Diagnoses and Cures

I'm reading a novel and got to a place that has stopped me cold.  I'm not going to name the novel or the author because I really don't think it's that great and don't want to recommend it, but an exchange between a couple of characters is yet another example of a trend I've been noticing the last six months or so and if I don't write about it, I won't be able to finish the book.  It's an okay right-before-I-turn-the-lights-out-to-go-to-sleep read, in other words, I'm not finding it completely unpleasant, but I also don't care enough about the characters that I simply must read another chapter.

One character says to another:

'You have to make allowance.  […]  She's got eight kids and a husband who spends even more time in the Mucky Duck [the local pub] than Seamus Galvin.  What we need is some decent kind of contraception … like this pill thingy.'

Those of you who know me know that I have a basic problem with the very idea of contraception, but that's not what I'm going to focus on {shocker!}.

Read it again.  This poor mom's problem is diagnosed pretty well.  Her husband isn't acting like either a husband or a father.  But look at the logical hiccup when we come to the proposed cure - more contraception and fewer kids.  Maybe this mom and her children would be better served if the local community took a two by four to her husband's head and insisted that he man-up and care for his family instead of running away from his responsibilities.  Would she really be better off with two kids and a husband who abdicated his role as husband and father?  And which kids shouldn't she have had?

I saw the same thing in Atlas Shrugged.  Ayn Rand identified certain societal problems with laser-like accuracy, but her solutions were empty and unworkable, as substantial as a cobweb.  I see the same thing going on in Washington, Phoenix, and our local city council chambers.

We must think clearly about both problems and solutions.  If we don't consider deeply and follow a problem all the way to the root, our efforts to help will merely make the situation worse.

SDG!

Why I Attended a Tea Party

I've been reading many responses to the Tax Day Tea Parties from folks on the left. Assumptions are being made that don't reflect the thoughts of those on the ground. So, I thought I'd post a short explanation of why I went. I certainly don't speak for everyone.

The ostensible purpose of the Tea Parties was to protest the massive amount of government spending and debt. Susan Roesgen, a CNN reporter in Chicago got it wrong when she argued with the man she was interviewing, trying to remind him that he was getting a $400 tax break. This was about the spending. Even if the government taxed the richest people in the country at 95%, there wouldn't be enough revenue to pay the bill. This means that either everyone's taxes will go sky high or the government will have to inflate the currency, taking away our purchasing power and making our money worth much less (eventually worthless). Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this spending spree one way or another.

However, as unconscionable as the spending is, the spending itself is not the problem; it's merely a symptom of a much deeper problem, namely that the federal government has grown far beyond the limits set by the Constitution and is involved in many areas and issues that aren't mentioned in our founding documents. Our Constitution states clearly that the federal government is bound regarding the areas it can legally be involved in. If the Constitution doesn't give specific authority over a specific jurisdiction to the federal level of government, then the federal government has no authority to do or legislate in that area. Instead, that authority rests with the States and the People. Until more everyday people realize this, we won't really make any progress.

One complaint I've been hearing is that, since these protests didn't happen during the Bush administration with its growth in both government and deficit spending, they're illegitimate. The assumption is that everyone at the Tea Parties supported everything that President Bush did, so now that President Obama is doing multiplied more of the same, we have no right to protest. 

First of all, our right to freedom of speech is still in force, meaning that we do have the right to protest.  There is no statute of limitations on freedom of speech.

Second, for a century the temperature under the ubiquitous and metaphorical frog has been increased, slowly and gradually, from quite cool to hot-tub warm. However, in the last few months, the Obama administration has turned up the fire very hot, very fast. The frog has woken up and is finally jumping out of the pot. 

Third, this wasn't just a protest against the Democratic party.  I've been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote.  I haven't always supported everything the Republican Party stood for, but they were the closest game in town.  Today, I feel like Ronald Reagan: I didn't leave the [Republican] Party, the [Republican] Party left me. This growth of government has been going on for over 100 years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses. It doesn't matter who is pursuing big, unrestrained federal government. None of them will get my vote again.  I will continue to examine the record and principles of each candidate and vote for those who reflect the ideas of small, restrained, Constitutional, federal government, no matter which party they represent.  Some of my readers may remember my post regarding my thoughts about whom I would vote for in the past presidential election.  I decided to cast my vote, not for the man whom I thought would make the best president, but for the lesser of two evils (of the two main choices and one for whom I've never voted before, even though I've had plenty of opportunities).  I will never throw away my vote in that way again.  I will no longer try to strategize, but will vote according to principle and my conscience.

I've been hearing lots of talk about the Constitution.  I just finished Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.  (Well-written, not earth-shaking for me, but he did give me a few new things to think about.)  I've started Judge Andrew Napolitano's The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land.  (Not far enough into it to have a clear opinion, yet.)  I hope others pick up these books, or others about the Constitution, and begin to educate themselves.  As Ronald Reagan said,

'Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.'

