cogitation_station

Need a Good Book? Try "Winter's Tale" by Mark Helprin

Mark Helprin's Winter's Tale, published 1983 by Harcourt, Inc.--yes, 1983!--deserves the title Masterpiece. That's a word I rarely use.

In the 19th Century, Charles Dickens became, arguably, the reigning English language author in Literature. In the 20th and 21st Centuries, Helprin became our Dickens. Argue with me if you will; I stand by my statement. But this is not intended to be a review.

So much of Helprin's work is quotable and read-out-loud-please great that to pick one passage becomes a challenge of mammoth proportions. However, given our current state of government affairs here in the United States, his message in this particular book is too pertinent to dismiss. I've chosen a few paragraphs to quote this morning.

Peter Lake, the protagonist of the novel, tries to retrace his first experience of New York City twenty years earlier near the turn of the 20th Century. At that time, Peter Lake saw a very young child, dying, alone in the hallway of an abandoned tenement. The sight haunted him so that he has returned to the site to find out what happened to the child--so damaged that he cannot tell you if it were boy or girl. His search leads him to the morgue of the hospital in Printing House Square and the doctor who performs autopsies on the dead, the nameless unclaimed poor of New York City. It is the doctor who speaks here:

"...'Maybe you're from some reform group, and you've come to gather evidence.' He glanced at Peter Lake and concluded from his expression and appearance that he was not. 'They come down here to snap pictures. They get a thrill here--that's why they come. They take stupendous joy in the indignation and compassion they feel on account of these mangled stiffs; it's their roller coaster. I know this,' he said, making a tragic incision across the abdomen of an adolescent girl, 'and I'll tell you why. Since I'm here all the time and take apart fifty of these things a day, I can't feel for each and every one of them. I'm not God. I don't have that much in me. The ladies' aides and the social critics sense immediately that I couldn't give a goddamn about all this inedible meat, and that's just what they want. They know they're better than the miserable bastards they try to help, but they really enjoy thinking that they're better than the rest of us, who aren't as "compassionate" as they are.' He turned to Peter Lake again, and said, 'You notice how often that very word escapes their lips? They use it like a cudgel. Beware.'

"What he did next, as a matter of routine, made Peter Lake close his eyes in horror. But the doctor continued, his hands glistening, as if nothing had happened. 'They come down here for their own benefit. It's as clear as day that they love it. The great irony and perfect joke is that the wretches on the bottom of the barrel get these self-serving scum as champions. Some champions! They feed off the poor--first materially, and then in spirit. But they deserve each other in a way, because vice and stupidity were made to go together.

"'I know this, you see, because I was poor. But I rose like a rocket, and I know how the whole thing works. The ones who are always on your side, or so they think, are the ones who keep you down. Everything they do keeps you down. They'll forgive you for anything. Rob, rape, pillage, and kill, and they'll defend you to yourself. They understand all outrages, and all your failings and faults, too. Perfect! You can go on that way forever. What do they care? Excuse me: they do care. They want it that way.'

"He bent over to make a short cut, as thin as a hair, across the chest of the emaciated blond girl that he had just eviscerated. 'How would they make a living, these servants of the poor, if there were no poor?

"'What enabled me to rise above all the people who don't know enough to come in out of the rain is that one day I looked face to face at a man who hated half of everything I was and had the courage to tell me so. I remember his very words. He said, '"What you're doing is hideous--a perfect way to die young. Unless you want to live sweetly only in the hereafter, you ought to learn how to do the right thing."' The doctor stopped what he was doing, dropped his hand to his sides, and looked directly at Peter Lake. 'I hate the poor. Look what they do to themselves. How could you not hate them, unless you thought that they should be like this.'"

This is an excerpt--a minor one in view of the enormous scope of this 748-page novel--from Winter's Tale and an example of the social commentary both Helprin and Dickens write. But the book is not pedantic; far from it. The novel is a beautifully realized love story about New York, human beings and their various conditions and characters, a white horse, and infinity.

Characters are richly drawn as are descriptions which refuse to be skipped over and ignored. Discription as a word pales beside the richness of Helprin's similes, language, color, olfactory teases or assaults. He is incapable of imprecision, whether dialogue, action, description or characterization. His humor is subtle, but at times you find yourself laughing out loud.

I usually refrain from superlatives even when discussing superlative authors. There are many writers I admire and recommend. But I use the word "genius" sparingly; Mark Helprin is a story-telling genius. Fortunately for his readers, Winter's Tale is just one of many beautifully told and compelling works. I urge you to read Mark Helprin. His writing informs and invites our generation to change for the better; I hope his message does not go unheeded in this time of "change" for the much, much worse.

Why They Can't Understand

I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm watching politicians who are trying to reach a meeting of the minds on something, I find myself screaming at the TV or tensing so I don't throw something at the tube.

Why? Because, as you probably already know, they cannot reach any kind of agreement or concensus because they haven't defined their terms. This seems a basic preliminary step to me, but 1) either they are unaware that differing definitions cause major communication problems, or 2) they know and don't care.

They posture, babble, and either quote from their favorite "hometown story," or cite well-researched facts and figures to colleagues who yawn and chat like high school students to their neighbors, oblivious to the C-Span cameras which catalog their disdain and lack of etiquette.

