AllTheseThings

Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor.

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery, Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott, William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark, Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross, Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean, Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Augustine On Evil

I just came across a passage of Augustine's Confessions where he discussed evil in the world--something that was quite a hurdle for him coming to faith.  This is from Book 7, Chapter 13:

To thee there is no such thing as evil, and even in thy whole creation taken as a whole, there is not; because there is nothing from beyond it that can burst in and destroy the order which thou hast appointed for it. But in the parts of creation, some things, because they do not harmonize with others, are considered evil. Yet those same things harmonize with others and are good, and in themselves are good. And all these things which do not harmonize with each other still harmonize with the inferior part of creation which we call the earth, having its own cloudy and windy sky of like nature with itself. Far be it from me, then, to say, “These things should not be.” For if I could see nothing but these, I should indeed desire something better--but still I ought to praise thee, if only for these created things. For that thou art to be praised is shown from the fact that “earth, dragons, and all deeps; fire, and hail, snow and vapors, stormy winds fulfilling thy word; mountains, and all hills, fruitful trees, and all cedars; beasts and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl; things of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth; both young men and maidens, old men and children,” praise thy name! But seeing also that in heaven all thy angels praise thee, O God, praise thee in the heights, “and all thy hosts, sun and moon, all stars and light, the heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens,” praise thy name--seeing this, I say, I no longer desire a better world, because my thought ranged over all, and with a sounder judgment I reflected that the things above were better than those below, yet that all creation together was better than the higher things alone.

Taken as a whole,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

The Straw Man Defense

Last week I had the unenviable task of visiting someone with the express purpose of chastising him for inappropriate behavior. Lucky me. I wasn’t alone, which was some comfort, although not enough to calm the palpitations as we knocked on the door.

The subject was polite and friendly as he welcomed us into his home. But, true to form, he took the criticism of his behavior with a mixture of petulance and righteous indignation. He told us about a recent article he’d read in the NY Times, about The Straw Man. He was, he insisted, The Straw Man in the situation we were talking about. Neither myself nor my companion had read the article he was referring to, although it was clear from his context that the straw man was some kind of scapegoat which limited his culpability.

Coincidentally, the NYT article he was referring to was lying on the table at work a few days later, so I educated myself about this mysterious straw man. He is, apparently, a fictitious opponent who holds the extreme opposite view to the person referring to him. By demonizing this extreme person or group of people, the speaker’s opposite opinion becomes more persuasive. “Some people say we should just……(insert extreme approach)……Well, I say….(propose opposite approach)”. It’s setting people up just to knock them down, as the NYT article says. These extreme opponents are like scarecrows in a field: constructed to be frightening enough to scare people away without really being harmful at all. They are made of “straw”.

...except when someone trys to climb into their clothes and protest they are being victimized. This was, with hindsight, what I think was happening in my encounter last week. By claiming to be the straw man, our host was trying to avoid responsibility for his terrible behavior. Instead he was claiming the people who took offense to it were the ones with the problem. THEY were the ones who needed to fix their behavior. Hmmm……..I don’t buy it.

So, my advice is to beware, this scarecrow isn’t as innocuous as he seems. Yes, he can frighten you without good reason. But, don’t get too close and consider poking him to see if he’s real. You might find he’s ready to defend himself.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Face Time

“Musicians Union says Keep Music Live!”.
That was the message I remember, on a large, yellow sticker on the instrument cases of “real musicians”. Although, when I first saw this message I was a child just learning music, so anyone older/taller/more confident than me qualified as a “professional” in my mind. It didn’t rule many people out.

I didn’t really understand the message at the time. What was the big deal about Live Music? Isn’t a recording just as entertaining? What did I care whether the sound was coming across a stage or out of a speaker?

The difference is becoming more and more obvious to me. The fact is, our eyes effect what our ears hear. I heard this recently from a guest conductor of the LA Philharmonic, who told me that the brightness of the newly-designed concert hall also made the sound quality “bright”. I looked sceptical, but he assured me it was a known phenomenon. Our eyes and ears are, in some ways, synthesizing the same information to create a unified experience. Don’t ask me how it works. I just hope your experience leads you to agree with me, or at least accept the possibility. 

Yesterday I took part in a live concert, culminating in a cello solo which brought the audience to its feet. In their faces, as well as in their applause, I saw the impact of a live performance. All of their senses had been engaged, and their whole body responded by leaping up. It was a gratifying to know they had enjoyed the performance so much, but also to know that people perpetually numbed by TV, movies, emails and texting, can still respond to other human beings in that way. But their enthusiasm also gave away a hint of prior sensory deprivation. I suspect an absence of live entertainment really had made their hearts grow fonder.  

I think this absence of face-to-face contact affects our experience, not just of live music, but of everyday life. Technology is making communication easier, but in turning towards it (sometimes sprinting towards it), we are running away from the richness of one-on-one interactions. It’s easy to fool ourselves that it’s not doing any harm. But when faced with real live personal interaction, our emotional response gives us away.  

So maybe the Musicians Union had a good point. But, I think we should expand their message….

“Keep Music, Conversations and Relationships LIVE!”

The big yellow sticker for the 21st century…..

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

You Got a Permit for That?

This is a disturbing, if not unfortunately foreseeable, event.  Apparently, county officials in San Diego have told a local pastor that he must have a permit for a weekly Bible study at his house.  It only consists of 10-15 people.  This is foreseeable for a few reasons:  1) we've confused our understanding of private property and permitting issues beyond belief; 2) there is a growing desire by government workers to gain additional revenue by any means possible; 3) there is growing hostility from government against religion; and 4) common sense is on life support.

What makes this development--admittedly a first, but something that will catch on because of reason No. 2, above--so frustrating is the total departure from our founding ideas.  The concept of ownership of property, which includes beliefs according to James Madison, is gone from the government class.  Government was instituted to protect our property.  Now we seem to think government was instituted to regulate our property--turning our founding thoughts upside down.

It is also frustrating that this will be unequally applied, of course.  In the article, the pastor asks some good questions about this novel, and silly, policy:

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?"

Those aren't questions the bureaucrats will likely answer.  Instead, they are requiring the pastor to get an assembly permit (the policy has found a way to attack not one, but multiple parts of the 1st Amendment.)  The permitting process can cost tens of thousands of dollars.  I don't know about you, but my local Bible-study group couldn't afford that.  Thus, religious groups will not be directly shut down, but will be indirectly shut down, or exist "illegally."

Part of this stems from most of the regulations being designed to apply to businesses--where $10,000 might be a do-able price to pay.  That usually isn't the case for small churches and community groups.  My church faces this issue a lot.  It is a small church in a wealthy, over-regulated town.  While it works for some of the major companies in town to play the regulation-city-hall-bureaucracy game, it is virtually impossible for us to do the same.  This is made worse by the fact that main-line, larger, traditional churches--which are usually more established in the community, and wealthier--are decreasing, while smaller, start-up churches are growing.

If these sorts of regulations and interpretations--way more letter of the law than spirit with most city-hall types--don't change, churches everyone will start having to wrestle with how to apply the "obeying your government" commands with the need to "not forsake meeting together" command.

Tough times ahead.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

The world's smallest epidemic

With the rise and fall of the swine flu, we’ve heard a lot about epidemics lately. You’d think we’d be prepared by now, but epidemics are tricky; they keep mutating and then popping up in completely different places, and at times you’d least expect them.

In the HIV arena, the word “epidemic” isn’t new. But despite everything we now know about the virus, and all the potent anti-retroviral drugs available, "epidemic" still applies. In the US, the rates of new infection have been only stationary for the last few years, which is maybe disappointing in and of itself. And in one particular population, broadly named “MSM” (Men who have Sex with Men), the rates of HIV infection are actually increasing. With all the information we now have about the virus and how it’s transmitted, not to mention how to protect ourselves, what could be causing this increase? What separates the MSM group from the other high risk groups: IV drug users, prostitutes etc?

The answer? Homophobia. Yes, the powers that be have determined that this has less to do with any inherent high risk behaviour this group engage in and is more to do with that fact men who have sex with men are looked down upon and made to feel ashamed, which makes them sad and depressed and more likely to hide their HIV status, avoiding getting help. So, say the public health big wigs, the reason HIV rates are increasing among the MSM population is that there is a homophobia epidemic “fuelling” the HIV epidemic. If you are anything other than 100% supportive of homosexuality, you are actually guilty, not just of bigotry, but of promoting the spread of a deadly virus.

One of the most disturbing features of this point of view, (a view which has been seeping into the HIV world for a while now), is that it’s at least supported, if not the brain-child of people who claim to be scientists. Scientists are supposed to require convincing evidence on which to base their conclusions. There’s so little evidence to support a “homophobia epidemic” it’s shocking that the theory has survived this long. How many people do you know who have a “fear or hatred of homosexuality” and is there any sign that this number is increasing?

But I suspect that’s not the definition of homophobia that’s being used, and that this has nothing to do with science. This is a very poorly hidden agenda to push the legalisation of gay marriage. If you oppose gay marriage and you feel backed into a corner, I don’t blame you. “Are you in favor of gay marriage, or more HIV ?”. “Errr………..”. I suspect “neither” isn’t an option on that questionnaire.   

I have no doubt that genuine homophobia exists, and it has been the cause of genuine suffering. Violence and the suffering it causes should be opposed by everyone, no matter who is the victim. But, labelling every person who favors marriage between only men and women as a “homophobe” just distracts from the real problem, (which I suspect has more to do with power than sexuality). And then linking this watered-down definition of homophobia to the HIV epidemic, the cause of a staggering amount of suffering, is the biggest emotional blackmail of all.    

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Just War Theory and Missile Defense

Is neglecting the development of a U.S. missile-defense system immoral?

Twice, in this fine article, Mr. Greenfield notes the immorality of a full-throttled nuclear response to a rogue state missile attack--on either Israel or the U.S.A.  He notes:  "Test after successful test of anti-missile missiles shows that President Ronald Reagan’s original vision of missile defense — not the immoral and limited option of massive retaliation — has become attractive both in the United States and Europe."  Then he says:  "Missile threats are real and missile defense science is solid. The funding costs are actually quite low and the moral case is overwhelming."

The moral component caught my eye.  The article, by the Claremont Institute's Vice President and American Studies scholar, walks you through the basics of America's missile-defense program, capabilities, and needs.  The current program is being cut in the new President Obama budget--and it is somewhat amazing that anything is cut, given all the spending increases that are offered.  He notes that the cut in R&D for the program is in the $10's of Billions, in a multi-Trillion dollar budget; basically, an OMB rounding error for a program that could protect Americans from 10,000's or 100,000's of deaths; economic, social, and political chaos--if not annihilation.

