent domain" proper.

The Fifth Amendment states, "… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Just compensation is usually the market value for the land or property in question, but "public use" is the important phrase to be defined in the Amendment. Public use has been redefined over the years to include everything from "economic development" to "blight." In short, any person's private property can be redistributed if the government thinks it has a better use for your property.

The latest Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London upheld the state's right of eminent domain over private property by a 5-4 decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote in the dissenting opinion that "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Right about here is where Clements comes in. He is asking the city of Weare in New Hampshire to use its power of eminent domain to give Clements the title to Justice Souter's land in an act of economic development. Clements plans to build a hotel and a eatery entitled, "The Just Desserts Café."

In essence, Clements is trying to turn the law back upon itself. Souter voted to uphold eminent domain but will he accept the actual application of his ruling if he is personally impacted? Right now, the city of Weare is holding the high ground. As the Weekly Standard reports, many disagree with the Kelo decision and eminent domain in general, but refuse to ever abuse the power of eminent domain as an absolute rule. Clements remains undeterred and is currently trying to sway the five-man city council to his position by helping to elect citizens to the council who agree with Clements's own ideas. The critical vote is coming up in March, but whatever the result, Clements vows that he is in for the long haul.

Frankly, I think Clements is accomplishing one helpful purpose – raising awareness. He has certainly informed me, but I also think that he picked the wrong justice. The small town seems unwilling to oust Souter simply to make a point. Eminent domain remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Whatever you may think about the actual proposal, Clements is certainly on the right track to bring the issue into the limelight where it belongs.

Note: Clements own website is here and here you can find more information and critiques on the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

Tortured to ... Life.

2006-02-16T10:08:00.000-08:00

It's hardly new news, but many news agencies (like CNN) reported in September 2005 that, "Since August 8, the number of detainees [at Guantanamo Bay] refusing food has slowly increased from several dozen to 128, according to the Pentagon. Eighteen prisoners are in medical facilities forcibly receiving nutrition intravenously or through nasal tubes, Pentagon officials said."

Well, force feeding these inmates who swore to die in prison is tantamount to torture ... apparently.

The Seattle P-I reported on February 14 that "A U.N. investigation has found that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday."

Ahem. If I may be direct ... What?! Since when have solitary confinement and forced nourishment been tantamount to torture? I guess all grounded teenagers in their room can rejoice; according to international precedent, they are being tortured. Seriously, however, solitary confinement for extended periods hardly counts as torture. These people are in prison and it makes sense that some seclusion is necessary for coercion and plain old punishment. By any definition, solitary confinement is not torture.

As for being force fed, I again point out that many detainees swore to die in Guantanamo Bay. These people could have valuable information and we really can't just let them die. That would be even worse publicity than saving their lives by giving them nourishment intravenously.

Even if these people are being tortured by these policies, I would agree with Charles Krauthammer. In deference to the McCain Amendment, there appear to be two instances in which torture is warranted.

The first instance is the "ticking time bomb." A captured terrorist has vital information about an attack. As Krauthammer put it: " Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?" My answer is to take action in order to save countless lives.

The second instance is when you have a "slow fuse terrorist" who has information about a terrorist attack or plot in the future. Unfortunately, we can't just ask the people at Guantanamo Bay if they are slow fuse terrorists, so it seems to make sense to me to keep them alive until we can find out. In doing so, the United States has been accused of torture. I refer to my original question ... What?

Appeasing the Peaceful

2006-02-11T15:51:00.000-08:00

The headlines continue without pause. “Cartoon anger unabated” reports Reuters on February 10. It all started when a Danish newspaper published some cartoon portraying Mohammad in a political bent. As Ann Coulter said, “The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular – oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.”

In response to these cartoons, many adherents to Islam rioted. The demonstrations have even led NATO troops to exchange fire with some armed protestors in Afghanistan after they attacked the NATO base.

What was the purpose of all the violence, attacking of embassies and bases, and burning of flags and effigies? From what I can tell by their slogans, they protest the mocking of the prophet and their beliefs. Basically no one is allowed to portray Mohammad in any form whatsoever, especially not in caricature. This idea is relatively new however. I again quote Ann Coulter, “The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad. “

Whatever the case, the President calling Islam a noble religion twisted by some extremists seems flawed. The only non-extreme Muslims seem to be those who relax their religion to a state of secularism. All this hype, pain, exhibition, and death is caused by caricature. In contrast, how many Christians have killed because of a caricature of Jesus? How many Buddhists have rioted because of a negative portrayal of their religion? It really comes down to the fact that Islam is not inherently peaceful.

If you have to call a religion noble and peaceful in order to prevent adherents of that religion from killing and rioting, doesn't it necessarily negate the statement that it is noble or peaceful?

Going Broke on Two Trillion Dollars

2006-02-04T13:51:00.000-08:00

One of the more memorable moments in President Bush's State of the Union address was the applause. I mean the applause, not in general, but at the point of the speech where the Left side of the Congress rose up in applause and obvious glee at the words,"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security."

Great.

As if the problem hasn't been presented clearly: The Wall Street Journal said today (Feb 3) that Social Security, along with other entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, cost $3 billion dollars a day. Cutting discretionary spending is important, but the President's proposed reforms of $14 billion will be equal to the amount currently spent on these entitlements in a matter of 5 days. Enough about the numbers, there is obviously a lot of money being spent on these programs. Why?