Yes, I'm talking about Thursday's televised presidential "health care summit." But Thursday's fiasco is no different from all the rest.

This "summit" purports a new and different approach in this administration--bipartisanship. Of course, as with all King Obama's court audiences,this one failed to achieve its goal.

Once more the American public watched, waiting for something to happen to change the dynamics in Washington. Nothing happened. Nothing that is unless you were listening to their actual words and watching their actions.

Once upon a time words had meanings. Most literate people knew them and shared a common vocabulary. Now lexicons of ideology have replaced the dictionary of the English language, and new set of professional politicians have replaced the "statesmen" of my youth. These place party above the people they were elected to represent and seemingly leave all independent thinking and ideas of service at the airport in Washington,D.C..

When did "public service" become "career politician"?

When did "reform" translate as "replacement"? When did "Republican" translate as "obstructionist" and "the party of no"?

When did "unconstitutional" become "constitutional" when practiced or proposed by the administration or his party?

When did "abortion" come to mean "choice"? When did "choices" become "rights"?

When did "health care coverage" for everyone become a "right"?

When did "human rights" trump "individual rights" and our Bill of Rights?

When did "President of the United States of America" become "the-person-who-is-much-smarter-than-you-("you" translates as "anyone who disagrees with POTUS")-and-who-will-try-to-defeat-you-at-any-cost-should-you-continue-in-your-ignorance"?

When did "summit" overtake "meeting" or "conference" as the preferred terminology? When did "transparent" replace the definitions of "opaque" and "secretive"?

"Arrogance" equals "tolerance". Once referred to as "disrepect," the "grin-and-call-you- by-your-first-name-in-a-national-forum" approach to peers is viewed as "acceptable" and "friendly" when practiced by POTUS.

The "exactitude" of basic math becomes "suspect" when applied to figures that contradict POTUS or his favorites among the courtiers.

"Federal budget" becomes "my money." The unpopular term "tax" dies and resurrects as "your fair share".

"Tax cuts" become "tax breaks for the very wealthy", as if only the wealthy benefit when tax rates fall.

The devil either no longer exists or shows himself as anything President Bush may have done since his birth.

"Christianity" is a bad word, as is "Christian". (Members of other religions are considered sacrosanct.)

"Tea Party" means "rednecks, radicals, and renegades assembled in one place."

"My administration" now means "anything-that-we-construe-as-good". Former "conservative administrations" are either defined as "precedents-for-actions-that-we-now-want-to-adopt-to-further-our-agenda" or "the roots of all evils."

"Talking points" is pejorative when used of the opposing party, but is used as "obvious factual statements" when practiced by your own.

"Threat" becomes the kinder, gentler "challenge."

When did "executive branch" branch out to include "legislative"? Can "judicial" be far behind? (I am reminded of the State of the Union address when the president rebuked the Supreme Court for their ruling in a particular case.)

The question arises: if this president has no regard for the electorate and no fear of the upcoming election, does he intend to do away with the 2010 election or influence it in some way? (I only raise this, because I have never seen such lack of regard for constituencies' wishes when an election is a few short months away. If I misunderstand,I'm sorry.)

I might ask, if I were the sort to ponder such things, which I'm not: When did "Obama" become synonymous with "leadership"? When did unelected cronies--many of whom are known radicals--reach the status of "czars"?

When did our soldiers and intelligence-gathering communities become enemies? (Perhaps it is that their name highlights the absence of any "intelligence" worth gathering in the halls of the current federal government?)

When did this "republic" short-change its people and replace it with whatever it is now. Whatever it is now, it is most certainly NOT acting or speaking as a republic.

When people speak different languages and use the same words to mean opposite things, can any truth or public good be reached? Of course not!

When one group convinces itself that all other groups are wrong and unqualified to lead, then no idea, no action on the part of those lying outside that group can or will be viewed as positive or constructive.

And so it proved.

No movement happened in either direction: the conservatives presented their ideas and objections to the current bills under consideration. The liberal spokespeople countered with their usual "everyone-but-Republicans-want-this" statements coupled with their assertions that if they could just get their bill/bills signed into law, then the deficit would disappear and everyone in America would have health care comparable to the plans the Congress and President enjoy.

(My only problem with this last point is that no one in the Washington power group wants to trade their health care programs for the so-called "reform" health care! I wonder why if their ideas are so great?)

Obama played to the cameras, attempted to look both engaged and engaging, and interjected his own opinions. When lunchtime approached, King Obama chided those with whom he disagreed that they were taking too much time with their remarks. (I suppose he was hungry.)

Though obsessed with time-keeping, Obama failed to notice that his own remarks took more time than was given to either party for the entire meeting. (Thank God that Obama refrains from hosting the Oscars!)

Of course being King Obama, this "summit" finished with a not-so-veiled threat, sorry, "challenge" that the House and Senate would simply pass health care without opposition support.

This measure of the elected few over-riding the wishes of the electorate many is called "reconciliation"--a misnomer if ever there was one.

So ended the bipartisan spirit of this meeting and, perhaps, of this era, which leads me to ask one final question: When did "black" become "white"?

How Much of Our Moral Values Are We Willing To Relinguish?