But program cuts in the budget are typically more in the prudential, rather than moral, realm for public policy.  Budgetary decisions are difficult, and wise leaders properly prioritize.  Rarely do you hear, however, that a budgetary cut or increase is "immoral."

So what is the moral case for missile defense?  I believe it lies in the current defense strategy:  mutually assured destruction (MAD.)  The development of technology allowed, in the 1950's and 1960's, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. to guarantee the others' end if one attacked.  This checked the impulse to launch missiles.  But only superpowers then had both long-range missiles and nuclear technology.  In the intervening decades, lesser powers have developed both missiles and nuclear bombs.  Thus, technology changed the geo-political playing field, but America has not substantively changed its strategy.  Ronald Reagan's vision of SDI ("Star Wars" the critics called it), opened for wide discussion the game-changing strategy shift from destroying the other side to not being destroyed.  Essentially, Reagan wondered allowed if it would not be better to not all be blown to smithereens, rather than being sure we could blow the Soviets up (after they had blown us up.)

Despite the criticism, the idea--if technologically feasible--is solid:  it is better not to die, than to die knowing you have killed your killer.  But as missile and nuclear technology has proliferated, we cannot be so sure mutually assured destruction even works--we cannot be sure we killed our killer, yet we might kill a lot of innocents trying.  If MAD does not work--meaning their destruction cannot be guaranteed--then MAD does not deter.  With no deterrence, we increase the incentive for our enemies to attack us (or at least decrease the disincentive, but nature typically abhors weakness, and tyrants tend to love to flex their muscles against their enemies, lest their own citizens turn their gazes against the tyrants.) 

The decreased disincentive increases our need for another strategy.  Enter missile defense.  If the bully cannot land his punch, he likely won't swing.  But if he can land his punch, and leave the area where he punched from, does a massive counterstrike help?  Moreover, is it moral?

The moral component creeps in again.  A quick and imprecise summary of "Just War" theory shows the following is needed to wage war justly:

we must be seriously threatened or harmed;

war is our only feasible response;

we must have a chance of winning;

the force used must not cause evils worse than the evil to be eliminated (proportionality.)

Well, if a rogue state or terrorist cell in another country launched a nuclear missile at Los Angeles, 1, 2, and 3 are likely satisfied (although you could quibble over "winning" a nuclear exchange.)  But does annihilation of the attacking nation justly respond to one missile?  What if it is not even launched by the nation itself, but from a terrorist-occupied region the nation cannot control (imagine the tribal lands of Pakistan or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan)?  Does the annihilation of Afghanistan really deter an Al Qaeda agent that is either a suicide bomber (on a nuclear scale) or one who can escape into caves in Pakistan before a counter attack?

Essentially, the technology disbursements since we developed MAD means MAD does not fit all--or even our most likely--threats in today's world.  MAD relies on rational, big-state actors (the ones who had exclusive control of nuclear stockpiles) acting rationally and with something to lose.  That's not our world.

Yet, we continue to drive policy away from defense, and rely on a ghastly offense.  If we countered with dozens or hundreds of nukes against one missile, have we responded 'proportionately'?  Likely not.  MAD, however, would likely satisfy the 'proportionality' rule for a regular state:  they could destroy us, we could respond.  It is mutual, thus proportional.  But highly unpleasant.  But MAD, especially against Iran, North Korea, or a terrorist cell does not work.  Moreover, with the terrorist cells, we cannot even "assure" the destruction of the group.  So how do we justly wage war against rogue-state attacks?  It seems, back to Mr. Greenfield's point, that the most "moral" solution is not to eliminate the citizens of Iran and North Korea en masse.  Instead, it is better to make it impossible--or highly unlikely--for them to be able to hit us.  Thus, the decision to cut missile defense from the budget, when it has the prospect not only of saving American lives, but also those of the threatening nations, does take on a moral component.

Maybe defense is the best offense.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

How a Rented Bathing Suit Opened Up a Conversation For Eternity

"You can always rent a bathing suit."  The words hung in the air like the smell of rotten fish.  Rent a bathing suit?  I'd sooner die.  And yet, there were my husband and our friends already enjoying the hot springs for which Aguas Calientes was named.  We had just finished hiking the Inca Trail for 4 days and exploring Machu Picchu.  This was our reward.

After a minute or two of watching them in the water, I sheepishly asked the Peruvian Hot Springs Policewoman where the used bathing suits were.  She pointed in the direction of a pile of $1.00 suits I swore I would never touch.  Never swear.  Moments later I was wearing what amounted to a bikini with a strip of material connecting the top and bottom and partially covering my belly. Except I have a long torso, so I had to hunch over to keep the bathing suit covering the right places.  I quickly walked to the hot springs, my friends cheering and stated, "We will never speak of this again."  I plunged into the brown water.  My English friend Sylvia assured me, "Trust me.  If you get any disease, it will be from this water... not from that suit."  That's comforting.

As it turns out, God used the $1.00 rented bathing suit and our time in the brown pool for eternity.  There, in the water, my 25-year-old London friend who was traveling the world for 8 months by herself, opened up.  For some reason, our other friends soaking with us, never came over as Sylvia shared how her Jewish mother recently became a Christian after reading the Bible.  "She seems happier and has more friends since her conversion."  Then she asked, "How about you?  Are you religious?"

"No," I answered.  "We're not religious," knowing the preconceived notions that go along with that term.  "But we do believe the Bible is true.  And my husband and I both decided years ago that Jesus is God, and we have decided to follow Him and to live our whole lives for Him."  I shared about our pastor who is Jewish and came to believe in Jesus from reading the Bible as well.  Sylvia said, "Yeah, I wonder if I should read the Bible too."  "Do you have one?" I asked.  "No, but I figure if I walk into one of these Catholic Churches in South America, maybe they'll give me one."  I told her that our pastor always says, "Follow a dead god, and you'll end up just like him.  Follow the living God, and you'll end up just like Him."  She listened carefully and never looked away.

That evening we took the train and bus back to Cusco where we said goodbye to Sylvia and the other friends from our trek for the last time.  As we hugged goodbye, I handed her a Bible wrapped up in a map of Machu Picchu.  It was our travelers' Bible.  Even before we left for Peru, my husband and I had said that maybe we'd find someone to give this to on our trip.  Did we ever.

Since then, I've heard from Sylvia on Facebook.  She thanked me for the Bible and said she's on the beach now in Lima with plenty of time for reading.  I guess that rented bathing suit was worth every penny!

Lucy

Dare One Read the News?

I once had a friend in England who, in order to justify his habit of reading the admittedly gossip-laden newspapers each day, tried to pray for each catastrophe he read about.  “It got too tiring,” he said, “there were too many sad things: murders, rapes, deaths, lies, and more”.  One can understand the sentiment: sometimes it’s simply easier to keep the hardships of the world at arm’s length.  One’s own personal problems are more than enough to shoulder after a certain age. 

Nor is this pure selfishness.  T.S. Eliot rightly noted that human kind cannot bear too much reality.  To drink in all the world’s woes, to be sensitive to every ounce of suffering even in one’s family and friends, can overwhelm one’s basic psychological equilibrium.  The psychologists themselves find that those most prone to depression are often also those most responsive to sufferings which are not their own; it pays off in happiness, psychologically at least, to restrict one’s own concern about the problem of evil to oneself.  One can hardly bear more than one’s own burdens without real sanctity.  

But people of faith do wonder why a good God would allow suffering – close or distant – and the philosophers and the theologians have much to say to us.  Christians do want to address the intellectual problem of suffering since suffering invades all aspects of life, bodily, spiritual, and intellectual.  Here are some admittedly academic distinctions I have found to be very helpful. 

The problem at hand is the so-called “problem of evil”: the assertion that the type, degree, and extent of evil in this world makes God’s existence improbable.  God may exist – but the extent of suffering in the world makes it less likely that He does.  A “theodicy”, in response, attempt to give positive, factual, reasons to believe in God despite such abundant evils in the world.  One here thinks of the famous “free will” theodicy which attempts to account for our world’s suffering as a result of misused free will – the very free will which a good God gave us and whose abuse neither negates His goodness nor jeopardizes His existence. 

Theologians, unlike many philosophers, often find such terms off-track.  They often deem it impious to try, as Milton famously put it, “to justify the ways of God to men”.  The sheer ambition of a theodicy to show the logical compatibility of a loving God alongside suffering appears too great for finite, fallen, creatures such as we are.  Is it not prideful to attempt to account for God’s ways or to create a calculus which could weigh the values of the goods and evils of the world?  Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man articulates these misgivings as elegantly as any. 

Nevertheless, theologians need not (nor ought to) shrink from the task of addressing the problem of evil.  If full-scale theodicies seek to answer the problem of evil, what scholars call “defenses” are less ambitious.  Defenses do not attempt to know God’s thoughts or know the universal picture from the Divine vantage point.  Rather, defenses simply give models of why it might be that God’s existence is not implausible given human suffering.  Defenses  (unlike theodicies) do not try to give the knock-out blow to the problem of evil, but simply shore up the mind with reasons for the probability of a good God despite contrary data. 

A classic “defense”, from a Christian perspective, is not to run away from suffering in terms of faith but towards it.  In other words, it is through human suffering, though evils themselves, that God meets us in a distinct way.  It is not only the good and beautiful things of the world which potentially mediate God’s goodness, but all things.  Or, to use theological language, all things are ‘sacramental’ – God will use every tool – and the Cross itself witnesses powerfully to how God will take the evils of this world as the very means of communion and connection to Him.  Evil and suffering are real: but God’s ability to take the worst the cosmos can throw at us and transform it is more real still. 

Nevertheless, such theological language can obscure the fact that most of patients in the hospital I meet – and probably most normal Christians – are, understandably, not formulating either “theodicies” or “defenses”. Rather, they often ask why God allows this evil to happen to me.  When it comes to the wider woes of the world, from earthquakes in China to greed on Wall Street, the threat of suffering to our souls is most acute when it is close to home.  So, naturally, the questions are more like, ‘why did my daughter have that car accident, my grandfather that cancer, or my spouse that breakdown?’  People regularly show a desire for meaning in personal, particular suffering. 