Constitution: Preamble

Since it seems that most of our Congress hasn't read the Constitution, and someone has to stand up and defend it (We the People), and, even though I've read it, I don't remember it that well, I thought I'd post sections a few times each week.  Right now I'm copying and pasting it into several posts and will read it along with you as it posts.  I do have the Preamble memorized, thanks to Schoolhouse Rock:

We, the People of the united States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united States of America.

I was planning on discussing it, but think I'd rather do that in the comments.  It's not that difficult to understand and I'm not expert enough to teach others the finer points of it.  Please join with me in discussing in the comments.  I'd love to hear your thoughts.

SDG!

Vigilance

'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'  

~Thomas Jefferson

While I don't often write about history, politics, economics, demographics, or current events, I am intensely interested in them.  There are much better-informed and more logically and eloquently-written sources for this type information and philosophy than I could be, so I won't try to fill a niche that's already being well-filled.  However, I will be writing about different policies that will affect us here at home and how we're planning to respond to them. 

As we see by the signs that a storm is coming and prepare accordingly, so we must keep an eye on our world, not so that we become frightened (after all, our trust is in the Lord and his loving sovereignty), but so that we can prepare.  Better to keep watch and prepare ahead of time when possible than to scramble and try to figure out what's happening when the winds blow, lightning strikes, and hail pummels you.

In light of our current president's economic views and his emulation of FDR (whose economic policies caused the depression of the 1930's to become great), our household is preparing for very hard times.  We're watching not only current policies, but demographic trends.  As we move through the next few decades, the Baby Boom will retire and, as is usual during that season of life, will spend less, which will lead to an almost permanent drop in the stock market as consumer markets are significantly reduced.  Life for our children and grandchildren will be very different from what we've know to this point.

So, what changes are we making in the day-to-day running of our household?

• We're cooking more from scratch.  (This includes the yogurt recipe previously posted, and making granola instead of purchasing boxed cereal - recipe coming soon! - baking more bread, making mayonnaise, and I've gotten our sprouts grower out again.) 
  
• We're working to get the garden to produce again.  (We started a compost bin this weekend - Arizona soil isn't so good and we'd rather use our own free scraps and yard waste than purchase compost.)
  
• We're sewing more of our own clothes (with fabric purchased at low prices on sale).  
  
• I'm going to study pattern-making to give us more flexibility in clothing design and save money on expensive patterns.  
  
• We've been using fountain pens for years, but we'll be purchasing more for the whole family (a bottle of ink can last for years and costs less than other pens which don't last as long).  
  
• We're cutting back where we can in order to purchase tools that will make our family more productive and less dependent on public policy (for example: a knitting machine, a clothes line, wood-working tools).
  
• We're learning new skills.  (The girls are learning to crochet; I'm re-learning to knit; I'm teaching the girls to sew; we hope to learn to embroider and draw and even paint; as well as the above-mentioned pattern-drafting, and Drew is teaching the boys wood-working skills.)
  
• We made many of our Christmas presents this year and will continue doing that for birthdays.
  
• Drew and I are going out for dessert for our date night, instead of eating dinner out.  We're also going to the movies less often.

We're not doing these things only for our family, but we hope that our preparation and work will put us into a position to minister to and help others.  Here's one example:

The new administration is planning to put into effect an energy policy called 'Cap and Trade'.  This will require local power companies to produce less electricity.  Our tax dollars will then be given to the electric companies so that they don't see a loss of revenue.  This will give us rolling blackouts and brownouts along with higher taxes.  We are working to save for solar power for our home.  When the rest of the neighborhood is sitting in the dark, we'll have light.  What an opportunity to invite our neighbors in, to share what we have, building relationships with them, and possibly having an opportunity to share the gospel.

The coming times will be challenging, but we hope to rise to the challenge in a joyful and faithful manner.

SDG!

Demographic Winter

Chilling.  Sobering.  Not surprising.

Opportunity for Christians.

God is sovereign.

I'm ordering this DVD today.

SDG.

Psalm 121

I lift my eyes up to the mountains,

Where does my help come from?

My help comes from the Lord,

Maker of heaven, Creator of the earth.

He will not let your foot slip,

He who watches over you will not slumber,

Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.

The Lord watches over you,

He is the shade at your right hand,

The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.

The Lord will keep you from all harm.