I looked at my title and wondered if anyone would understand the terms. "Moral values"...the term has become a joke during my lifetime, although the philosophy promoting the demise has been going on for centuries, just as "Christianity" has become a punch line.

When there are no absolutes--only "situation ethics"--the people perish. If you don't believe me, just look around. There is no area of your life which is not affected. You are told what to think; you are told what is and isn't "acceptable"--but not to worry, those things that are "acceptable" today will change tomorrow.

Have you paid attention to the ads lately? I know you've seen them, but did you pay attention? There are two which really get to me: The first is the one where everyone is buying something with a credit card and everything is going smoothly until someone wants to write a check or (gasp!) pay cash for a product, disrupting everything. The second is the one which in ALL CAPS announces that PEOPLE ARE SMART. Really? Then why does it have to be announced? The fact is that most people, whatever their brain power, are sheep, easily flattered by such ads, and typically will file in line to buy whatever product has given them the benefit of a brain.

PLEASE!

The Census Is Important: Obama's Trying to Change It

I have tried to warn people about the drastic appropriations of power that President Obama has garnered under the Executive Branch with his unprecedented use of the Executive Order.  I hope now you will do something!

The second nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Judd Gregg, withdrew his nomination for that office to return to his post as a leading Republican Senator.  This happened yesterday.  The reasons he left were basic ideological differences with the current administration over the stimulus bill and the national census.

The Census Bureau is under the provenance of the Commerce Department and controls such things as electoral votes (yes, those things that determine Presidents), appropriations, the number of Representatives in the House, and if skewed, even the party make up of those representatives.  Under the Commerce Department how these numbers are arrived at must be made public record.

What President Obama is attempting to do, and one of the reasons Sen. Gregg left, is to bring the Census under Rahm Emmanuel, his White House Chief of Staff, where NO TRANSPARENCY is required.

Instead of actual head-counting of every person in the United States, computer "sampling" can be used.  But the truth of the matter is the American public will have no way of knowing how their numbers are arrived at, virtually guaranteeing corruption at best, and rigging elections and the other matters determined by the census numbers at worst.

To put it simply, the President is not acting like the President of the United States, who controls the Executive Branch of government, but who does not control the other two branches, the Congress and the Supreme Court.   He is wielding the Executive Order as a formidable sword of Royal Decree, and he is doing it to disrupt the balance of power. 

If we allow this to continue, King Obama will have effectively changed (oh, yes, he did promise change) our republic into a kingdom of socialism, communism, or an absolute monarchy.

With the Democrats holding the majorities in both the House and Senate, the Republicans and Independents can do only so much without the support of principled and courageous members from the other side of the aisle, who serve the Constitution of the United States and their consciences before their pockets and political aspirations.  We NEED MEN AND WOMEN OF PRINCIPLE MORE THAN EVER.

Obama uses stick and carrot equally well:  threats that your political career will end if you do not go along with him are paired with promises of political clout and passage of favorite projects if you do, or so it would seem from his speeches and from the remarks of those who have crossed lines to support the insupportable.

As we have seen, many of those in Congress are more interested in their Pary and their pockets to stand up for what is RIGHT, or are too cowardly to vote no, when the bill in question is WRONG.  The corruption in Congress has been exposed and openly ignored.

Change is what you make of it.  So far, Obama has changed this country for the worse with more coming.  The Census is just the first of many--of course, we're not counting the so-called "stimulus" package, which is a travesty of obfuscation, taxation, and debt in the trillions of dollars.

TRANSPARENCY?  OBAMA HAS BANISHED IT FROM HIS (yes, HIS) WHITE HOUSE.  If we don't stop him now, there will be no chance to in 2010.  Why?  Because the manipulation of the Census will guarantee that he will win again.  Mark my words:  this is not a man who intends to lead and cooperate.  He intends to Rule!

Call your Congressmen and women; march on whatever government agencies you have; make your voices heard, before they are silenced....

President Obama Is Deceived: He Thinks He's An Absolute Monarch

I have never seen any President of the United States who has done more damage in his first month in office. President Obama believes the Executive Order constitutes a Royal Decree, and he has used it to garner power.

Did you know that Obama has now put the Census Bureau under his White House Chief Of Staff? (It was not widely reported.)

 Do you know that Acorn is getting money from the so-called "stimulus bill" just passed by two votes in the Senate? (You have to read the bill for yourself to believe what's in it. What's not? Stimulus.)

 Have you ever seen so many corrupt politicians in any cabinet? Proven tax-evaders, like Geithner,Secretary of the Treasury, now hold the purse strings. And what a purse it is! Trillions--yes, folks, trillions--of money is now in the hands of a man who refused or forgot or simply couldn't decipher the tax code (right) enough to pay his own taxes on "consulting fees." He did manage to take the reimbursement checks which the company provided to pay those taxes and put them into his own pocket, still without paying the taxes they were intended to pay.

 Then there are more--some who've resigned their nominations because their failures to pay taxes were even greater. Of course, there's Charles Rangel, a tax-evader of the First Stripe, who has yet to do anything to rectify his own problems with the IRS. But now, the IRS is under Geithner. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house!

And who's at the top of all these nominations? King Obama. I suppose you can take the boy out of corrupt Illionois politics, but you can't take the corrupt politics out of the boy, er President or Monarch.