And quite rightly do we turn to God for answers.  Surely meaning can be found from the Maker of meaning.  The problem grows worse, however, when He (apparently) offers no answer.  Divine silence in response to our own suffering makes that suffering only worse.  Or does it?  As Metropolitan Anthony Bloom astutely notes, meeting God is no light matter and hearing the Divine voice is a terrifying experience.  Every meeting with God in Scripture, much less an angel, is a crisis.  Remember Job.  Do we really want the Divine answer as to why we or a loved one suffer?  Would it “satisfy” us?  If it does, and this is a perilous question, who is judging Whom?  We risk placing God in the defendant’s position when we ask for answers, as if we were to judge the Judge of all.   

The tempered humility in realizing our limitations to arrive at or assess an answer, and yet the persistent hope that meaning can arise from suffering create a peculiar situation.  It forces us to wait.  As with mothers who miscarry a child or spouses who lose their beloved, so often the process of grieving ends up after considerable time revealing a good which could not have been had in any other way.  But it takes time.  A certain communion with God is possible (if sought) which has a different tenor from communion with Him in sunnier circumstances.  So often those answers take years and come upon us like an unexpected dawn.  And that’s why one has to keep reading the news; the process of redemptive suffering is exactly that – a process.  Even at the end of one’s life, when there are no more earthly chapters to be written, one trusts in Him who has the first and the last Word.

St. Nicodemus

Un-friggin-believable

Support tax increases=doing your 'fair share' to help the country.'

Oppose tax increases = you are a racist.

Never an in between in liberal politics in American I guess.  No place to debate economic policy.  H/T to John Jacobs.

Watch and laugh; and then worry for our country (sorry for the off color remarks):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pathologically right,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Limited Power

 My typical response to e-mails from well intended but bored friends that contain videos, photos, or quotes of the pithy or light hearted nature is to delete them unceremoniously, sometimes viciously with disgust for wasting my precious time.  I know I should let the sender know I’m not interested in receiving this type of e-mail, but some senders are too close to disappoint with my disinterest.

For better or worse, find a list of quotes below I received this week from one such friend. (If you feel your finger instinctively moving to the delete button, I understand.)  The first quote and source caught my eye. I was sucked in to reading the rest of the list.

I have been thinking a great deal lately about liberal democracy, why I believe it is the best way for fallen and broken human beings to govern and be governed.  Among other factors that enable and sustain a government that values liberty and freedom, along with equality (freedom’s necessary companion) are the ideas of limited powers.  It is the quote from Jefferson - the last one in the list – that compelled me to share these quotes from an e-mail that usually gets deleted without ceremony. Jefferson’s quote serves as a simply stated fair warning that applies for our times and all times.

In order for freedom and equality to be sustained, the few that have the responsibility of governing the many must first and foremost be committed to the goal of less power not more.  Since this is a rare commodity, those being governed must understand this idea, teach and proclaim it far and wide, and demand that those deemed worthy of support for the offices of government must be able to articulate this idea as well.  But more importantly (this is the hard part), those governing and those being governed must live the idea of limited power in their families, workplace, and communities.  And in answer to the obvious question, limited power is realized by a commitment to a life of sacrifice and service – letting go, not grabbing hold.  This is real power: putting oneself under another in order to serve and become a means to their good end.

The rest of the quotes helped me see again that our struggles are nothing new – that there really is nothing new under the sun.  This realization always has a calming affect on me; that there is indeed an endemic futility to human life and existence, and that our only hope is in the one who is not under the sun but over it – over all creation, all things visible and invisible, all powers.

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -John Adams
 
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. -Mark Twain
 
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle ... -Winston Churchill 
 
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -George Bernard Shaw
 
6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. -G. Gordon Liddy
 
7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
 
8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people  in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. -Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
 
9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. - P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
 
10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan (1986)
 
12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. -Will Rogers
 
13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -P.J. O'Rourke
 
14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire (1764)
 
15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you! -Pericles (430 B.C.)
 
16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. -Mark Twain (1866)
 
17. Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it. -Anonymous
 
18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -Ronald Reagan
 
19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings... The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -Winston Churchill
 
20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. -Mark Twain
 
21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
 
22. There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save Congress. -Mark Twain
 
23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. -Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
 
24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson

Vincent

Winning the "Unwinnable" War?

  This article paints a fascinating picture about how things are going on the ground in Iraq.  If things pan out the way the trend is now pointing, it will be one of history's cruel jokes that Pres. Bush is blamed for the war, and Pres. Obama gets the credit.  Read the article here.

Two key paragraphs are the following:

A nationwide poll of Iraqis reveals that "60 percent expect things to get better next year - almost three times as many as a year and a half ago," McCarthy continued. "Iraqis are slowly discovering they have a future. We flew south to Basra, where 94 percent say their lives are going well. Oil is plentiful here. So is money." ...

Even now, with a stubbornness born of partisan hostility or political ideology, there are those who cannot bring themselves to utter the words "victory" and "Iraq" in the same sentence. But six years after the war began, it is ending in victory. As in every war, the price of that victory was higher than we would have wished. The price of defeat would have been far higher.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

The Inspirational Winston Churchill

  As you wage whatever battle life's thrown your way this day, week, month, or year, here's a clip of Churchill.  This out to encourage and inspire you.

 

Never give in,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Facebook Face Off

I admit I've recently started using Facebook.  I'm not pleased about it, but I have had some good fun catching up with old friends, etc.  I can definitely see how it could be addictive.  For a long while I was one of the naysayers, and still have a glimmer of 'nay' in my mind.  The best I've read on that is from this article.  One of my favorite bits:

For the five or six Amish shut-ins who may not yet have heard of this scourge (your tenacious ignorance is to be admired, and I'd immediately friend you if I was into Facebook and you had electricity), Facebook is an on-line community where colleagues, friends, long-lost acquaintances, friends of friends or long-lost acquaintances, and perfect strangers find and "friend" each other based on their real or perceived affinity. They then have access to each other's web pages, and consequently to each other's lives, quirks, photos, jottings, oversharings, and mental disorders, as well as to those of the ever-expanding universe of their friends' circles, thus increasing the likelihood that you will either embarrass yourself or be embarrassed by someone whose life would never otherwise intersect with yours. (Right about now, a Facetard is ginning up an angry letter to the editor saying this would not be the case if you know how to control your privacy settings. Save the geek speech for your Facebook friends, Facetard, I already got my eight hours sleep.)

Another classic bit, is about how the author's wife is a Facebook addict, and what she's becoming is troubling her mightily:

But slowly, I noticed things taking a turn. The cosmetic stuff, like her immaculate appearance and hygiene, stayed the same. Nor did I see her do anything too creepy or severe, such as sending pictures of her feet at the request of a new Facebook friend or running out to some hot-sheets motel to get worked like a farm implement by an old high-school flame who'd renewed contact (which happens with some frequency on Facebook). But I did notice a general distractedness, a vacantness, a thousand-yard-stare. She seemed to notice it too. In the old days, she'd check her email maybe once or twice a day. Now, she was hitting her laptop like a rat hits a lever for pellets in a Skinner box.

"I hate myself," she'd say.

"Why?" I'd ask.

"Because I'm becoming you," she said.

If Facebook turns attentive wives into their husbands, then it can't be all good.

Next I bumped into a YouTube video that walks you through a Facebook experience, if it happened in real life.  Must watch YT, click here.

Poke,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

 

Changing Impression of Change?

I was surprised last week when I started seeing a few MSM articles finding fault with President Obama.  I assumed it would be months, if not years, into the future before any move he made would be critically assessed.  Given the anti-Bush rhetoric of the past few years, I thought Pres. Obama had a ready made excuse for any economic policy that failed as "it would've been worse--because of Bush's mess--if we hadn't done anything."  Thus, he had a win-win:  if his policy worked:  "look how smart I was."  And if it didn't:  "it would've been even worse if we'd done nothing."

But then some folks started printing the Dow's performance since inauguration.  They noted that Wall Street was not being stimulated by the stimulus plan.  Now, Howard Fineman, of Newsweek, is saying that the nation's elites (DC insiders, the media, and corporate leaders) are starting to question if 'the chosen one' is really up for the task (a Star Wars scene just came to mind:  Obi Wan believed Anakin was the chosen one, before he became Darth Vader.)

This is an interesting article about Obama's missteps, mistakes, and possible managerial inabilities that people have begun to notice.  But not 'the people', who, according to polling, still give the President high marks.  But people polling can change if the media lines up with the stock market, in a downward direction.

Here's a bit of Fineman's analysis:

They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president's character: he's not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He'd have made a fine judge. But we don't need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.

Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can't wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.

I thought that Obama's performance--not to mention his economic policies--had been underwhelming since he started.  Yes, he always gives a good speech, but what we need is a combination of good speaking, good policy, and execution of that policy.  But I discounted my own view as too partisan.  Maybe others are starting to agree.

Doubting Thomas,

More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Temporal Optimist

This article might be a bit over-the-top prediction-wise, but it does make some important observations about Evangelicalism in America.  The author is on the doom-and-gloom side, to be sure.  Nevertheless, I think his concernsabout the faith/theological/philosophical/educational underpinnings of the current evangelical movement are valid.

In predicting a coming collapse of the movement, he lists several reasons why this will happen.  I'm not sure if his predictions are going to be right, but I do think his diagnosis of problems is solid.  One that really caught my eye is the following:

We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

Billions are spent in the Christian-media realm.  It has virtually no relevance on society at large.  We are, literally, preaching to the choir in this regard.  At the same time, developing people who know little about their faith, other than how they feel about it, buys into society's 'self esteem' movement.  I might be OK with the billions spent if young Christians, (even while "feeling better" about themselves) benefited from these dollars by understanding and spreading their faith to the nations.  I'm afraid, however, that it is primarily allowing Christians to stay at home, listening to happy-clappy music, and feel good about their family heritage ("I come from a Christian family, so I listen to...")  We need to invest our talents wisely.   You can read the entire article here.

On the verge,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Welcome

I have to give children with Down Syndrome a plug here. Our daughter, B., has Down Syndrome and is 6.5 years old. Today we attended a mother-daughter tea at the alzheimer ward of a retirement home where a friend works. Some of the residents can speak: some cannot. Who was the only child to talk to the residents? B! She does not see a difference between these men and women, though our other children hold back, are shy and visibly uncomfortable at times. She jokes, waves, talks about how the dog which has been barking downstairs the last two times (2 and 4 months ago respectively) is not there this time.