Social Security or rather, "old age assistance," was created in 1935 with the passage of the Economic Security Bill. It is important to note two things: It was created in the midst of the Great Depression and it operated on the assumption that the generation reaching old age would be lesser or at least equal to those of the present working generation. This assumption is beginning to show its faults as the "Baby Boomer" generation reaches retirement age.

Medicare and Medicaid are health care programs designed predominantly to help the elderly and the poor respectively. Signed into law in 1965, they are encountering the same problems as Social Security - they are running out of money.

The problem with reform is that it will almost certainly reduce the amount of money flowing to the subscribers of these programs. But the problem of inaction is even greater. I, for one, certainly advocate the idea of privatization. The private market has historically done a better and cheaper job than the government in any arena. In response, some in the Democratic leadership has said the way to solve the problem is simple ... raise taxes.

Whatever the solution may be, blocking a plan or blocking even discussion on the basis of political gain or wrangling is no way to help anyone. In short, applauding because any solution could not be reached seems to be irresponsible to the point of being dangerous.

Speechification and Debaterisms

2006-01-22T19:17:00.000-08:00

My last post was made at 35,000 feet, flying to a debate and speech tournament at San Diego. Well, now I’m fortunate to be at another one. I am currently in Hammond, Louisiana, one hour north of New Orleans for the Masters conference.

Communicators for Christ annually hosts conferences all over the South, including the fabled Masters Conference. Along the usual tour there are two days of speech classes culminating in a group presentation. If you so choose, you can then have two days of debate, ending in a group “mock” debate.

Masters goes above and beyond. I have just finished three days of speech classes and one full day of a speech tournament. I write to you now on Sunday, right before three more days of classes and a full debate tournament. Suffice to say, it’s somewhat intensive but well worth the effort.

Part of the reason of this post to you let know that I had not indeed fallen off the face of the earth, but also to talk about the point of the conference … the point beyond the classes, learning and fellowship.

As Uncle Ben is wont to say, “With great power comes great responsibility.” With the ability to communicate comes the increased accountability to the message and influence that you may have over colleagues, friends, acquaintances, and people in general. Guest Speaker Thane Rehn also said that you really don’t know when your light is being seen. You really don’t know when your words and actions in general are making an impact. This has really made an impression on the way I view my interactions and lifestyle!

Along with these nuggets of understanding, the whole theme of the conference, “See. Hear. Speak.,” has a special point. You can interpret that statement many different ways, but I especially agree with the idea that it represents being a cultural communicator. Seeing, hearing, and speaking the truth of God’s word within the community. Quite frankly, I have been inspired to stretch out and try to impact my community with my words and actions. This is an experience I would recommend to everyone. I have learned many new tools of communication, made so many new friends, and have been very much motivated.

Musings at 35,000 Feet

2006-01-04T20:55:00.000-08:00

There is a concept that has slowly grown in my mind over my life and experiences. Today, the reality reared its ugly head and I was forced to accept the realization that … airports are boring.

Airplanes are boring too.

So, here I sit, flying to San Diego for a debate tournament … bored.

This, happily, has not prevented me from writing a post using one of the conveniences of this Information Age, so without further ado …

As a homeschooler, I get a lot of questions related to homeschooling from my public schooled friends. What time do you get up? Do you wear your pajamas to school? Do you get snowdays? What about prom/Sadie Hawkins/Tolo/every other dance? The most pertinent question that I receive is consistently, “Would you rather be in public school?”

I usually respond, “No. Why? What am I missing?” Summarizing a host of responses, I am missing socialization with other people. This argument could have some merit depending on the specific homeschooler in question. Some don’t go out, have fun, have friends, or receive any exposure to the culture that they will someday have to face. However, as I try to point out, this is not the case with my family.

That is the usual course of conversation … however; this post is not about the usual. We invited a local teacher to help judge an upcoming debate. She sent the family an email that appeared to be critical of Christian debate (at the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association (NCFCA)) and Christian’s homeschooling in general. The teacher said that she was saddened by Christian students leaving the schools as it went against principles that “the Lord has placed on my heart” regarding, “being in the world but not of it.” Is Christian homeschooling truly a problem in this respect? I don’t believe so.

1. The public school is not the real world. Where else in life are you grouped with people all your own age? Learning to interact with people of all ages is especially important. Putting Christian children in public school simply to satisfy the commandment that they be “in the world” seems flawed prima facie (on its face.)

2. Certainly there are some homeschoolers that are too sheltered. However, being outside the scholastic system allows for a better analysis than being inside that same system. It is easier to teach the truth in areas such as science, sex, and history than to have to re-teach at home over a flawed concept already presented in the classroom.

3. Being sheltered, to some extent, allows for training and solidification in the Christian faith. NCFCA debate is expressly teaching communication so that students can learn to present the truth of the Gospel in a hopeless world. As Proverbs says, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

4. Finally, there are plenty of opportunities to share one’s faith outside school. If you are involved in any activities, you have a harvest ground right in front of you. If you take the time to ground yourself in the Word, you don’t have to go to school to show that you are a Christian.