I'll say this for him--Obama, that is: he's crafty. He uses the Executive Order like a sharp sword.

 He says that his message is one of "hope" then everywhere delivers his messages of "catastrophe" if we don't ACT NOW, even if it's wrong! Then he blames it all on the Bush Administration.

 Unbelievable, but then there are many who are so blind that they will not see what is going on. His every word is music to their ears, instead of the sound of the needle ruining an old vinyl record as it makes its deep scratch. Like that needle, he moves swiftly, carving into the very fabric of our Constitution and leaving us with socialism. Yes, I said socialism, and I'm being kind to stop there.

Greed is a disease; power is fatal--to the one who wields it poorly as well as to the nation who is governed by him. It is not yet too late.

 But AMERICA WAKE UP! If you do not, when you do, you'll wake up to a country you do not recognize, did not want, but can't leave.

The Republicans put up a united front in the House; I hope and pray that they will do so again and that those enlightened Democrats and Independents will join them.

 In the Senate, three senators "let their side down," but more than that, they let our country down. And they did it knowingly. The two naive senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins, were easy prey it seems. But I expected more from Sen. Specter who is up for re-election in 2010.

Sen. Specter, you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by taking a stand against this waste! As it stands now, your own state is calling for your head on a plate.

I also feel compelled to tell those Members of the Senate who prate about "constituents" that in matters like these, matters which affect every human being in this nation, constituency comprises the entire population of the US, not just the people in your state or district.

 I urge every elected official in state or federal posts to take heed and cast your votes for the right things, instead of for your own glory. Glory fades quickly.

 If I sound like I'm all doom and gloom...I am. I see no light here--just a bunch of cronyism and power-mad politicians eager to curry favor with the king.

Is the World Going to Hell in a Hand-basket?

(Sorry to have been absent for so long--selling CDs, we now have US and Canadian national distribution.)

Have any of you noticed the difference/similarity in certain aspects of our cultural and societal concerns, say to that of ancient Greece, Rome, and the once great Egyptian and Persian civilizations?

I've been struck by the plethora of occult themes, sex--though the subject has always been with us--has never been so prolific in every media outlet, even hard news, a tolerance to the point of apathetic numbness to things which would never have been mentioned a few years ago, to outright celebration of almost every abberation with which I can hope never to hear, see, or come into contact.

Nothing is sacred, not even the sacred.

Personal hygiene for both men and women is expored so graphically in TV commercials that I doubt anyone could be ignorant of E.D. or anything pertaining to a woman's reproductive cycle.

That MAN (or WOMAN) is in practice, if not in fact, his or her own god has been creeping into our collective psyches since Darwinian debates, but even those who profess to believe in God or some "Higher Being" acts as if they are their own HB.

I've seen--just on TV--the Nephilim (if you don't know who and what they are, look it up), mediums poke out of every nook and cranny, and reincarnation has taken the place of evolution as the next great theory which has no proof. The End of the World, discussed endlessly, has taken all forms but the right one, but no one really takes the possibility of a Christian Rapture or Christ's return seriously.

I've now experienced Wicca as a true religion. Freedom of religion has been taken out of the original context of protecting our citizens from state-imposed religion to an "anything goes" stance.

Critics of this slippery slope greased with apostasy and deciet are derided, labeled, and sometimes actually killed.

I thought I'd heard of every preposterous religion--I mean there are some out there which are really OUT THERE--but along comes Scientology, invented by L. Ron Hubbard, a former science fiction writer who declared that the way to really become rich was to invent a religion--a feat which he has evidently accomplished beyond even his imagined beyond. (Even the script of "Boston Legal" treated this with derision, and I must say, that's a huge step in the right--no puns intended--direction.)

P.T. Barnum said fools are born every minute, and I'd hate to been counted as one when the Lord Jesus Christ comes and says, "I never knew you." Chills overcome me with dread of being deceived by the current theologies buzzing in our atmosphere like so many flies, for I was once exactly in that sinking boat.

Look to history and the falls of the great empires. Note the parallels and search your own mind. I wouldn't dream of filling your heads full of evidence, since most are so certain their myths are fact, and they must find out for themselves.

I just hope it is not too late.

My Take on Katrina

The "Wall Street Journal" ran a poll yesterday asking that question: Should New Orleans be rebuilt in its orginal location? The overwhelming answer was no.

I've been reluctant to begin a blog on New Orleans, mainly because I've such mixed feelings. I feel for those who have lost their homes and businesses, who are searching for loved ones, who have lost loved ones and everything thing else they held dear.

However, as unpopular as it may be to say this, I have heard too much griping, seen too much corruption within New Orleans and Louisianna, and have been appalled at the lack of understanding of what actually happened there.

Katrina hit Gulfport, Mississippi, and Biloxi. Orginally everyone thought New Orleans had dodged the bullet. So rescue efforts rightly centered on Biloxi, Pas Christien, and Gulfport. Then Lake Pontchartrain's levees, which should have been fixed 15 years ago, and which could not have been made to withstand Katrina's storm surge and wind in the time so many have touted, broke: "We knew one year ago that the levees wouldn't hold, if this happened."