A few weeks ago in church, B. realized a woman was new; there are 100 people in church every week. Because of this connection, we were able to meet; the guest was new to the neighborhood. Bridget consistently notices a new person and greets him or her. In the middle of church, she looked behind her and shouted out and waved ecstatically at a family who hadn't been there for a few months.

This all thrills me and reminds me what is truly important.

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

Unintended Consequences: Vollies Over the Wall of Church and State

This is an interesting article about how the President's push for massive amounts of new social welfare spending may have a negative impact on the church in America.

Here are a couple of key paragraphs:

I do not doubt the sincerity of Obama’s religious intentions. But while many social conservatives have pointed a spotlight on Obama’s socially liberal policies ( repealing the Mexico City Policy, for example) few have paid attention to the likely impact his stimulus, bailout, and economic welfare programs will have. One unremarked and unintended consequence of Barack Obama’s audacious plans for the expansion of government—especially in health care, education, and the environment—is that the nanny state he is seeking to build will likely crowd out religious institutions in America. In other words, if he succeeds in passing his ambitious agenda, the Obama revolution is likely to lead the United States down the secular path already trod by Europe.

To fund his bold efforts to revive the American economy and expand the welfare state, Obama is proposing to spend a staggering $3.6 trillion in the 2010 fiscal year. Obama’s revolutionary agenda would push federal, state, and local spending to approximately 40 percent of Gross Domestic Product, up from about 33 percent in 2000. It would also put the size of government in the United States within reach of Europe, where government spending currently makes up 46 percent of GDP.

Why is this significant for the vitality of religion in America? A
recent study of 33 countries around the world by Anthony Gill and Erik Lundsgaarde, political scientists at the University of Washington, indicates that there is an inverse relationship between state welfare spending and religiosity. Specifically, they found that countries with larger welfare states had markedly lower levels of religious attendance, had higher rates of citizens indicating no religious affiliation whatsoever, and their people took less comfort in religion in general. In their words, “Countries with higher levels of per capita welfare have a proclivity for less religious participation and tend to have higher percentages of non-religious individuals.”

You can read the entire article here.

Spend less, pray more,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

This article seems to state the impossible:  global warming might be 'on hold'--for decades nonetheless  (read: "we might be wrong about the media-scientific-indused hysteria, but we'll never type that".)  Hopefully Congress can get a nice, big 'carbon tax' passed and signed into law (to further devastate the economy by increasing energy costs)--before all this junk science gets thoroughly disproved.  I'm already looking foreward to the next Hollywood-based "scientific" fad.

Burr (Aaron), Burr,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Pop Quiz Time!

Take the quiz on American civics here, and then post your score!  I got a 94%--missed two.  One was a 'trick' question, one was 'my bad'.

Sharpending my pencil,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

The Joy of...Food

Sorry about the low posting, I was on vacation and busy with work/politics of late.

This is an interesting article, wherein George Will explains how food has taken the moral position of sex in modern society.  In the 1950's people had rules about sex and ate what they wanted.  Now, we have rules about our food, but on sex, not so much.

Here's the opening salvo:

Put down that cheeseburger and listen up: If food has become what sex was a generation ago -- the intimidatingly intelligent Mary Eberstadt says it has -- then a cheeseburger is akin to adultery, or worse. As eating has become highly charged with moral judgments, sex has become notably less so, and Eberstadt, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, thinks these trends involving two primal appetites are related.  In a Policy Review essay "Is Food the New Sex?" -- it has a section titled "Broccoli, pornography, and Kant" -- she notes that for the first time ever, most people in advanced nations "are more or less free to have all the sex and food they want." One might think, she says, either that food and sex would both be pursued with an ardor heedless of consequences, or that both would be subjected to analogous codes constraining consumption. The opposite has happened -- mindful eating and mindless sex.

The other thing to remember, especially as we've recently entered Lent--a period of fasting--is that the Church has spoken up the virtues and vices of both food and sex.  As Will concludes, so do I: 

Bon appetit,

Thomas More 

Waiting for Excellence

My daughter and I joined her Brownie troop for a visit to the Lincoln Center to see Delibes' ballet Coppelia. This Advent we saw the Nutcracker at a more local venue. Although we had third row center tickets for the latter, our nosebleed Coppelia tickets were worth far more. The Lincoln Center is home to the New York City Ballet Company (according to itself, one of the top two companies in the US). I kept thinking it would be over - the lead could not possibly have another solo. It struck me that waiting for excellence is really worth it. I would rather go to the Lincoln Center once every five years than to the local ballet every year. In our case, group tickets in the 'gods,' as the British put it, cost less and gave infinite more satisfaction. Sometimes I fear I am not exposing our daughters to enough cultural events; yesterday reminded me to wait and save for the best.

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

A Conservative View of President Obama

We have a new President.  It is a strange concept after 8 years, isn't it?  This time, it was not the President I voted for, but he's got my support and encouragement.  Last night, during pre-bed prayer time, the Morettes, More, Jr. and I prayed for the President and his family--as well as President Bush and his family.

I just got done listening to the inauguration speech--couldn't see it on T.V. for work reasons--and I thought it was quite good.  There were a couple of points that I think merit a future post, but generally I think it'll be well received.  And, as always, the President's oratorical skills were quite impressive.

As I began looking at news coverage of the day, I saw this article by Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times.  In it, he examines what President Obama means not just to America, but to Conservatives.  One of his primary points, which I am quite excited about, is that it marks a new day--hopefully an end--in racial politics.  From today on, it will be much harder for people to truly believe America is not the greatest land of opportunity.  As Goldberg notes, though European elites may love to scold America about its backward ways (racially speaking), none of them will have a head of state of African descent any time soon.

Domestically, it should give hope to a generation (and more) of black--or any color, really--children.  They now know that they can reach the highest levels of anything in this country.  That is a remarkable feat.  Before, it was theoretically possible.  Slavery and Jim Crow were gone.  But practically it seemed to many just a distant dream.  No more.  Now, all fair-minded people will see that anything is possible.  Yes, some will argue that it still more difficult for the black child to be President than the white child--it is pretty tough for any child, considering there's only been 44 in history.  But that argument is on its way out, I believe, just as the discrimination that created that view, and the reverse discrimination that still fans the flames.

In the Invocation for today's ceremony, pastor Rick Warren noted that America is not a nation of the same race or ancestry.  What makes Americans American, is a common view point.  That view point is summed up in the Declaration of Independence:  "All men are created equal."

May God bless America, and our new President,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Benedict Arnold

The American Spectator has a good article reviewing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's remarkable, and unfortunate, turn since he came to office.  Tellingly it's titled "Benedict Arnold".  In short, he entered as a reformer, who would take on the over-spending, over-taxing, labor-union interests (while, mind you, staying liberal on social issues, so it was not by any stretch a 'Conservative' take over of California.)  When his attempt to reform met resistance, he settled for being popular.  Now, he's neither a reformer nor popular.

Here's how the author, Chris Reed, sums it all up:

It's hard to believe this is happening. Arnold Schwarzenegger was supposed to defend taxpayers. Instead, he's ended up being the tax collector for the public employee union state. Betrayals don't get much more extreme than this.

Ouch, pretty tough stuff.  But Arnold's flip has cost Californians--on their way to becoming the highest taxed state citizens in the U.S.--and the CA GOP an enormous chance to truly change and improve the state.  Now we'll just wonder "what if"?

Taxing times,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

It takes a village.....

….to raise a child. Yep, we all know that one, but did you also know it takes a village to chose a boyfriend? This is what I learned last night, as I threw Mr Second Date into a party full of old and new friends.

Just to set the scene, I embarked on the first date with low expectations of a long-lasting relationship but high expectations of a fun evening. (And I never turn down a first date, based purely on their rarity. That would be ungrateful). I was pleasantly surprised to find we had more in common than I realised and the evening was a lot of fun. And, in reference to my previous post, I was thrilled that it was unmistakably a date, not a super-casual, hangout, slap-on-the-back, split-all-the checks, who-the-heck-knows-what-this-means kind of evening, which is much more common and endlessly irritating. This was a DATE. He got his hair cut. He was wearing his nice jacket. He had the evening planned out, with drinks and walks and then food. Wow! I feel the need to report this rare occasion to some tracking organisation so they know that real dates are not extinct.

Giddy from this extravagant display of romance, I invited the man in question to a party a couple of days later. He wouldn’t know anyone there, but he was brave and accepted the invitation. Not knowing him very well at this point, I thought it might be interesting to see him in this kind of environment. But I had grossly underestimated the prophetic nature of the evening. In fact, I am now prescribing a party for all second dates, as a sure fire way to find out if your fledgling relationship has legs. It’s quick and (relatively) painless and it gets the job done.

But first, this only works if you have really great friends, with copious amounts of hospitality and ideally, impeccable judgement. (Yeah, I know it’s a high bar, but do the best you can). Then just observe, as your potential sweetie-to-be works the room. I can’t tell you exactly what to expect, because as we know (ladies) there are some really weird personality traits that no-one warned us about in Dating School. These traits are invariably latent until the subject is thrown into a crowd of strangers, then POOF!, as if by magic they appear……..all at once, and in far too many possible combinations to describe here. 

So all I can say is, you’ll know by the end of the evening if you have winner or not. (And if you don’t know, your good friends will tell you the next day). As I listened to Mr Second Date screeching into the Karaoke microphone at 12.30am, I knew. A winner he was not. I’m sure some lovely lady out there will appreciate his, er, uniquely quirky and relentless sense of humor. Good luck to her. 

So, onward and upward into 2009!! And if you invite me to a party and I show up with a strange man in tow, you’ll know what you have to do.

Don’t let me down.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Colson on Blogojevich (and Finding Christ)

CNN, somewhat surprisingly to me, ran this interesting piece from Chuck Colson.  Colson recounts--in light of the Gov. Blogojevich situation--his own experience facing prosecution and prison.  The crash from the heights of power to the depths of confinement helped crush his pride, and introduce him to Christ. 

Here's a preview:

If Blagojevich is guilty, the best thing that could happen to him is to be tried and convicted.  He's going to have to reach rock bottom -- just as I did -- before he will be able to escape his own prison of pride, self-delusion and self-righteousness. But that's a transformation we can never accomplish on our own. I can vouch for the fact that human pride is simply too strong.

Colson also describes the problem our society, and how it pushes materialism and worship of self.  He also details his own conversion, and finding a common view with Solzhenitsyn on the value of prison.