It is important to keep in mind that homeschooling also provides many distinct benefits as well as satisfying the requirement of being in the world but not of it. Homeschooling promotes independent study, critical thinking, development of character, solidification of values, pursuit of personal interests, and the ability to make intelligent decisions.

I will admit my bias here. I love homeschooling, the homeschooling community, and all that I have learned while being homeschooled over the last 8 years of my life. I plan on homeschooling all through high school. I also plan on continuing to debate in NCFCA. I regret that this teacher is saddened by Christian homeschoolers, as I consider the homeschooling community a strong asset to Christianity and to America in general.

I Can Hear You!

2005-12-30T12:23:00.000-08:00

There have been plenty of issues over this last year. To conclude the year, I am finishing with a post on the wiretapping controversy. The basic argument from the ACLU and others is that the direct wiretapping order was illegal. Period. Since the president did not go to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 72 hours of the order, he broke the law. John Dean called it the first time a President has admitted to an impeachable offense. Representative John Lewis called for articles of impeachment to be written and Barbara Boxer took these statements "very seriously."

The only problem with this argument is that a direct presidential order is legal. As the National Center for Policy Analysis points out in the Wall Street Journal, "The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that President Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. However:

No Administration then or since has ever conceded that the Act trumped the President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it.
FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved; it was not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
In several cases, a special panel of judges heard FISA appeals and found "the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information;" and, "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

The evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions, says the Journal:

They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, says the President.
The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
These wiretaps were not used for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future terrorist attacks -- which is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed."

That should be the end of it! If wiretapping in this sense is legal, if there are no abuses of authority, and if it is only used on terror suspects, then there is absolutely no reason to have such a big controversy.

The problem with this postition on wiretapping is that it has received very little actual support or coverage. Even being a news pundit, I was unable to find the justification that the administration claimed supported the legality of wiretapping until today. Without accurate representation in the main stream media (and in the minds of some congressmen), this issue is being blown way out of proportion.

This information was first leaked to the New York Times, which ran an article on the subject in defiance of the President's express request. Now we have another leak. A leak about the leak probe investigation (say that ten times fast!) It is good that the administration is trying to take action against those who leaked such information in a time of war, but another leak leads to more obstacles.

I am sure terrorists understood that they could be listened to and took precautions against it. Now they know, and will be even harder to catch. You can't wiretap a hand written note passed hand to hand. Another negative repercussion is that the defense lawyers for captured terrorists are trying to get their clients off on a legal technicality ... the wiretaps were illegal.

In the end, we have a controversy, an impeachment threat, an increased awareness from terrorists to government information gathering, and the possibility of terrorists getting off scot-free. All this ... over something that has been firmly established to be legal since 1978. Go figure.

In a lighter vein, Happy New Year! As Nate said, "Thanks for reading!"

Ah, Scrappleface...

2005-12-24T12:17:00.000-08:00

So, I've mentioned how much I like Scrappleface, right? :-)

This story just really hit the mark for me. In a time where the President is being challenged on everything he should be doing, (and not challenged on the things he should be doing but isn't,) this scrappleface entry is a gem among gems.

And oh yeah... MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Thanks for reading this year, mates. Cheers!

Christmas out of the Culture and the Christ out of Christmas

2005-12-23T21:47:00.000-08:00

Dr. Munoz, a professor at Tufts University and a law scholar, gave an excellent synopsis of the different positions that could be held on the separation of church and state. You could be a strict separationist and believe that the government must be completely separated from religion. As such, the government will lean toward secularism instead of true neutrality. The other side of the spectrum is somewhat more divided. You could be a secular traditionalist and say that because our founding fathers were religious, it is ok for this current government to be as well. The second division is the "no coercion" school. You can believe what you want, as long as you do not coerce others into a mandatory belief system. Finally, you could subset the "no coercion" branch to say no psychological coercion, meaning you can't have displays of overt religion in schools or other public institutions.

Apparently, the government (and some elements in the popular culture) seems to be leaning toward the secular separationist viewpoint. Although there are plenty of examples, I am referring specifically to Christmas. This is not a new controversy. For example, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito ruled as a 3rd Circuit Court Judge on a case involving a Christmas display in 1999. In the end, the nativity display was allowed (I kid you not) because of the relative prominence of Frosty, Santa, and the Jewish Menorah.

So we come to the issue I have with "Happy Holidays" and the government's seeming multi-religious requirement. How many practicing atheists, Hindus, Jews, or what have you are actually offended by a person's saying "Merry Christmas" or seeing a Christian Christmas display? I like Michael Medved's analogy: If I am a single bachelor living alone, and someone says to me "Best regards to you and your family," I am not going to get angry, offended, or even peeved at that person. I understand that the comment was made with good intentions, and I will accept it at face value. Why people cannot do the same with a federally recognized holiday is beyond me.

Christmas belongs in the culture as a Christian holiday, not only for traditional reasons, but also because there is no "coercion" involved. Eliminating the religious aspect of the holiday has no solid basis. Despite this, it is frowned upon to say "Merry Christmas" in school or the workplace.