Well, sorry, but you knew 25 years ago and did nothing. The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers said, "This is a non-partisan problem, covering many presidencies. There was nothing President Bush could have done in the entire time he's been in office to stop this thing from happening."

Yet, we hear how the federal government failed us and the people of the Gulf Coast. We hear how Ivan and Dennis and Frances were on the recovery track as soon as the storm moved.

Well, people, you could get to those cities. The roads were intact. Not so in New Orleans.

It had flooded, as predicted in worse case scenarios. I-10 was gone in some places; bridges were gone. The airport was closed until they opened one runway used for aid coming in.

Helicopters and their crews risked their lives, being shot at occasionally, dodging downed electrical wires, polluted water, flying 24/7 to help people. The National Guard was dispatched, and I'm sorry, but it takes a while to train those people to handle this kind of disaster and move them, and they can't be called out and moved into a state without its permission. So it took a few days.

New Orleans had buses which could have been used to transport the poor and disabled out before the storm struck. They chose to let them sit in a place which they knew could be compromised by a storm of this magnitude. Buses which are now underwater. So other buses from other states had to be found, and coordinated, and places in other states had to be found to house the refugees.

The Red Cross, several private charitable organizations began immediately and were stymied because they could not get to New Orleans.

People in New Orleans shot at rescuers in a truck who were trying to help those in hospitals - children. And the doctors inside, whose morgue was in the basement and flooded, wondered where the rescuers were and why people were not helping.

Meanwhile, three navy ships were sent to the Gulf to help with rescue efforts, a hospital ship was sent; the Coast Guard was called in, and all I heard was how the federal government was to blame.

Really?

Did the federal goverment cause Katrina? Did it cause the continuing warnings of 25 years ago to go unheeded just in President's Bush's term? Did the people of New Orleans think they were exempt?

To rebuild New Orleans in the same disastrous place is foolhardy. "But we want the 'Big Easy' back!" Well, people, the 'Big Easy' isn't easy anymore. The wetlands which should never have been drained are back. The Mississippi River has been ruined by years of mismanagement.

You will never have New Orleans as it was back again.

If people are smart, they will try to move the spirit of the place, the salvageable architecture of the place, to somewhere else on higher ground.

I have hesitated to give money. I watched what happened to the money sent to the victims of the Tsunami. I'm waiting to see what and where it's needed and who needs it most.

People I know; people who need new jobs, a new start.

Did we really think that we could stop natural disasters?

I live in Oklahoma. Ask anyone here if they could stop tornadoes.

Ask the people in the paths of flash floods, mudslides, earthquakes. The best thing you can do, especially when you have as much warning as people in the paths of hurricanes do, instead of the minutes or seconds warning that we have with these other disasters, is to get out of their way, which is sometimes impossible, or hold on in the safest place you can find and hope you live through it.

This hubris reminds me of Xerxes, who had his soldiers whip the Hellespont because it broke his bridge to the Greeks. He was insane. And the Hellespont just kept on flowing, just like the Mississippi.

Am I angry? You bet I am.

Compassion is overflowing in America, and some of the most vocal people are ranting that they haven't gotten enough; they haven't been given enough; everyone's to blame but the people who neglected to protect New Orleans in the first place.

You have your lives. Many lost theirs. And you're shooting at, and ranting against the very people who've come to help you, one of whom is my 21-year old niece who just got married two weeks ago.

Terrorism & Fear

Today is July 7, 2005, and the terrorists have hit London, just as the G 8 Conference in Gleneagle, Scotland was beginning. Why?

There is no why, unless you are as evil and mad as those who committed these acts and those in Madrid, New York, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Of course, there are many more atrocities committed each day in other countries by people who say they do it for "God" or "Allah" or some "cause." But the truth is that they do it because, if not totally deceived, they are just evil.

Their purpose is to destroy and create FEAR wherever they attack. Fear.... Fear is the greatest enemy of mankind, for it keeps us from doing things we would otherwise do and enjoy.

Long ago, I made a vow to myself (and I know what real fear is) that if I feared a thing, I would not let it stop me, no matter what the consequences to myself.

September 11, 2001, caused the USA to fear to take planes without taking precautions which now border on subjugating our Rights, under the US Bill of Rights.

Fear robs us of action of enjoying the world God made for us to enjoy.

I don't fear death; I fear inaction when faced with someone who's intent on harming me or those around me. Lambs to the slaughter is far more terrifying to me than the wolf who attacks the flock.

I say: Do not let these People of the Lie and of Fear and of Death defeat you with their tactics. We are greater than Evil. Though Evil will sometimes win; it will not always win; and in the end, it will be defeated beyond its comprehension.

Londoners have faced worse than this during WWII; America has faced worse than this in the Revolutionary, French & Indian Wars, and in the horrendous Civil War which pitted brother against brother.

Make no mistake, this is a WAR. It is a war not against any country, but against the evil behind the terrorist attacks.

London is not the only one called to stand up and face fear: the entire world rises in rage and anger and courage and strength to fight this evil which threatens us on every hand.

So, be not afraid. Terrorists strike when and where no one thinks they will. How can you prepare? BE NOT AFRAID whatever may come, and when it comes, for it will, take your stand; hold your head high; and charge as one who has no fear. Whatever the outcome, you will have prevailed.