Interesting stuff,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com 

I’m with Stupid ↔

I have come across very few articles in scientific journals that have made me laugh out loud, and even fewer I’ve felt inclined to share outside of work, but this one was an exception. The piece carries the attention-grabbing title “The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research”. In it, the author (a scientist himself) audaciously calls highly-trained individuals on the cutting edge of medical research “stupid”. What’s more, he says their stupidity is inherent (gasp!) but also entirely appropriate (fall on the floor in shock…..). These delicate geniuses don’t take kindly to such bold insults.

Download Science

The beauty of this pithy opinion piece is that the author is exactly right. Scientists engaged in original research are pursuing the unknown, tiptoeing gingerly down every avenue until they find solid ground: support for a hypothesis pulled from thin air, conceived over morning coffee. How might these cells work? What does this protein do? Hmmm…….we have NO IDEA. Let’s imagine some possibilities and put them to the test!! If you think it sounds like shooting in the dark, you would be right, but that’s the nature of original research. It’s also the foundation of some of the biggest discoveries in medical research. The easier option would be to play-it-safe and try to duplicate research that someone else has done or tweak a system that someone else has already established. There’s less risk of failure (feeling stupid) but also less risk of making any significant impact. 

So what was the author’s purpose in pointing out this elephant in the room, (or maybe the lab)? I don’t think it was to embarrass all of his colleagues and produce a deep depression across the scientific community. Instead he says it’s the scientist’s level of comfort with his “stupidity” or ignorance that is the key to his success. If he can accept this necessary fact of research life it will continue to drive him to test more of his theories, take more risks and keep going when the failure rate is high and the temptation is to give up is strong.

I think this philosophy can be applied to many areas of life, especially for those who live their lives with faith in an all-knowing Creator. See if these statements from the article ring true with you:

“The crucial lesson was that the scope of things I didn’t know wasn’t merely vast;
it was, for all practical purposes, infinite. That realization, instead of being discouraging, was liberating.”

“The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade
into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.”

Compared to a sovereign God, we are all ignorant and stupid. (If we think anything other than this then we have made ourselves god). But, I don’t think God intends for his realisation to be discouraging or paralysing. I think, as the author states, it’s intended to be “liberating”. We do not need to strive to prove or maintain an appearance of superiority to sustain our egos. Instead, we are free to explore, to pose questions, to devise tests and discover the truth about our world and it’s creator. So, I might expand the authors conclusion and say that feeling stupid is important, not just for science but for a full life of any kind.

So go ahead, embrace your ignorance! Make friends with it and let it motivate you to explore all the avenues there are to explore.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

If the BCS Decided History...

BCS DECLARES GERMANY WINNER OF WORLD WARII, US Ranked 4th

After determining the Big-12 championship game participants the BCS computers were put to work on other major contests and today the BCS declared Germany to be the winner of World War II.

"Germany put together an incredible number of victories beginning with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and continuing on into conference play with defeats of Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Their only losses came against the US and Russia; however considering their entire body of work--including an incredibly tough Strength of Schedule--our computers deemed them worthy of the #1 ranking."

Questioned about the #4 ranking of the United States the BCS commissioner stated "The US only had two major victories--Japan and Germany. The computer models, unlike humans, aren't influenced by head-to-head contests--they consider each contest to be only a single, equally-weighted event."

German Chancellor Adolph Hiter said "Yes, we lost to the US; but we defeated #2 ranked France in only 6 weeks." Herr Hitler has been criticized for seeking dramatic victories to earn 'style points' to enhance Germany's rankings. Hitler protested "Our contest with Poland was in doubt until the final day and the conditions in Norway were incredibly challenging and demanded the application of additional forces."

The French ranking has also come under scrutiny. The BCS commented "France had a single loss against Germany and following a preseason #1 ranking they only fell to #2."

Japan was ranked #3 with victories including Manchuria, Borneo and the Philippines.

A little humor for your Friday, H/T to MBMc.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

When I was hungry, you fed me.

Last night I was manning the dessert and coffee table at a fundraiser. As people arrived they helped themselves to the treats, chatted and then slowly made their way into the church sanctuary for the concert. The music began, but I stayed at the dessert table out in the courtyard, greeting the late-comers. I didn’t mind at all. The doors to the sanctuary were wide open and I could hear almost everything .

I’d been standing there about 20 minutes when a homeless guy wandered into the courtyard and sat down about 10 feet away from me. He was bundled up against the sea breeze in a hooded sweatshirt and pushing what I think was a stroller with his few belongings in them.

It was pretty obvious that he could use a cup of hot coffee and some dessert so a few of us made him up a plate of goodies. He was very grateful.

“Is this a church?” he asked
“Yes”
“A Christian church?”
“Yeah”.

He nodded his approval, maybe more for the coffee and brownie than for the surroundings. But as he sat and ate he kept peering towards the sanctuary door, towards the singing and scriptures projected onto the back of the stage wall.

5 minutes later the brownie was pronounced “very good” and the coffee was ready for the road. He stood up, gathered his belongings and took one more long look into the sanctuary. One of the scriptures caught his eye.

“That’s what Jesus said!!” he exclaimed.
“What’s that?”
“When I was hungry, you fed me”.

He took a long look at me. I raised my coffee cup to him. He waved and headed off into the night.

How often does someone approach us with a need and we can satisfy it that easily? He was hungry, and there I was, standing behind a table laden with free homemade desserts and hot coffee! I didn't even make any of the desserts! It doesn’t get much easier than that.

 God lays out a feast for us too, and invites us to the table to have our needs met. He’s done all the work and all we have to do is approach. Then he gives us the opportunity to invite others to share in the feast. What a privilege!

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Happy Obama Day!

This time of year tends to prompt the debate about everyone's favorite holiday.  Christmas and Thanksgiving always have a battle for the lead.  Some occassionally remember to throw Easter a nod, and some revert to childhood form and name Halloween.

It looks like there'll be a 'change' (that we can believe in) in all that.  The sagacious county commissioners of Perry County, Alabama have created a new, paid, county holiday:  Barack Obama Day!

The vote was 4-1 for the holiday (which, I assume, will be celebrated as close to Christmas as possible, given the similarities between the two honorees.)  The lone hold out, a Democrat, was worried about the fiscal impact on the impoverished county.  Good to see there are some fiscally conservative Dems in Dixie.

I have tried to think of something witty to write about a holiday for a part-term U.S. Senator, who has not been President for a minute, but I think this story covers it.

Amazing,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com 

Done!

In the beginning, there was work. Then more work. Then even more work. Then exhaustion, leading to sleep, leading to……….more work. Does this sound familiar? Well, I hope you have all climbed off the hamster wheel for a few days to enjoy some rest with your friends and family. Tomorrow is the Sabbath, so it’s not over yet! But I suspect thoughts of Monday morning are already creeping in.

Rest isn’t as easy as I first thought it should be. “I’ll rest when the work is all done”, is what I used to think. “Then I’ll be ABLE to rest because I’ll be satisfied. I’ve earned the rest”. But, when is all my work done? When is all your work done? When are you satisfied that everything’s been completed?

In our small group study of the Sabbath, we were invited to read the account of the creation of the world. It ends,

“ By the seventh day, God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.”

Well, no wonder God was able to rest! He finished his work and even called it
“very good”. He was completely satisfied. How am I supposed to get to that point? I can’t imagine it happening anytime soon.

But God doesn’t call me to rest because of my own work, as if that was comparable to His. He calls me to share in His rest, because of His work, which is DONE! I don’t have to add to it with my own work.

Resting can still be hard, but it helps to keep my eye on the goal, which is to put my own work aside and recognise that it is irrelevant how much I still have left to do. It’s His work I can rest in, and rest right now.

Enjoy your Sabbath!

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Happy Thoughts

The President of the Claremont Institute, Brian Kennedy, had an article published today in the Wall Street Journal.  In it, he makes an important case for American missile defense.  While we continue to dwell on the economic 'crisis' and its effects on American life, we need to think about a more serious, and looming, threat.

Think about these couple of points:

For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.

and

Let us say [an Iranian] freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess.  [Read on here.]

We are currently hoping the Iranians, et al, stay 'sane' and do not do this to us.  On 9/11 we learned--what we should've known from history already--that there are bad people in the world intent on harming us.  Hoping good things from bad people does not equate to a defense policy, it is naive, and will, someday, costs innocent people their lives. 

Mr. Kennedy explains that America has the technology to prevent such attacks, but lacks the political will.  Let us 'hope' that the new President will 'change' this. 

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Salvation

A close relative compares Obama to JFK and there is the sense of the former being the long awaited savior.  Savior from what, for what?

I am voted, but did not listen to the news at all.  Sorry - I have been involved in politics on the local level and have seen the shenanigans.  That experience is coupled with the fact that human beings have some pretty similar characteristics summed up in Faustus and other places as the seven deadly sins:  PEWGLAS (pride, envy, wrath, gluttony, lechery, avarice, sloth).

But it struck me that if one does not have an eternal savior and the joy and hope of the 'resurrection from the dead and life everlasting' then this earth and this time is all one has.  One needs salvation here and now - security and the good life now.

It really really matters who our leaders are. I voted. And then I continued to tend my garden - of family and community - a certain type of paradise.

Beth

Gunpowder, Treason and Plot

It’s hard to believe that today is anything other than the day after the US presidential election. But, my friends across the pond are celebrating Guy Fawkes night. As my colleague just asked, “who is Guy Fawkes?” followed by “and what is his name doing in my day planner?”. I can’t answer the second question unless she bought her day planner in the UK, but I can have a good crack at the first.

Guy Fawkes was a Roman Catholic and the lead conspirator in a plot to kill Protestant King James I by blowing up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. In the days leading up to the State Opening of Parliament on November 5th, he accumulated a large amount of gunpowder in the cellars beneath the House of Lords and was just about to light the fuse when he was found and captured. He was tortured until he confessed and gave up the names of his co-conspirators who were subsequently arrested, tried and found guilty of high treason. The punishment for this capital crime was gruesome: they were hung, drawn and quartered.

Although the importance of the monarchy in British life is becoming more and more controversial, King James’ narrow escape from death is still marked, 400 years later. On December 3rd, at the State Opening of Parliament, before the arrival of Queen Elizabeth, a Yeoman of the Guard will make a symbolic search of the cellars beneath the Houses of Parliament. Everywhere else across the country, November 5th is officially “Bonfire Night”. Until recently, children would make an effigy of Guy Fawkes (old clothes stuffed with straw like a scarecrow) and push it around the streets in a wheelbarrow, shouting “penny for the guy”. Unfortunately, in recent years the guy became less important than the penny and buying fireworks was forgotten (and forbidden) in favor of cigarettes. In 2008, children rarely go to the effort of making a guy and even more rarely try their hand at garnering donations to their allowance, but on this day every year, huge bonfires and the (official) fireworks still light up the usually cold, damp November skies.