However warranted Christmas may be, we still hit the same controversy. When Representative Joann Davis introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives regarding Christmas, there was a major outcry. Another representative wrote a bill using H. Rez. 579 as a template. He replaced "Christmas" with "Hannakah, Kwanza, and Ramadan." Fortunately, Davis's resolution actually passed the House. When a country has to pass a bill saying that "[The House]

(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas ;

(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas ; and

(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions," we are obviously going in a wayward direction. As Representative Davis asked, "When did Christmas get so offensive?"

Thus, in the spirit of the holidays, "Happy Christmahunnakwanzadays!" (and Merry Christmas!)

Life, Liberty, and Television

2005-12-14T22:56:00.000-08:00

We all have inherent rights. First are the God given inalienable rights that no government has the right to take away. Then come the civil rights, identified by this government as just. These rights do receive different definitions over time, hence the ability to amend the Constitution. One right we are now entitled to, according to the United States Congress, is the right to digital television channels.

George Will writes more extensively on this topic. He points out the cost of ensuring all Americans have the ability to receive digital channels by use of a converter box or a new television is approximately three billion tax payer dollars. This subsidy does not discriminate on the basis of income. A millionaire and “your Aunt Emma in her wee apartment” are both applicable for the same amount of money.

In the end, we have three billion dollars of pork to ensure a “right” that all Americans will receive television broadcasts in digital. Since two slight variations of this measure passed both the House and the Senate, it makes me wonder just where our country is headed.

Invasion

2005-12-10T08:44:00.000-08:00

My family has the most extraordinary mealtimes. No, really! In spite of my mother's excellent cooking, though, I'm speaking of the conversations. The topics can move anywhere from airsoft/paintball, to politics, to movies, to religion/theology, to stuff that blows up, to the schedule for next week, to a pun... you get the drift. Needless to say, the conversations around TeamMat's table definitely give rise to some new thought patterns. New neural synapses firing at different times than they might normally. And so I give you: Christmas.

What the heck? Already? I know, I know... It's only the tenth, right? But this thought struck me in such a way I thought I'd share it with you.

When the Messiah was born, he didn't just put on human-ness over his godhood like one does an overcoat on a windy day. It's essential to understand this: Jesus, the Christ, was God *and* man, both, together, 100% of each, in the same package. Kind of tough to get your mind around, eh? Don't give up! You see, becuase the Christ was all man, He was tempted with sin. Tempted in some ways as we will never be tempted ourselves. (When was the last time somebody offered you the world?) But because He was all God, He was able to resist the temptation perfectly and never fall. And this is as far as some people go, but take it a step further. Jesus' humanity is the only reason His death on the cross wasn't meaningless. If He had been all God, woopidedoo; the sins of *humanity* demanded a *human* sacrifice. But Christ was human, which meant He was eligible for the role. But take a step back for second.

When Jesus was born on this earth in some cave-stable in Bethlehem, it was a straight-up invasion. Oh sure, God had come to earth before, but never to stay, and never as a human! The evil duke who lays claim to the world (Satan) got a slap in the face that night so many years ago. And this is the important part: since Satan *still* lays claim to this world, that makes those who follow Christ... the Resistance! And there will be crackdowns. There already are in other parts of the world; pray for those churches! The crackdown is coming to America as well; but it will be a far more subtle and insidious crackdown. It's already begun, as a matter of fact. Persecution of a Biblical Worldview in the "marketplace of ideas" is not only the norm, it's expected. And if you grant a Biblical Worldview the time of day, you're working with them. Which of course gives us few allies.

But hang in there! Just as Satan's cheers turned into wails and teeth-gnashing when Christ was raised from the dead, so it will be when he thinks he's beat us into the dust, only to have our Heavenly Father return and, quite frankly, own his face.

You *don't* want to mess wit' my Daddy.

(Viva la reformation!)

"Aslan is on the move!"

2005-12-09T14:24:00.000-08:00

I cannot think of a movie that has actually given me goosebumps … until yesterday. Certainly, some movies like “The Diary of Ann Frank” or “The Passion” have given rise to powerful emotions, but not goosebumps proper.

I was able to attend a Pre-Screening of the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as hosted by the Discovery Institute. (Yes, that Discovery Institute.) It was stupendous. Honestly, it was one of the best movies I have seen.

There were slight variations from the book, but these actually had no effect on the plot or message of the movie and actually added to the story effectively. I am not so much of a fan(atic) that I won’t accept these minor changes.

The story is a powerful one. I found myself within the movie; not just watching it. The overt Christian message the C.S. Lewis expressed was striking. Unfortunately, this allegory is being downplayed. Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, is quoted as saying, “Churches in Britain and America are promoting the film as a Christian film, but it’s not . . . and the Narnia books aren’t Christian novels. On the Michael Medved talk show Gresham reportedly said that one could find Christian values in Narnia, but so too one could find Hindu values. I’m sorry Mr. Gresham, but in C.S. Lewis’s own words, “The whole Narnian story is about Christ.

It is worth pointing out that Lewis wrote much more than children’s fantasy. His “Mere Christianity” and “The Screwtape Letters,” logically lead from human understanding to the existence of God … the God of the Bible. Lewis said, “The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.” In his autobiography, “Surprised by Joy,” C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of describing the fleeting and panging moments of Joy that he experienced. These glimpses into beauty and longing for something more in a spiritual sense are difficult to communicate, but applicable to all humankind.

Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is the only movie in my personal history to enact a moment of Joy as C.S. Lewis described them. What should you do? Watch the movie, read the books, and check out the other literary achievements of C.S. “Jack” Lewis.

Fence Hopping

2005-12-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

There are three important markets in any economy. The labor, goods, and capital markets are the backbones (or the parts of one big backbone?) of any capitalist economy. If there is a shortage or problem in any of these markets, there is a problem in the whole of the economy. Well, there is a problem in the labor market.

As President Bush repeated in his speech today (Dec. 7), immigration is a major part of the labor issue and problem. I'm referring specifically to the Mexican/US border where Mexicans illegally cross in order to find better paying jobs, citizenship for their children, and free health care. Obviously, this drains revenue from the United States, creates ethnic "pockets" of Hispanics who may have trouble adapting to American culture and life, and puts a strain all tax paying citizens.

As with many economic concepts however, there is a trade off. Produce and farm companies need labor. Many Americans are unwilling to do the work that illegal immigrants will do relatively cheaply. This is noted by the Associated Press when Angie Wagner wrote on the 3rd, "Illegal immigrants may number as high as 20 million, and they are gaining a larger share of the job market, according to Bear Stearns in New York. ... this is America's underground economy, and it generates billions of dollars worth of labor each year. Illegal workers come for the jobs, and always find companies eager to hire them.

"The toleration of illegal immigration undermines all of our labor," said Vernon Briggs, a Cornell University labor economics professor. It rips at the social fabric. It's a race to the bottom. The one who plays by the rules is penalized. It becomes a system that feeds on itself. It just goes on and on and on.""

Companies need the labor and illegal immigrants need the jobs. One possible solution is better enforcement along the border. But this does not remove the base problem, the incentive that Mexicans have to get to America and its jobs. As Professor Douglas Massey wrote, "For the past two decades, the U.S. government has pursued a contradictory policy on North American integration. While the U.S. government has pursued more commercial integration through the North American Free Trade Agreement, it has sought to unilaterally curb the flow of labor across the U.S.-Mexican border. That policy has not only failed to reduce illegal immigration; it has actually made the problem worse. ... A border policy that relies solely on enforcement is bound to fail."

To paraphrase Adam Smith, "Incentives matter." We have to remove the reason that people illegally cross the border. As of right now, the best solution seems to be presented by President Bush. Fred Barnes laid out Bush's plan in this article. "Imagine what finally dealing boldly with America's immigration problem could do. Slashing the number of border crossings by illegal immigrants would be only the first step. A guest worker program would provide a lawful way for illegals to work here, solving a job crisis for American business and potentially reducing the incentive for illegal entry. The most difficult part would be creating a path to citizenship for those who came to the United States illegally but before a cutoff date."

So, is that it then? Not really. Politically speaking, we are not over all the obstacles. President Bush plans to include all these measures at once at one of the low points in his popularity in the country. As Fred Barnes also notes, immigration will probably be an important part of the 2006 midterm election. This immigration issue is not over yet ... we seem to have a solution before us, now all we have to do is get there.

On Tookie and on Life

2005-12-01T16:11:00.000-08:00

A star studded movement to remove Stanley "Tookie" Williams's death sentence has only intensified over Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's head. The Associate Press reported today (December 1) that a California judge refused to grant clemency for the death row sentenced Tookie Williams.

What could possibly cause celebrities like Jamie Foxx, Mike Farrell and Snoop Dogg, as well as non-celebrities, to hold rallies in Los Angeles? Apparently the co-founder of the Crips gang is a changed and reformed man.

As his clemency petition sent to Governor Schwarzenegger states, "At San Quentin, Stanley Williams spent six years in isolation. Alone for the first time in his life, free from the threats and demands of the life he had lived, he looked into himself and found purpose. He openly renounced his prior life and gang violence. He educated himself. He became the messenger of hope, and of the futility and waste of violence. He found his own redemption."

Is this redemption factual? You be the judge. He openly renounced gang violence, but apparently other types of violence were acceptable. As reported on "Hannity and Colmes," he attacked the guards (throwing chemical substances into their faces) and got into many violent fights. This is after his six year period of "finding purpose" in isolation. He was even revealed to be a part of a plot to escape the LA county jail involving the planned murder of three people along the way.

As for his impact on others, it has been touted by many of his petitioners that he wrote childrens books. He even received a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize!

Joseph Phillips (you may know him from the Cosby Show) isn't so convinced. He reports "A quick review of Book Scan shows the Tookie series of books have hardly been blockbusters. His top seller, 'Gangs and Violence,' has sold 330 books. Another book, 'Gangs and Wanting to Belong,' sold exactly two copies."

As for the nomination for a Peace Prize, Adolf Hitler received the same distinction of being nominated for the award. It isn't really a good measure of the person's view toward humanity.

Should one bad decision condemn a man to death? There are consequences to actions. We have no control over these consequences, but we have control over the cause ... the original choice of action. Giving this man the life sentence instead of the death penalty warranted by the horrid crime of killing four other human beings is not a justice to society or the persons he murdered. We really can't make this decision on the extent of his reform in prison. The justification is not really there.