Schiavo Autopsy Exonerates Husband

Well, as most of you already know, Terri Schiavo's autopsy has been completed. She was found to be in a persistent vegitative state, totally blind, with a brain half the size expected, and no signs of trauma.

BUT it seems this is still not good enough for her parents, who continue to want to tie up the courts, the government, and Michael Schiavo.

Isn't there some way to prosecute people who just waste the courts' time on frivolous suits?

I am saddened to report that the President and Congress, according to what I hope are erroneous reports, are still not regretting their ill-advised interference in this case. Good Grief! What does it take!

And, I just got a letter from the Republicans asking me for money. I told them, when they got back to being Republicans and not a second before.

GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES, MR. PRESIDENT, AND RESTORE OUR RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ERODED BY SO-CALLED "SECURITY MEASURES."

Prognostication, Providence, and Pudding Proof

You see something, then turn around and read something, then hear something, and CLICK!--epiphany!

For some of us cursed with synthesis, this happens a lot. But lately some things have been happening which for us who synthesize make us wonder if all these seemingly disparate parts don't combine to form a message for our global generation: We have grown lazy. We have become the land of lotus eaters, and we dream that we have not.

Not to worry...I'm not a radical nut who's preaching THE END OF THE WORLD. Heck, I'm not even going to advocate selling everything you have, leaving it in my tender care--I'd take care of it; you can trust me--climbing some mountaintop to wait for the Mother Ship or the Messiah (He's not there yet) or even buying out the local stores for food and water to keep you through the DARKNESS AHEAD. (Shouldn't someone have a monster playing a dirge at a huge organ here?)

I'll join you in the deep end, and it's getting very deep indeed.

Politics, religion, and television have occupied my mind a lot, along with "great minds" discussing the "ethics of blogging" at the January Harvard conference, "Blogging, Journalism & Credibility." They have much in common. (For the link, check with Jessica Mintz at the Wall Street Journal. The one I had doesn't seem to work anymore, but here it is: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu.webcred/.)

Experiences--the problems or lack thereof concerning TV and, in a broader sense, all communication avenues; the old TV news adage, "what bleeds, leads;" Dr. James Dobson's concern over programming, which not only borders on censorship, but crosses the line; the overwhelming time taken up by ads on TV over actual content--lead me to ask: where is the general populace, not to mention journalists and our government's leaders, getting accurate information?

I got a Master's in Journalism/Mass Communication when I was 36. I wondered why my fellow students, all much younger than I, couldn't quite grasp the concept of "objective reporting" and of journalists being the "watchdog" for the people.

I didn't understand how they could read The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and come away with the singular idea that it protected only freedom of the press and of speech.

The answer finally dawned on me when I was having coffee in the Union with a few students: they chose to be journalists to "change the world" and to "teach" people what they "needed" to know.

Well, that does explain a lot, doesn't it? It seems that the leaders in our government now believe the same thing.

I subscribe to a polling station called "The Polling Station" http://pheedo.com/pollingstation/, and on Jan. 25, 2005, Jack Dinkmeyer commented regarding a poll testing people's actual knowledge of who was involved and what happened on 9/11. The results of the poll were all over the place, meaning no one knew much about anything. Dinkmeyer attributed this to what he deemed "The Tolstoy Syndrome." He then quoted (I'm sorry I don't know the direct source) from Leo Tolstoy:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Experience and observation has taught me that this statement is a truism: The one thing most people cannot abide is admitting that they are wrong about something they have long held to be true, factual or not.

TV, advertising, communication media in general pander to this dictum in most instances--first telling the "masses" what they "should think," backing it up with so-called "facts," and tying it all up into a well-produced, well-written, well-spoken, well-designed package. The result? Few, if any, bother to question the validity of what is being stated, seen, read--what, in short, fills the spoon with which they are fed.

Well, I am not one of them, I'm saddened to say. Why saddened? Because my belief in the leaders of my country, the Republican Party, and our President seems to have been delusional.

I honestly believed I would never hear Republicans supporting actual expansion of federal governmental power to the detriment of their constituents, from whom they derive their power. (I believe they've forgotten that part, along with large chunks of our Constitution.)

To hear Tom DeLay, a professing Christian--"professing" is the operative word here; see my blog on "People Who Give Christianity a Bad Name"--ranting about "activist judges," the unimportance of our judicial system and those who sit as judges, and to find out this man is accused of gross impropriety and misuse of federal funds, whose own party fights to drown the din of protests against his and others' actions of late more than saddens me, it sickens me.

I was wrong. So I'm taking action, as are many of my friends and family, and changing registration from Republican to Independent. I will not associate my name with a party of hypocrites, especially one espousing "Christian values" while making a mockery of the phrase. I know there are many in the Republican Party who are not hypocrites, but staying within it at this time is not a good thing, nor will it change the others. Read Tolstoy's remark above.

Neither is it a time to keep silent. If your voice is not heard now, with all the talk about censorship, creating standards of "decency," and doing away with the time-honored practice of filibuster in the Senate, soon you may be unable to speak at all.