Like Christmas, the real meaning of Bonfire Night and all it’s symbolism is gradually disappearing among the lights and sounds and food that children look forward to on November 5th. Although I can’t remember where, I was once taught the Guy Fawkes rhyme and I sincerely hope the children celebrating tonight can recite it too.

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
 I know of no reason
 Why the gunpowder treason
 Should ever be forgot

Philomena

For Today, and Tomorrow

Visiting my office you’ll see that there are only two pieces of art hanging.  The first reminds me of my freedom, the second of the hardship of protecting it and the reliance upon God needed to do so.

The first picture is the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia in 1776.  It prominently holds out a truth, as self evident, that “All men are created equal.”  Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg would call this our nation’s central proposition—making this country unlike anything the world had seen before.

It is a point that had to be made in 1776, because the tyrannical government that had created separate, unnatural, castes of rulers and the ruled.  This point launched a revolution, in which men fought, suffered, and died.

The second piece I have is The Prayer at Valley Forge, which depicts General George Washington on bended knee in the snow in the winter of 1777.  It is so cold in the scene that you can see the horse’s breath in the air.  Washington stops, as was his daily habit, on his morning ride of the camp to pray, alone, in the forest, for God to deliver them.  The military commander of our nation, is alone, on his knee in the snow, seeking divine direction.

Have you been to Valley Forge?

My wife and I visited a few years ago on a warm, beautiful fall afternoon.  The grass was green, the air was still relatively warm, with a nice breeze, the clouds and sky looked like fall—with winter coming—but it was still comfortable.

Throughout the valley are rolling hills of grass, trees, and the old fortifications of Washington’s army.  There are a few log houses the soldiers built as barracks.  Through the trees you can see Washington’s house.

We got out of the car and walked on the grass and through the trees and enjoyed the whole scene.

But the scene was not the harsh winter of 1777.  We had all the food and clothing we could need.  If the valley got the least bit uncomfortable we could simply hop in the car and leave.

But that’s not what Washington saw.  He saw his army camping throughout a winter in a valley of death.  Into the valley he had marched in December with 12,000 soldiers.  He would leave months later with 10,000.

2,000 men died in Valley Forge, and they weren’t even fighting.  They were without enough food, shelter, clothes, or even shoes.  The survivors documented the rampant frost bite and remembered seeing bloody footprints through the camp, as soldiers’ shoes had worn completely away, and men had to walk barefoot through the mud, ice, and snow.

One witness said “they had neither coats nor hats, nor shirts, nor shoes.  Their feet and legs froze until they were black, and it was necessary to amputate them.”

Others died of starvation or simply froze to death while on watch in the winter nights.

It had gotten so bad that when they received word that the French military was coming to their side they actually rejoiced.  Can you imagine had terribly bad your situation must be to be excited about French military aid?

In my visit, I got to enjoy the history and soak in the natural beauty of a warm fall day and I could leave when I wanted.

Their visit was pure deprivation with no sense of enjoyment even crossing their minds.

And what was all this suffering and misery for?  It was for was the central idea expressed on that paper, on that earth-changing declaration, signed only 20 miles away.

“All men are created equal.”

They knew that the truth of equality and the burden of freedom required great sacrifice.  They knew that they had to sacrifice for freedom.

It is that same idea that lead soldiers four score and six years later to fight on another Pennsylvania field called Gettysburg. 

As before, there were many who were willing to fight to oppose equality and to force bondage on man.  Mercifully, at Valley Forge and at Gettysburg, there were plenty of people that were willing to sacrifice much, if not all, for the idea of human equality and freedom.

I get asked a lot about today's election and where we now are as a nation.  I don’t think one election will change everything, but it does tell us what we now think about our core ideas.

I think there are still many people that will sacrifice, but we need to call them to action and arm them with the reasons for the fight:  that there is not in nature, as Thomas Jefferson said, one man born with a saddle on his back and another with spurs on his heels to ride him.  There is not a man born to rule and another born to be ruled.  Or as another famous author put it:  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for we are all one.

But are we willing to fight and sacrifice, and maybe even die, for that oneness today?  As for our nation, I don’t know.  I’m not one to say any election brings doom or gloom, or absolute hope and redemption.  It is all part of an ever-waging battle.  Ground is gained, and ground is lost.  The politics of it all are merely an extension over the bigger battle about the fundamental ideas:  freedom or bondage, equality or superiority.

As for where we are as a country—I think we’re too comfortable, resting on others’ sacrifices for freedom.  It’s fall in Valley Forge, not winter.  (But yet certainly don’t yet need the French military to bail us out.)  But winter will come if we remain content to stay on the sidelines, safe from the deprivations of the war.

You might think this is only focused on the City of Man, the battles of this world.  But, hopefully, the Christians reading this will see there is applicability to the City of God as well.   

The good news there is, City of God citizens ought to be more prone to willingly suffer loss of comfort now in this life, for truth and grace to come.

The concept of fighting for freedom is not just of this world or the American Revolution.  It is Christ’s very own purpose, and therefore every one of our calling and duty is to fight.  Gal 5:1 says:  “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.”

Christ went to His own Valley Forge and set us free.  We now have to fight to keep our freedom He bought.  We cannot do this by ignoring our duties on this earth as patriots of our country and its “proposition” of human equality; nor by ignoring our duties as citizens of the City of God.

The reality is, we must sacrifice for our freedom in this world and the next.  Yet, as it says in Hebrews, we “have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood” against that which puts us in bondage.

As the battle is on in your soul, so it is in our nation.

Thomas Paine summarized our nation’s position in 1777, so we can ours in 2008:

“these are the times that try men’s souls:  The summer soldiers and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country…Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.”

Sacrifice for your freedom,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Golden Boy

If you watched last night’s presidential debate, you may have focused your attention on the candidates’ plans for the economy, health care and education. I, on the other hand, was wondering how a plumber can make 200K+ per year. Did I hear that right? Joe makes over 200 grand?

You may think I’m jealous. Well, maybe a little, but my thoughts this morning turned in another direction. This guy’s quite a catch! He’s single, he has a good job, he works hard for his money and he’s not that bad looking either. And, as if that weren’t enough, HE CAN FIX STUFF!! This guy is golden.

So I’ll be catching the next plane out to Ohio to find Joe and pledge my undying love. I just have to ask him one quick question before “I do”:

“Who are you voting for?”

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Be Afraid

With the political momentum moving in the Democrats' direction, Democratic leaders are envisioning life in Congress with huge, liberal majorities, and a liberal President.  The result:  dusting off FDR's play book.  This is compounded by the financial mess, and Washington's response to it:  more agencies, more federal control, more tax payer money.

There seems to always be a big-government 'solution' when the country hits a tough stretch.  But, the net effect is for historians to declare an end to the age of Reagan, and for Democrats to no longer mention Clinton and avoid FDR, but the other way around.  What a change a couple years can make.

This reversion to FDR's massive, government-regulate-everything approach is well chronicled in the following article.  You should read the entire thing, it's pretty scary.  And these comments are not coming from a bunch of left-wing wackos with MoveOn.org.  These are coming from prominent, well-known, elected Democrats, who are looking for a "New Deal 2.0"!

I often wondered what it was like to be a conservative in the 1930's, with the whole country socializing and nationalizing.  It must have felt as if Constitutional democracy was ending.  Most of my political life has been spent in, or after, the Reagan restoration--where at least people understood the merits of limited government.  Well, it looks like I might get to find out what it was like in the 1930's after all.

Here's how it starts:

With visions of a massive liberal majority in the next Congress and the power to remake economic policy for the next generation, Democrats are dusting off their New Deal history books and openly discussing the idea of re-engineering Depression-era agencies for the 21st century.

Several lawmakers want to bring back the Home Ownership Loan Corp., and others have discussed resurrecting the defunct Reconstruction Finance Corp., a federal program that made direct loans to businesses. Others see a lame-duck stimulus bill less as a short-term cash infusion for the economy and more as a long-term, government-driven jobs creator — a kind of modern Works Progress Administration that invests in infrastructure, bridges and roads.

Come next year, the new administration and the new Congress may be able to build an entire new bureaucracy to govern the economy for decades. Essentially, Democrats want to put some institutional permanence behind the sweeping executive actions taking place as the Bush administration moves to shore up banks and other financial institutions with Treasury’s new powers.

Read on here...

With visions of a massive liberal majority, dancing in my head,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Time out

The financial markets are in meltdown, and what am I doing? I’m sitting on my couch, drinking my coffee and watching the morning news, just like any other day. What am I thinking? I should be running around and screaming with my head in my hands! Hmm…..maybe just one more sip of java……

I am pretty financially conservative, which helps to keep me calm. My job is safe, my car is paid for and I’ve got a fixed rate mortgage with one of the few banks still standing. But I still feel a little guilty, walking around as if nothing is happening, when everyone else is running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

I found some reassurance on the news this morning. One of the financial experts described the cause of the plunging stock market like this: we have been used to buying things we can’t afford, using credit cards and bank loans etc. Now these things are less available, we are forced to live within our means. We don’t like it, and, like a 4 year old with his popsicle taken away, we are having a tantrum. The tantrum is manifesting itself in us taking all of our money out of the stock market and stuffing it under the mattress. (So there!!). His advice was, as every good parent knows, just to ride out the tantrum until it subsides. I like to translate this as “sit on the couch and enjoy your breakfast”.

So I guess it’s OK to be calm in the middle of the storm. I do feel terrible for the people who were planning to retire soon. For them, "riding it out" wasn’t in the plan and may not even be an option. But for the rest of us, we are being asked to do one of the hardest things imaginable: keep our eyes fixed on the long term and wait patiently.

Does that sound familiar?!

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Debating the Debate: Statistics and Slogans

Here's my initial take on last night's VP debate:  ugh.  I thought Sen. Biden was rather boring and simply had memorized countless Senate votes and procedural moves.  If I wanted to know historical votes, I'd fire up the old Tivo recordings of C-SPAN.  But, alas, I'm not having trouble sleeping at night, so I don't need to do that.  Simply put:  boring.  I didn't get a clear picture of THE IDEA(s) that he and his team were pushing for America.  As a long-time observer of politics, I know what his ideas are--and Obama's--but the case for them wasn't made to America.  "A 12% reduction for those making $42,000 would yield a budgetary impact of $4,356,789,908, thus increasing GDP by 0.4%, blah, blah, blah..." does not present an argument for increasing the size or scope of the federal government.