Phillips goes on to write: "Snoop, Mike Farrell, Danny Glover, Jamie Foxx and the other celebrity voices now raised in support of Williams offer a clear picture of the distorted moral vision of the Hollywood left. It is a vision that finds virtue contemptible and props up homicidal maniacs who write bad children's books as role models for the masses."

So should one bad decision condemn a man to death? Yes. One bad decision can have huge ramifications. It can be the difference between life and death ... in more than one sense of the word.

I believe Tookie Williams should be given the sentence warranted by his choices as determined within the extent of the law. If not, why even have a court?

A Steel Curtain Has Fallen .... Over The Media

2005-11-27T13:59:00.000-08:00

While a twist on Sir Winston Churchill's famous "Iron Curtain" quote about the USSR, I think it fits in addressing a bias in the media about the military's success in Iraq and the Middle East.

Operation Steel Curtain was a seventeen day offensive (ending on the 22nd of November) that worked to secure the Iraq/Syria border. Over 1,000 joint US and Iraqi troops were deployed. In the end, the Department of Defense reports: "... 10 Marines were killed in fighting during Steel Curtain. A total of 139 terrorists were killed and 256 were processed for detention during the operation."

This is a stunning success! The border is now better secured, preventing more terrorists from simply walking into Iraq. Even with this good news, the report is nonexistent in mainstream media.

A search of Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask Jeeves yielded few stories. CNN reported on the 5th that dozens of terrorists were dead. The number has grown exponentially, but no reports continue from this source. ABC ran an AP headline saying "Marine Killed in 'Operation Steel Curtain'" on November 7th. Again, no further developments are mentioned beyond the death of a US marine.

Kudos to the blogs, which tracked the progress of the Operation throughout its entire length. But what about the average, non blogging American? The mass media again shows a bias by not reporting the accomplishments of our troops in Iraq. If one professes to be anti-war but pro-troops, why not give credit where credit is due?

Political Soapboxing

2005-11-26T20:33:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving. We all know the story. As the History Channel states, "In 1621 the Plymouth colonists and the Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest feast which is now known as the first Thanksgiving. While cooking methods and table etiquette have changed as the holiday has evolved, the meal is still consumed today with the same spirit of celebration and overindulgence."

What does thanksgiving have to do with political soapboxing? Well, according to the Seattle Public Schools, such a view of Thanksgiving is a myth. Their website states, "Thanksgiving: A Native American Perspective:

This session examines the myths surrounding the "First Thanksgiving" and will offer historically accurate readings and discussion materials. The perspective of Native peoples will be addressed as will the legacy of contact between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of North America. Participants will deconstruct what we have been taught about this holiday and come to a new understanding of the history behind the myth."

Obviously, we have been getting it wrong all these years. The website fails to mention a Seattle Public School memo, as reported by KVI, detailing that Thanksgiving is really a time of mourning and remorse for the Native Americans who were robbed of their land by the Europeans.

Don't get me wrong, the Native Americans were not treated fairly. The United States broke a lot of its supposedly valid treaties. Even so, Thanksgiving was truly a time of rejoicing. Remember Squanto? The Native American who saved the colony when he taught the Pilgrims how to harvest and live off the land? There is cause to celebrate on Thanksgiving. The public school system still seeks to rewrite the "myth" of recorded history.

This political soapboxing (Aha! The topic of the post!) in the school system is getting out of hand. It isn't even reserved for the holidays. Whitney Blake wrote an excellent article about the University of Virginia and racism. A professor held the right to express racist statements on the grounds of tenure and his own status as an African American. Nor is the situation isolated to The University of Virginia; even at a small Northwest college, Olympic College, many professors express political views in classes unrelated to the subject matter. As an article in the OC's Olympian notes, "When I polled 50 OC students, I discovered that one in five students said their professors talk politics in class unrelated to the subject matter." One final example is the use of "dispositions theory" at Washington University in Pullman, WA. The University used this idea to punish a student for his religious and political views. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website notes, "Dispositions" theory, increasingly in vogue in education programs, requires professors to evaluate their students’ commitment to concepts such as “social justice” and “diversity” in conjunction with their actual scholastic achievement."

Professors are obviously intelligent people, but taking the opportunity to talk politics to a captive audience without the opportunity for open debate is only indoctrinating minds ... not teaching them.

Ah, Scrappleface...

2005-11-21T07:56:00.000-08:00

This cracked me up.

So this is number what, now?

2005-11-18T00:58:00.000-08:00

I find it amusing-
Ok, so amusing isn't the right word, it's sad. Yet my sense of irony/justice remains steadfastly sated. Gorged, even. Thanksgiving is still around the corner but it doesn't matter. Why not?

France. Specifically, the intifada and general rioting that's been going on over there for what, two weeks? More?

Keep in mind, I'm not "happy" for what's going on over there. This isn't some Franco-bashing melee. But for crying out loud, nobody saw this coming?

First off, you have the huminist, rationalist and materialist influences that start over there from the "En~~dark~~lightenment" and earlier. God quickly became a cussword at best, silly (or dangerous) superstition at worst. Man decides he can do it on his own, and proceeds to go through a couple of civil wars, lose an empire, and (eventually) have more Islamists coming into the country than the natives can produce themselves. No worry, right? These immigrants will just fit in and pick up the culture as they go, right?