But beware when you speak; there are consequences:

"If you want to say what you think, you shouldn't have the notion that it's not going to cost anything at all, because that would get you into surrealism very quickly. If the notion is that when you say something you want to make a slight change of the given, then you should expect the given will push back one way or the other." --Norman Mailer in "Norman Mailer, A Literary Lion Roars" by Carloyn T. Hughes, an interview published online in a 2005 issue of Poets & Writers Magazine http://www.pw.org/mag/hughes.htm/.

Communication as it once whas thought of--the free exchange and dissemination of ideas for debate and the discovery of the truth of a matter or of a relationship or of a belief--has ceased to exist except in emails, the rare personal note, even rarer letter or phone call, and in this new world of blogs--even there you must choose with care.

What are we being taught? Greed is good; mass consumption of goods is better; all "legal" drugs are good, except when they're not, so call your doctor and ask them what the drug we're advertising is for. Truth in advertising is an "all's fair in love and war" concept, which means I can lie to you as long as I'm not caught, and by that time, you've probably been "branded."

Great literature, performances, and stories are not worth watching unless interrupted for "breaks"--ad people run ads during this time, while most people run for food or take bathroom breaks.

We're taught that short attention spans are better. In fact everything short is better, with a couple of exceptions.... (What was Kevin Costner thinking making a movie that lasted more than 120 minutes? And thank God we didn't have to see all three books of the "Lord of the Rings" in the same year! It was hard enough sitting through one that overreached the 120 minute mark! And, now, good grief! "Harry Potter" over seven years!)

TV schedules are more important than just about anything else in a newspaper. The rest of our time should be spent working, shopping, and getting groceries so we can watch.

Thirty-minute TV shows equal-22 minute stories, if you're lucky. The ratio of showtime to adtime decreases as the total length of the "story" increases.

It's simpler to stay at home and watch TV than to go out; it's simpler to rent DVDs (guilty), skip the commercials, and stay at home. It's simpler to buy fast food or "prepackaged meals" than to cook. (Heaven forbid we would have to sit in the dining room and talk while the TV beckons. Family time? Isn't that watching TV together?)

And please...don't read the book if the movie version is out.

So I'm taking my stand: I'm going to call those who call themselves "Christians" to account and to act like it or be exposed for the "wolves in sheeps' clothing" they are; I'm going to buy books and read them; I'm going to read a lot of newspapers and cram all the news I can get into my head; I'm only going to watch TV if it's really good stuff (that will cut my watching time down considerably); I'm going to say exactly what I think without fear; I'm going to write my leaders and tell them what I think, and I'm going to yell what I know is True from the mountaintops, if need be, realizing there will be consequences:

We have grown lazy. We have become the land of lotus eaters, and we dream that we have not.

This Is Important, People

An end in sight? With the Schindlers who knows? But the U.S. Supreme Court has once more refused to rule in the Schiavo's case, meaning the lower court rulings stand.

I have to say I am concerned about the smelly, lake bottom this furor has turned up.

This is the first time in my life when I find myself siding with Democrats. I'm a life-long Republican, as you know by now, and I'm sorry, but the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania sounded more like a Democrat than a Republican.

Since when does the federal government determine and intervene in a civil case affecting one person's life? Since when does the Congress ignore the Constitution and insist on "a de novo case," meaning go back and start over in the federal courts and ignore 15 years of litigation and medical evidence?

The rapidity and urgency of the Schiavo case nullified any possible Supreme Court review of the constitutionality of the legislation. A fact that seems to escape most people, and which seems not to matter much to the rest.

It matters.

I've said things are upside down and topsy-turvy, but it's more than that. This case, which should never have been aired publicly in the first place, has blurred so many lines among the federal government's role, the federal courts and the state courts judicial areas, federal versus state's rights, medical and religious issues, that the only ones who seem to adhere to some form of sanity number very few, who put emotion aside to deal with the facts of the case, not what they wish were the facts of the case.

This case turns my world on its head. Black becomes white, and white slowly changes to black.

Spiritual "leaders" rant like lunatics (I can't name names, but you've seen them); Michael Schiavo, who has acted well during this entire circus, is slandered, vilified, and called a "murderer" for sticking by Terri for 15 years, long after she ceased to know anything. Her responses are not conscious; they are reflexes. How much easier would it have been to just walk away and let the Schindlers deal with the trauma?

But he didn't. Why? Because if he did, he knew that Terri's parents would ignore her wish that she not live this way.

I have heard Terri's mode of death termed "starving" and "dehydration," "cruel and unusual," by people who should know better. How much more do you need air to breathe? Yet no one screams when a respirator is turned off and/or IV tubes are removed.

She is not in pain. How do I know? Because I've sat and watched my grandmother, who was conscious until a brain tumor overcame her faculties, die in the same way for six long weeks after the feeding tube and water were removed. Was she fighting for her life? No, she was trying to let go of her body.

Terri cannot swallow. You want to leave her death to God? Then let Him decide when to take her. Right now, everyone in that so-called "vigil" outside the hospice is trying to interfere with God's will. Trust me, if He doesn't want her to go, He can heal her with or without any extraneous or heroic efforts.

Some people hate "Christians" for this very kind of emotional and vitriolic display. You who are really Christians, stop! You are not witnessing for Christ; you are making a mockery of it and of my beliefs by saying and doing things that are not Christian at all.