Similarly, I thought Gov. Palin tended to retreat to safe sayings--"we need more oil."  While I agree with the safe sayings, poll tested I'm sure, I don't think that it presents a clear case for why her ideas are right and Sen. Biden's are wrong.  I assumed the MSM would tee off on that and declare how knowledgeable Sen. Biden was, and how unprepared Gov. Palin was.  But as I review the papers today, I'm quite surprised by the MSM and independent voters' reactions.  It seems, to summarize all the headlines, that Gov. Palin probably won on points, though not by knock out.  It also seems that the race was handicapped by expectations.  If it was an even match up--meaning, no preconceptions and expectations--then Sen. Biden won.  But, given that MSM set Gov. Palin up as out of her league, her holding her own translated to most views as a win!  Ahh, thank goodness for MSM bias!

In any event, I based my initial response on a big hope that the candidates always push the big IDEAS--not statistics or slogans.  We have a fundamental disagreement in this country and it is not GOP v. Democrats.  It has to do with individual equality and freedom.  Here's the question for our time:  Are all men created equal?  If so, ought they to be free to choose their own way in this life, or should we appoint an enlightened class to guide them--and if we're equal, who are the 'enlightened ones'?  If they are not equal, who do we pick for governmental leadership that will make the inferiors enjoy this life as much as the superiors?

It turns out, however, that the "idea debate" is not the debate the undecideds were interested in.  Hence, the response to the debate this morning is decidedly more in favor of Gov. Palin than I had expected.  To show this, you should watch the video below.  It is a group of undecided voters reacting to the debate.  It is hosted by Frank Luntz, who is a master of political language usage, and 'dial testing' voters to see how America reacts to political and commercial ads, speeches, and debates.  He is brilliant, and I always learn a lot by listening to him.  His conclusion based on his focus group, seen below, is that Gov. Palin exceeded expectations, connected with voters, and won the debate.  He believes this debate will help Sen. McCain's lately dwindling poll numbers significantly.

Check out the room's response--keep in mind these are all undecided voters--to the question about who won.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Light in the Darkness

"Visit this house, Lord, we pray,
And drive far from it the power of the adversary.
May your holy angels dwell here instead,
And the blessing of peace remain on us always."

So we pray for our children every night, blessing them with the sign of the Cross.

I was reminded of the power of the Cross, of the holy protecting angels, and of the saints in a conversation with a new friend, Kendra.  Her 8 year old daughter, Laura, has many fears.  Laura has created an elaborate evening routine in going to and getting in and staying in bed.  Being from a thoroughly secular family, prayer is not an option - at least not one I could suggest to her mother.  (When the family came over for lunch, the children did not even know that anyone might at some time pray before a meal.  They had clearly never heard of the idea.)

We had to confront real ongoing fear in our youngest daughter's fear of the dark.  But we could not abide any of the schmaltzy angel-ick night lights on offer.

Thankfully when Nicodemus spent 10 days at the Monastery of St. John in northern California this summer, he found the night light of St. George.  Dashing a dragon to bits is most definitely the way to cast the darkness out of a child's room!  We had assured our daughter, E., that her guardian angel was watching over her.  We had hung an icon of a guardian angel by her bed.  We had prayed, as do Orthodox Jews to this day, that the Archangels Gabriel, Michael, Raphael and Uriel would protect her.  We reminded her that if she had a bad dream or awoke afraid, she should make the sign of the Cross, asking for Christ's protection. And these all helped.

And to be truthful, the assurance of valiant St. George impaling the dragon has calmed her fears - and satisfied her parents' various requirements of a night light.

Night, night,

Beth

(The night light is not available on the website, but you can call or email Brother Valentin: (530) 474-5964 or store@monasteryofstjohn.org)

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

C.S. Lewis and Ronald Knox

A good friend of mine has recently published a new book titled "Second Friends--C.S. Lewis and Ronald Knox In Conversation".   I would highly recommend that you buy it and read it.  It covers the overlapping worlds of two Christianity's best thinkers and writers of the last century.  While nearly everyone has heard of Lewis, Knox's story is less well known.  My friend describes him as a sort of "Catholic Lewis".  The historical record shows little about their actual meeting, but their lives were lived near one another physically, with many of the same friends and interests.  The book flows from the interaction between them--that may, or may not, have ever happened.

Ignatius Insight published an interview with the author, Fr. Milton Walsh, which you can read here.  I would recommend that you do just that.  Without giving too much away, it's a great primer for the book.  One of my favorite parts is the discussion about Lewis and Knox's similarities and differences:

Ignatius Insight: In additional to being contemporaries (Knox having been ten years old than Lewis), what are some of the important similarities between the lives and work of the two men?

Fr. Walsh: Although Lewis and Knox ended up in different places as regards religious affiliation, they had a great deal in common. Their families embodied a strongly Evangelical expression of Anglicanism, but both men took a decidedly Catholic direction in their maturity. They were both very logical thinkers, but with a great appreciation for the power of imagination and the place of the heart in religious discourse. They were very much at home in the academic world of their day, but neither considered himself a professional theologian. Rather, they were evangelists who sought to express their faith in an engaging and thoughtful way to the general public.

As I delved into their writings more deeply, I was frequently surprised to find them making the same arguments, and at times even employing the same images. (In fact, I found myself wondering at times: "Did he steal this idea from the other guy?" ... and I would rather playfully put the question in terms of what biblical scholars have to say about the "Synoptic Problem": did Matthew borrow from Mark, or vice-versa. Knowing the reserve with which both Lewis and Knox viewed the assertions of "higher critics", it was enjoyable to imagine their own writings being explained in this way!) In fact, I think much of their similarity of thought and expression can be explained by their common cultural and educational formation.

Ignatius Insight: What are some of the key differences between Knox's life and thought and that of Lewis?

Fr. Walsh: Much could be said about this, but I would primarily address myself to two differences: their spiritual journey and their profession. As regards the first, each man underwent a profound conversion. However, in the case of Lewis this was an experience of faith lost and found; he went through a long period of atheism. For Knox, the conversion was from one expression of Christianity (Anglicanism) to another (Roman Catholicism). In retrospect, Knox believed that his profession of the Catholic faith marked the mature expression of what he had always believed. Lewis, on the other hand, experienced two dramatic shifts in his life—from a notional sense of Christian faith to atheism, and then from atheism to a passionate commitment to Christian faith.

Secondly, their lives were taken up with two very different professions, although they both did many of the same things—public speaking, popular writing, broadcasting and so on. Lewis was an Oxford don, whose religious writings were carried out between commitments to tutoring and lecturing. Most of his closest friends were also academics. Oxford and Cambridge were always the backdrops; even though many of his confreres looked askance on Lewis's forays into popular religious thought, they recognized his expertise in his chosen field of medieval and renaissance literature. Knox was a priest, both as an Anglican and as a Catholic: for him, speaking and writing about Christ and the faith was at the heart of his vocation.

And on their lives of faith:

There is much more that can be said (read my book!), but finally I think Knox and Lewis are both great examples of an integrated life. Their intellectual skills, imaginative gifts, humor and insight are held together by their deep love for Jesus Christ and His Gospel. They were extraordinarily gifted men, and we can read their writings with admiration. But they both saw themselves as ordinary, because they realized that, while those gifts may distinguish them from many others, ultimately this did not matter. What mattered was God's love, and in this regard we are all equal. Their great abilities make them inspiring authors; but their sense of their own "ordinariness" makes them enjoyable company.

Congratulations to Fr. Walsh on this publication!  And make sure you order your own copy and enjoy.

Thomas More

Weep with those who Weep

L. and I have been reading through 'The Path to Confession' (published by Unexpected Joy Press) for our catechism.  The Romans 12 passage came up.  Usually I think of 'weep[ing] with those who weep' as practicing active listening when someone is sad.  But the exhortation really hit home last night.  A friend's son has Asperger's and they have decided they need to put him on medication.  I have been mourning with her.  For a mother not to be able to 'make it better' leaves a feeling of failure.  To have to medicate ones otherwise healthy child goes against the desire to accept him for 'who he is'.

Yet, I can stand in solidarity with her at the foot of the Cross.

At the same time, the truth is that her son is not fundamentally someone with Asperger's, any more than someone is at their core a lawyer or smart or pretty.  I put on an identity.  'Now we see as in a mirror darkly, then we shall see face to face.'  My face which will be before the Lord is my soul which speaks directly to the Lord, which can stand in His presence even now in prayer.  This is a mystery.  But when my daughter with Down Syndrome loves people, forgives them, accepts them, I recognize it is her soul that is perceiving God's presence in another - not mediated through words or any thing else.

So I can rejoice with my friend when she rejoices, in the love her son has for the Lord, which is all we really want for our children.

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com

Feminist-Industrial Complex

Here's a classic Jonah Goldberg piece.  It discusses the feminist-left's response to Sarah Palin being the nominee.  "She's not a real woman."  So, in essence, Obama--who thinks like they do, is a woman, and Palin is not--because of what she thinks.  Classic lefty thinking.

Here's a preview of Goldberg reviewing some of the feminists' takes on Palin:

Feminist author Cintra Wilson writes in Salon (a house organ of the angry left) that the notion of Palin as vice president is "akin to ideological brain rape." Presumably just before the nurse upped the dosage on her medication, Wilson continued, "Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism."

And that's one of the nicer things she had to say. Really.

He then takes us through a few other feminists' comments, and provides a nice insight into their tactics:

Gloria Steinem, the grand mufti of feminism, issued a fatwa anathematizing Palin. A National Organization for Women spokeswoman proclaimed Palin more of a man than a woman. Wendy Doniger, a feminist academic at the University of Chicago, writes of Palin in Newsweek: "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

It's funny. The left has been whining about having their patriotism questioned for so long it feels like they started griping in the Mesozoic era. Feminists have argued for decades that womanhood is an existential and metaphysical state of enlightenment. But they have no problem questioning whether women they hate are really women at all.

Since we know from basic science that Palin is a woman -- she's had five kids, for starters -- it's clear that these ideological thugs aren't talking about actual, you know, facts.