Wrong. This is *Islam,* remember? This religion/belief structure/worldview is not exactly interested in playing nice with everyone else. No, the immigrants *don't* pick up the culture (it might be offensive to them). They glorify their own as a people set apart, destined to cause the downfall of the Satans that are so offensive to Allah (whatever the heck he is. Definitely not the God of the Bible).

So we have a Godless (and thus hopeless) society. (Read "tinder.") We have a philosophy of world-domination with many adherants just walking in to this society. (Read "match.") We now have... a conflageration? Say it isn't so!

I'm not trying to excuse anybody. Goodness gracious me, I am *not* trying to excuse anybody. But I will say that this situation (kind of like us) rose from a *cause,* not randomly.

We would do well to consider the consequences of such a cause.

As If We've Never Been Over This Before ...

2005-11-17T11:01:00.000-08:00

While hardly a new outcry, the Associated Press reported today (11/17) that a "House Democrat calls for immediate troop withdrawal." Other Democrats have been echoing this same sentiment for some time, but now some Republicans are getting in on the action. A senate bill would require the President to "explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq."

Both of these ideas are not the most helpful one could imagine. In fact, they could even hurt the war effort, our country's security, and its credibility.

1. Leaving Iraq immediately is a bad idea. Even so, John Murtha, a ranking Democrat in House of Representatives, stated:

(a)"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target." He then continues by saying, (b)"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

My responses are as follows:

(a) American military forces have become targets in Iraq. This is true. We are in a war! If we withdraw our troops, will the terrorists simply disappear? Not in the least. They will simply find new targets. If they target Iraq, their military and civilians will suffer significantly more. It is also quite possible that terrorists will continue to target Americans ... on our own soil. Iraq has become a terrorist magnet. With American soldiers gone, America itself will become a powerful attraction.

(b) As a Vietnam veteran, Murtha should understand the problem with this statement. War isn't like the movies. It is incredibly hard (if not impossible) to calculate. When war becomes hard, it doesn't mean that efforts have failed! It simply means that we have to "Adapt and Overcome." War hardly ever goes as predicted. To say that it should shows ignorance on the part of the speaker.

In short, leaving Iraq immediately is a bad idea. It gives terrorists a victory over the United States, quite probably emboldening them for bigger attacks. Iraqis would suffer. Their infrastructure, government, and military isn't ready. George Bush has repeatedly explained how you can't just create a working military force overnight. We have seen progress in the War on Terror. Freedom comes at a great cost as our forefathers knew, and as the Iraqis are learning. Security costs too, as American's seem unable to understand.

2. Revealing war plans isn't a good idea. Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War that, "Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move."

George Bush cannot be more specific than he already has been without endangering the lives of our troops abroad. War plans are for generals, not the press. The long term strategy has been already presented to the nation: train up the Iraqis to run their own nation and protect them in the process. The plan is working! We have even seen the beginnings of democracy starting to spring up in Iraq. They have a new government; they have made a constitution; they have voted for the first time ever. This is undeniable progress.

So, if we are progressing in the war on terror, why all these complaints? Why doesn't the average American or even the politicians in government understand that we have to be in Iraq for the long haul? We have a responsibility that we cannot just walk away from in Iraq. It is a responsibility to democracy and human rights for their people and a responsibility to security and freedom for our own.

Washington Votes Not to Smoke

2005-11-10T16:45:00.000-08:00

On November 8th, Washington State went to the polls. One of the initiatives passed by the voters of Washington state was I-901. Basically, it bans smoking in public places (no matter if the owner is a private individual) and bans smoking within 25 feet of a public place.

The relevant portions text of the measure read:

"Public place" means that portion of any building or vehicle used by and open to the public, regardless of whether the building or vehicle is owned in whole or in part by private persons or entities, the state of Washington, or other public entity, and regardless of whether a fee is charged for admission, and includes a presumptively reasonable minimum distance ... of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited."

"No person may smoke in a public place or a place of employment." (emphasis mine)

I have two basic problems with this initiative. 1. The law itself is flawed. 2. The law is vague on too many counts to make an impact.

1. What right does the government have to regulate private business? The constitution of the United States is designed to protect the people from the government. The less influence, the better. While I do not advocate smoking (I find it disgusting) everyone has a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." If smoking makes you happy, so be it!

An interesting notion, this idea of the pursuit of happiness can be taken too far. For example, drugs may make you happy ... but they are illegal. Should they be made legal? No. The law involves some degree of common sense.

Even without the Federal Constitution, the government should just let the private citizen deal with the problem. If you don't smoke and don't like breathing secondhand smoke, don't go the establishment that allows smoking! If it is a big deal for you, organize a boycott of the establishment.

For example, I can personally attest to walking out of restaurants that allow smoking. I don't like the smell all over my clothes and the bad stuff transmitted via second hand smoke. They didn't get my business. I went somewhere else and they lost a potential sale. This is partly why some places are removing their smoking section. Without customers you don't have a business.

Conversly, if you like smoking, you should have every right to smoke in an establishment that allows smoking. The law states that you can't even smoke in a private club that requires an admission fee. You can't go to a smoking establishment if you want to.

Is this law wrong? Absolutely. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are plenty of alternatives to creating a law that forbids smoking for the private individual. I would even contend they are more effective measures. Businesses want you to go to their establishment. If they don't get enough customers because they allow smoking, they will quit smoking cold turkey.