He will watch over your life,

The Lord will watch over your coming and going,

Both now and forevermore.

~~~~~

God have mercy on us.

Decided, at last

First, the Lord reminded me powerfully yesterday that he is still on his throne and he will continue to work no matter who happens to occupy the oval office.

Second, I spent more time reading and researching (and praying). What I read was frighteningly eye-opening. You see, I stumbled upon a liberal blog and began reading some of the comments there. I read praise for a self-avowed Marxist (not the candidate in question), but the poster then denied that the man he was praising was really a Marxist. His reasoning? 'Well, I agree with him on everything, and I'm no Marxist, so therefore he can't be.' But on all the issues, the opinions of both these men line up perfectly with those outlined by Karl Marx…I guess Marx himself must not have been a Marxist, either!

These folks (and the author of the blog post they were discussing) don't think the liberal candidate is really liberal; he's actually just a (get ready for it) Reagan Democrat. (That sound you hear is Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave.)  They hope to influence him once he's in office. And, given the liberal candidate's voting record, that won't be difficult for them to do.

Third, I've been learning much more about that voting record.  This man can't be described as 'pro-choice', but as hard-core 'pro-abortion' - more rabid about the issue than even NARAL, which is quite a feat.  I'm sure that, through the abuse of the executive order power that's been in vogue with so many of our recent presidents, many, many more unborn babies will die under him as president.  Not only that, but many infants who are born alive will die.  He was the only senator in Illinois who lobbied and voted against a bill that would offer protection to an infant who survived an abortion.  That's unconscionable.  For more information about Obama's stand on life issues, see George Grant's pro-life blog, 'The Quick and the Dead'.

So, I've come to the conclusion that my vote must be cast in a way that will do the most to keep this man out of the White House and put in a man who won't cave to the kind of pressure discussed above. I don't know what the Lord has in store, but I now know that I can vote a certain way with a clear conscience, although my vote will be against the one candidate and not really for the other. And that no matter who wins, we must keep a close eye on things.  Eternal vigilance…

The scary parts of what I read?  Well, the absolute lack of coherent, logical thought of the man who wrote the blog and the folks who posted.  These folks' lack of real understanding of the Founding Fathers' philosophies and ideas.  And that my husband tells me that he hears things like this all the time (my kids don't tend to talk this way, so I don't hear it so much).

I also read a blog entry by Alec Guiness Alex Baldwin (I'm still waiting to see if he'll keep his promise to move abroad after Bush was declared the winner in 2000 - that was something I was looking forward to).  His stated thesis was, basically, 'What an Obama Presidency Will Mean'.  I thought I was going to hear about what he thought Obama would do for the country, how things would change, what Mr. Guiness Baldwin was hoping for as he looked to this future possibility.  But all he discussed was that an Obama presidency would put McCain in his place.  Yea … that was productive.  I'm so glad he had something of substance to offer.  (Okay, I'm removing my tongue from my cheek, now.)

I think this will be the last of my federal election posts, but I'd like to start looking at the local initiatives.  We still have to figure out what they are, what they really mean, and where we stand.  And there are lots of them!

SDG!

Befuddlement

I've never been so frustrated and confused about whom to vote for.

God created society with four separate and distinct governing institutions, each with a separate and distinct sphere of authority: the state (civil government), the church, the family, and the self. If one of these institutions breaks down, it's not an option for the others to step in and take over its responsibilities; that leads to disaster. Instead, the other institutions must work to re-build that which has fallen, strengthening whichever one has broken down. Since the election is about the civil government, I'll focus there, but an understanding of this principle of jurisdictional sovereignty is key.

Civil government is responsible for (I may have forgotten a few, but this is the gist of what's been rolling around in my mind) …

• protecting our rights - not granting them (which the government has no power or authority to do); this includes the rights to life, liberty, and property, freedom of speech, freedom to practice our religion - well, read the Bill of Rights for the full list; you get the idea. This doesn't mean protecting us from our own bad decisions.
  
• defense - the military on a federal level, the police force and fire department on a local level
• regulating commerce - not to make business decisions for us or to decide on productivity levels or where we should invest, but to protect us from one another where necessary (we are, after all, sinners); includes infrastructure
• the judiciary - again, because we're sinners there will be crimes committed and there will be disagreements between people which need to be settled
• relations with other nations - including treaties and immigration.

That civil government governs best which governs least. Our Constitution gives the federal government very limited powers; given that inch, they've flown to the moon. The federal level of government should have the least day-to-day influence on our lives as it is farthest from us and therefore farthest away from our influence. Instead it has the most. Can you name your mayor? What issues are before your city or town council this month? I don't know, either.

In addition to that, I'm a fiscal conservative who doesn't believe in debt (the only debt we have is our 16 year-old mortgage and we're working to pay that off as soon as we can) or consistently living beyond one's means. Tax dollars spent by the government actually belong to the people who paid the taxes (something most politicians and recipients of government largesse have conveniently forgotten or never knew). I also believe that the free market, while not perfect (nothing sinful man is responsible for can be), is the best economic system ever devised by man, giving the most liberty to the most people and raising productivity and standards of living. (Recommended reading: Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt and Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell)