Read the entire piece, it's insightful and entertaining.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Mind Games

This week I took my kids to Great Falls National Park outside Washington, DC.  It’s a beautiful park along the Potomac River, with some impressive falls, cliffs and trails as well as some nature, which is hard to find in Washington.  We even saw 4 deer, a snake, several skinks, and a hawk.  My kids were thrilled.

At one point, we were high up on the rocks overlooking the river at one of its deeper points.  As I looked down into the river at some smaller rocks sticking up, I noticed something caught on them that looked strange.  It looked like a blue shirt with 2 flesh-colored limbs that would roll in the foaming waters and rise up to the surface every 20 seconds or so.  I pointed it out to others in our group.  We decided that the way it was flopping, it had to be the remains of a doll or something like that.  Still, it was a bit unnerving.

As we were leaving, we mentioned it to the ranger, who looked very serious and immediately called 9-11.  I quickly walked him back up the trail to the spot.  When he looked at the rocks through his binoculars, he thought it was a dead body.  The next 20 minutes are a blur to me.  Two park police cars came roaring into the park with their sirens blaring, towing Zodiacs behind them.  Within minutes, a river rescue crew was at the spot while TV helicopters circled loudly overhead.  In the end, they pulled out some cloth that was blue and flesh-colored.  That was it.  Just some cloth.  After being at the park for 6 hours, my children and I drove home, still shaky from the experience.

As I tried to relay to my husband just how upsetting and traumatic the whole thing was, I found myself unable to shake the idea that someone had drowned in the river.  It seemed so real that I was actually burdened by a heavy sadness all night.   But even though I could admit that it was just a cloth, my mind kept believing that we had really seen a person.

It reminded me of how powerful our minds can be.  I run away with ideas all the time.  Sometimes I’ll end up in tears imagining what it would be like to lose my husband or my kids.  I can get so worked up it’s hard to believe that they’re still alive.  It’s easy to do on the job too – suddenly a minor problem is played out in our heads until we cannot sleep anymore.  We must take captive every thought and bring it under the Lordship of Christ.  He can keep our perspective true and help keep our minds on a leash.

In Him,

Lucy

Humor, Politics, and "Sexism" from SNL

This is a pretty funny clip from Saturday Night Live.  It's a funny summary of the surprise pick of Gov. Palin looking like she--rather than Hillary--could be the first women elected nationally.  Enjoy:

Seven Years

It's seven years, to the moment as I begin typing this post, that the attacks began.  It's strange to think how much life has returned to normal since then.  But, at the same time, it is sad to think how different things are.  Have you tried to board a plane after the attacks?  Have you tried to just walk up the front steps of Congress, or even take a tour since the attacks?  Do you know anyone who has a seven year old son or daughter, who never met their dad?

The attacks, in many ways, defined the politics--good and bad--of this decade.  We have troops in harm's way not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in remote parts of Africa and the Middle East.  Plus, our efforts abroad have had their ups and downs.  Shockingly, a new worldwide poll shows that most people abroad don't think Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.  In Europe, the poll shows a ridiculously, and disturbingly, large percentage of people believe the U.S. government caused the attacks. In the Middle East, even larger numbers blame Israel. Logic and evidence don't seen to be working.  More striking, it seems there is no longer much of a reserve of good will for America.

After Pearl Harbor, our troops went to distant lands, but they, who survived--like my grandfathers--were home and starting families well before the seven-year mark.  Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini were all dead within four years.  Totalitarian governments--other than the victorious Communists--were wiped out.  The world was a very different place seven years after the attack.

But our world is still facing the same threats as it did, unknowingly, seven years ago.  Progress has certainly been made; the U.S. has not been hit again.  Maybe it's part luck, but it is certainly also because of an increase in our safety measures.  But with those measures, we've seen a decrease in our quality of life:  my kids could just run up the steps of Congress, like I used to, as one small example.  Seven years after Pearl Harbor and Americans' quality of life was drastically improving.  This is a different sort of war, as the attacks--on civilians mainly--were a different sort of trauma.

Today we should take a moment to pray for those making us safer as we go about our same-as-usual lives--even if we don't agree with them politically.  In a lot of ways, the fact that today feels pretty much the same as it did seven years and one day ago, is a testament to the fine work of our public servants. 

And we should also take a moment to remember those who left us seven years ago today, those who just showed up to work to provide for themselves and their families, and those firefighters, police, and servicemen who sacrificed everything to help save some.  "No greater love..."

Here's what we saw seven years ago:

         

              

Remember,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Like, not love.

There’s an advertising slogan that says “Around here, you have to love what you drive”. And I do. It’s small and sporty, not unlike its owner. (Ha ha). But “my baby” as I like to call it, has in the past fallen foul of the dreaded teenagers who break windows and pull out stereos and generally make a huge mess. This lead me to do what most car owners do sooner or later, which is to install a really loud, obnoxious car alarm to alert me (and, in fact, the whole neighborhood) to such dastardly deeds. But as I sat on my balcony a few days ago, after one more evening/night/early morning of listening to various car alarms beeping, whining, screaming and whooping, I wondered if it was all worth it. I actually decided it wasn’t. I just want some peace and quiet.

It’s not as if my street is a hot-bed of car theft. I can almost guarantee that none of the car alarms I heard in the last 24 hours were caused by an actual break-in. More likely they were due to someone in the adjacent car closing their door a little too enthusiastically, or someone like me opening the door and forgetting to disengage the alarm, or in the case of my garage neighbor, due to me backing up to within 10 feet of his monstrous GMC Denali.

There’s such a thing as loving something too much. And if I can say that about my car, anyone can. I wish we could do away with car alarms and let anyone who’s that determined, just take the *&^*%$*&% thing. It’s just a car. Most of us have insurance, and if I an unfortunate enough to have to use it, I think I’ll buy something even smaller and sportier. Come to think of it, I might just leave the keys in the ignition tonight and see what happens. Ironically, we’ll all get a better nights sleep if we leave the keys in the ignition and the alarms turned off.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Be afraid!

I’m not much of a linguistics expert, but I do have an unexplainable fascination with the meaning of words. I especially like long words, pieced together from other languages. It often broadens the meaning of a word, far beyond what we have reduced it down to, in our modern culture. Words become richer when we know where they came from.

So it is with my new discovery of the day: agoraphobia. I was under the impression, from popular use, that it meant a fear of open spaces. My mind conjured up pictures of vast green fields and snowy mountains, Julie Andrews twirling and singing, and someone right next to her, finding it difficult to breathe.

Not so, as I found out. Agoraphobia also refers to a fear of very crowded places, like malls and theatres and airports, as it should, because “agora” is originally a Greek word meaning “marketplace”. So “agoraphobia” literally means “fear of the marketplace”!! Hmmm……a slightly different image than my Julie Andrews version, but one which makes sense because shopping does bring me out in a cold sweat. 

It might also amuse you to know that the marketplace in ancient Greece was also the public square and place for political assembly. So we can also say that agoraphobia means "fear of the political assembly". You might agree there have been some pretty scary political assemblies recently.

So, if the current political season is making it hard for you to breathe, you can always blame your agoraphobia…… 

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Oops, I did it again

I’m three-quarters of my way through the read-through-the-bible-in-a-year. Some of it has been tough going (Leviticus) but one of my favorite parts has been stumbling across familiar verses, back in their natural habitat. Bible verses are often lifted out of context, sometimes so kids can memorize them and sometimes so we can memorize them (put them on a very small post-it and stick them to the desk). But in the extraction process they almost always get cut off from the rich context that brings them to life.

An example of this was the verse I came across not too long ago: “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10).

It’s an easy one to remember; short and sweet. It’s normally used as a meditation, when the pace of life is overwhelming. “Be still…..be still” we repeat to ourselves. For most of us, that’s enough challenge for one day. We can barely get to “…….and know that I am God.”

But look at where that verse is placed:

8 Come and see the works of the LORD,
       the desolations he has brought on the earth.

9 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth;
       he breaks the bow and shatters the spear,
       he burns the shields with fire.

10 "Be still, and know that I am God;
       I will be exalted among the nations,
       I will be exalted in the earth."   

In my self-centeredness, I had made that isolated verse all about me: about my rest and sense of inner peace. But back in context, it’s first and foremost about the power and majesty of God, who gives us the freedom to “be still” because he is always at work. I like that version much better than my own.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com 

Great Pick

John McCain has captured the media's attention on a day, even a long weekend, that was scheduled to be "All Obama, All the Time."  Following last night's speech--which now seems like it happened a week ago--McCain announced his V.P. choice--Gov. Sarah Palin, of Alaska.

This is a bold and seemingly brilliant pick.  She has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket.  She is very strong on both social and fiscal issues.  From the L.A. Times this morning on both her fiscal and social views:

she, like McCain, is known as a reformer who believes in curbing government spending. In her first year in office, she introduced ethics legislation and a budget with a $124-million reduction in spending...

Palin, 44, was talked about in conservative circles -- a fiscal conservative who is also a staunch opponent of abortion...

"At a time when many Republicans are still clinging to pork-barrel politics, Gov. Palin has quickly become a leader on this issue," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "She is a principled reformer who understands how badly wasteful spending has marred the Republican brand."

While I don't know her and only know about her policy positions from what I'm reading, everything seems to point in the right direction.  She's a mom from a middle-class family, with a husband who works in the oil fields.  She's played H.S. basketball and loves to hunt and fish.  Seems like someone most people can relate to.  Plus, she's no patrician.  This will also shore up the right for McCain (Rush just called it a "terrific, terrific, choice), will certainly be attractive to undecided-post-Hillary voters, and allows the ticket a unified theme of cutting government waste, corruption, and spending.  As Toomey notes, it is crucial for the GOP to restore its image by cutting spending.  She has a passion for, and a history of, doing just that.

And from a political-timing standpoint, brilliant.  While everyone was supposed to talk about the "Greatest speech since Gettysburg" at the Obamopolis last night, the NYT, LAT, and Drudge all have Palin as THE story.  Obama is on page 2 the day after his convention, and will likely stay there through the RNC's convention.

Yes, there are unknowns:  how will she debate, campaign nationally, and does she know foreign policy?  We'll see.  But from what we do know, it looks good.  She's won tough primaries in Alaska, understands oil/energy policy, and McCain's foreign-policy experience ought to be enough to reassure doubters on that front.  Plus, how much foreign-policy experience does the TOP of the Dem ticket have?  ("Well, I made a speech in Germany once, and it seemed liked they really, really liked me...")

All in all, it definitely looks like a nice move.

Thomas Moreallthesemore@yahoo.com