One final interesting point before I continue, the State collects major revenue from a tax on tobacco products. This is worth approximately $254,770,000 in 2001. The government points out, "Currently, cigarette tax collections go to the general fund, water quality, drug enforcement, health services, and salmon recovery programs." As the revenue dries up because less people will smoke as often, these programs will suffer. Who will take up the slack in the collection of taxes? Smokers and non-smokers alike.

2. The law is too vague. Many people have pointed out that the required 25 foot distance is in the middle of the street. There isn't even a clear regard to enforcement in the bill. Law officials are tasked to keep a special eye out for violators, but who is supposed to check up on the establishments? Without clear boundaries and clear enforcement, this strictest smoking ban in the nation readers itself impotent.

Robert Maynard Hutchins once said, "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." I do not contend that the establishment of a strict smoking ban is a threat to democracy. I do contend that more taxes, which must necessarily be enacted to supplement lost revenue from tobacco taxes, are bad.

The growing power of the state government to regulate private businesses and individuals (a right so willingly given by those individuals) is a step down a road with a gentle slope to a less free society.

NOTE: More info here.

Not Against = For?

2005-11-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

So I was at my place of occupation one night, bantering on about all the things we employees banter on about in the back room when there aren't any customers in the store, when the topic of (eerie minor chord!) politics arose. There seemed to be a strong liberal presence, owing to the strong personality of one employee and the easily cowed nature of the other employees whom I suspect are more right-ward than center. I entered the fray, describing myself as neither Republican nor Democrat, only to encounter attacks on the President. Something about George W. Bush being the worst President the country's ever had. (Sound Familiar?) Anyway, I jumped to the man's defense and was immediately warned to be careful, because "[I was] starting to sound less and less like a moderate." I heard some customers come in, so the conversation was dropped for the day, but a question remained in my mind: Is a refusal to attack the President, or a refusal to agree with attacks on the President, an implicit support for everything the President has ever done?

I suppose what I'm getting at is this idea that seems to be rampant nowaday that it's all or nothing. You either have to love the President and everything he's ever done, or think he's the worst President of all time and stupid to boot.* This is not moderation, and I don't use that term politically in this context. You can buy into very few things in this life lock, stock, and barrel. You can condemn out of hand even fewer things. This principle holds for all areas of life, and that includes politics. I do not at all agree with everything George W. Bush has done or believes (the illegal aliens coming across our borders in droves make that assured). However, I do not think that personally attacking the man who currently holds the office of President of the United States of America for disagreeing with him is appropriate or acceptable, and certainly not for inane reasons like "He's dumb. Can't you hear his accent?" Attack (with your own supporting points) his positions or policies all you want, but don't touch the man himself.

*(Oh, and since when did ad hominem attacks on the President's intelligence qualify for a debate point? "And you should also believe my point of view because the President is dumb. Dumb dumb dumb big oil lalalala I can't hear yoooooou!" The irony of it is that calling somebody stupid as a central argument is... well... stupid.)

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not just because he's the President, it's a courtesy we should all extend to anyone we find ourselves debating. If they're a human being, do yourself a favor and keep yourself from looking like a grade-A git: don't attack the person, attack their argument. This is grade school knowledge here, people. You would think those who consider themselves leaders would have a grasp of this.

So in the midst of this "all or nothing" rhetoric that's coming out of pretty much every side these days, make sure to keep asking yourself: Is a man defined by what he denies or what he supports? Can you peg someone down absolutely, or will there always be grey area?

Think about it.

C is for CIA and that's good enough for me.

2005-11-04T09:58:00.000-08:00

The headlines blared in the LA Times today (November 4th) that "Libby pleaded 'not guilty.'" This is only the latest attention grabbing headline of late. Ever since Libby's idictment on October 28, the CIA Leak Investigation has been a mainstay in the presses.

Before I say anything more, a little background is necessary. The story runs like this:

Valery Plame, as reported by the Associated Press was "In truth, ... [an] overt operative for the CIA and a specialist in weapons of mass destruction, a fact unknown even to close friends and neighbors."

Her name was leaked as a CIA operative to Judith Miller, who ran a column on the subject. Incidentally, Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal her confidential source, finally being released on September 30th. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson "says [it] was an act of retribution after he spoke out against the administration."

That's about it. It is worthy to note there is a discuss if Plame was really an overt operative (ie: not covert and not needing secrecy). Even if she was covert, she didn't hide it very well. The Weekly Standard points out

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. . . . She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington--not stationed abroad--for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name

Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. . . . An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication..."

I just want to talk about an apparent double standard. The press trumpets that we should protect secret operatives and then does the exact opposite.

Take for example the article run on November 2nd about secret CIA prisons. The story prompted investigations by the European Union into the matter. The Washington Post article features the code name of one of the larger facilities "Salt Pit," satellite imagery of its location in Afghanistan, and names of some of the top al Qaeda operatives being held there.

I ask you, what is more damaging to our national security and the CIA: the revealing of a nominally secret operative in the United States, or the revealing of a prison facility created to help gather intelligence about terrorist operations? Apparently, a standard does exist. If it hurts the current administration, it runs ... even at the cost of security.