I'm a social conservative who believes that life begins at conception, marriage is an institution ordained and created by God, that parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children and do so with the support and encouragement of the local church and community, and that the family (as the main building-block of society) should be protected. I also believe that the family is primarily responsible for welfare by taking care of its own. If there's no family, or the family is unable, then the responsibility falls to the church or to private and voluntary endeavors. Private welfare requires contact with real people, real accountability, and real change; it doesn't sentence families to generations of poverty. We'll always have the poor with us, but membership in this group should be a temporary thing. (Recommended reading: The Tragedy of American Compassion, by Marvin Olasky and Bringing in the Sheaves, by George Grant)

So the question is, whom do I vote for? One of the major candidates is so far out of sync with the Constitution and biblical principle on all these issues that casting my vote for him just isn't an option. The other is one for whom I've never voted and whom I've deliberately gone to the polls late in the day to vote against (even though I knew Arizona would go for him). There are a few issues that separate these candidates, but they're simply different flavors of the same dish. Under both parties, government continues to grow, entitlements continue to mushroom, and our liberties continue to shrink. (Recommended reading: In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government, by Charles Murray)

Do I vote for the lesser of two evils? Or do I vote for a third party candidate who shares my views on most of the issues even though he probably has no chance of winning? Do I vote principle or pragmatism? And is it really pragmatic to vote for the lesser of two evils?

No answers today, I'm afraid. Just questions.

The More Things Change

Wisdom from the past.  Will we heed it for our future?

Politics

I don't often write about politics, but I thought  this article was spot on.

And, for your enjoyment (although they're a bit bawdy at times and really best for those who appreciate Shakespeare): 

Sarah and Hillary

The VP Debate

The Wall Street Bailout

I have some observations, but no time right now to post.  The ball is less than 36 hours away and Judith's gown isn't finished, yet.

SDG!

I Went to Buy Thread…

…and waved 'hello' to the President.

This afternoon, I was in Joann's exchanging polyester thread for cotton thread. The cashier expressed surpise that I'd come by way of Dobson Road because she thought it was closed. It seems President Bush was in town for a few hours (speaking within 5 miles of our house) and would be travelling that route on his way back to Sky Harbor.

When we came out, all the mall exits were blocked by police cars, so Elizabeth and I got small drinks at Taco Bell and waited on the sidewalk. A friendly Mesa police officer kept us informed of the President's impending arrival so we'd be ready. We waved as the motorcade drove by; there was one man in one of the limos saluting, I assume to the policemen lining the route.

Elizabeth was less than impressed, but maybe some day she'll look back on today with gratitude that her mother made her stand for a half hour in the warm sun.

SDG!

Arts and Architecture

My first issue of The Intercollegiate Review arrived today. The quote on the back was an excerpt from Russel Kirk's essay "The Architecture of Servitude and Boredom".

Let us leave historical determinism to the Marxists and other ideologues. The courses of nations depend upon the energy and the talents of particular individuals--and upon Providence, always inscrutable. It remains true even in this mass age of ours that individual genius and courage--or at least, the imagination and boldnesss of a handful of men and women--may leaven the lump of dullness and apathy, all across the land. From causes which at present no one guesses, conceivably there may come about a reinvigoration of urban planning and architecture.... The architectural and artistic charlatan, leagued with the spoilsman and the bureaucrat, may be thrust aside, abruptly, by a new breed of architects and artists endowed with the moral imagination. Given faith and hope, it is yet imaginable that we may draw upon the architectural well of the past to bring into being an architecture strong and humane.
~~~~~
And, not from the Review, but quoted in the Gileskirk lecture we discussed today, from the quill of John Adams:

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.

SDG!

Super Tuesday!

I have a confession: I've never read Alice in Wonderland. Some friends were discussing it last week. It was the work of a moment to pop over to Amazon and order it. It arrived this morning, so I took it with me to read while waiting in line to vote in the primary.

Jared came with me - his first time voting. As we waited in line, I paged through the book and we laughed together when I found a chapter called 'A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale'. Given how much the candidates have left me feeling like Alice at the tea party and that this election has already felt like a very long tale indeed, I thought this chapter might prove interesting. I was right.

"What I was going to say," said the Dodo in an offended tone, "was, that the best thing to get us dry would be a Caucus-race."

"What is a Caucus-race?" said Alice; not that she much wanted to know, but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that somebody ought to speak, and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.

"Why," said the Dodo, "the best way to explain it is to do it." (And, as you might like to try the thing yourself some winter day, I will tell you how the Dodo managed it.)

First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, ("the exact shape doesn't matter," it said,) and then all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no "One, two, three, and away," but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out "The race is over!" and they all crowded around it, panting, and asking "But who has won?"