I look at this mess, and I see planted the seeds of destruction for my country.

Wake up, PEOPLE! When chaos and emotion take over, order goes out the door, and the "rule of Law" becomes nothing but a nice phrase having no meaning.

This matter boils down to much more than one woman's desire to die with dignity, without the heroic measures which keep the body alive while the spirit longs to leave. It is about who we are and what America stands for.

Everywhere basic rights, guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and in the Constitution of United States, are eroding. We are willing to sell our birthright, bought with the blood of countless individuals over the last 400 years, for a mess of "safeguards" and "safety measures." Beware that the Freedom which we teach and preach in other countries and which so many have fought and died for is not bargained away in bits and pieces.

If you do nothing, you have contributed to our demise and to your own.

In The Book of the Revelation to John while John was in exile on the island of Patmos, Jesus Christ said to the Laodicean Church:

"The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God says this: 'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eyesalve to anoint your eyes, that you may see.

'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me.

'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Revelation 3: 14-22 (NASV).

Immediately before dictating the letter to Laodicea, Christ dictated a letter to the church in Philadelphia.

I personally believe that these two churches represent the two kinds of "Christianity" left on earth before the Great Tribulation begins. When Christ comes for His Church, "churches" will still be doing a brisk business with most pews filled.

To Philadelphia Jesus Christ writes: "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: 'I know your deeds. Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied my Name.

'Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie--behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you. Because you have kept the word of My perserverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.

'I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it any more; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which come down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'"--Rev. 3: 7- 13 (NASV)

Notice the choice set before you. It is choice, not coercion. Even if you choose to reject this, it is by your choice that you do it.

Make no mistake: this is a choice that needs to be made now, for who knows what tonight or tomorrow may bring?

I shall leave you with one more quotation from 2 Peter 3: 3-9:

"Know this first of all that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.' For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

'But the present heaven and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

'But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.'"--NASV

For those of you wondering why I am talking about the "last days," and making such a big deal out of this, read Matthew 24 and following. Pay particular attention to the "Parable of the Fig Tree." Even this Spring, it is putting forth leaves.

Not Over Yet...Yes, Schiavo's Parents Do It Again

Well, there was hope for ending this saga...but now, the Schindlers have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court once again to have Terri's feeding tube reinserted.

Will nothing stop these people?

Perhaps they heard Justice Clarence Thomas's clerk on "The Abrams Report" and think they might have a chance. Here's hoping the prevailing wisdom of the Supreme Court holds firm, and they refuse to continue this madness.

Postcript to "Ripley"

In a follow-up article, "Federal Court Again Refuses to Intervene," by Ron Word, AP, March 30, 2005, 15:44 EST, Word reported yet another refusal by the 11th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals to hear any further arguments in the Schiavo case.

Word quotes Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr.: "Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper... ."..."While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate dischage of duty." Amen!

Let us fervently hope that this ends this seemingly endless saga.

I must add a "Yea, for sanity in the courts!" here.

It appears that Judge Birch also took the President and members of Congress to task as well. (Huzzah!)

While giving them more credit for altruism than I would, Judge Birch said, "...it is my judgment that...the legisilative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution." (Source: see above.)

It's nice to know that my opinions on these weighty legal matters are actually held by some members of the courts. Our Founding Fathers would be proud!

Well done, judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals!

(Gee, it feels good to say that.)

Believe It or Not, Ripley Is Watching This One

Yesterday added a new chapter to the lunacy surrounding the Schiavo case: Her parents are now selling the list of donors who contributed to their fight to "keep Terri alive." His reasoning? (I'm paraphrasing): Things like this cost money. Really? I wonder who pays the bills for other patients in the same condition, or their legal fees, for that matter.

This was followed by offers of videos of the dying Terri for only $100 each, although I do not think her father instigated that one.

I'll agree with Dan Abrams of "The Abrams Report" on MSNBC last night (March 29, 2005) and say with him that these actions are "dispicable."

Makes you think that Brian Schiavo, Michael's brother, in an interview on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," wasn't exaggerating about the disagreement regarding Terri's care and "final wishes," which he stated began with a falling out with Mr. Schindler about money.

And Jesse Jackson was everywhere. It's difficult to imagine what religion the man actually believes in when he seems so able to go from being Michael Jackson's spiritual advisor (Jackson is an avowed Jehovah's Witness) to advising the Shindlers, avowed Roman Catholics... .

And then today I read--oh yes--an Associated Press Ariticle by Ron Word released about 10 a.m. CST: "Court to Weigh Schiavo Emergency Motion."

In this most recent travesty of justice and assault on Terri's dignity, Word reports: "A federal appeals court agreed to consider an emergency bid by Terri Schiavo's parents for a new hearing on whether to reconnect her feeding tube... ."

This allowed the Schindler's to file; it did not promise to grant the hearing. According to Word's article, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' deadline for final filings had been March 26th, but..."Its one-sentence order said: 'The Appellant's emergency motion for leave to file out of time is granted.'"

What possible grounds would they have now? Oh, but I left out creativity. This time the Schindlers argue "...that a federal judge in Tampa should have onsidered the entire state court record and not whether previous Florida court rulings met legal standards under state law..."(and)"...that the Atlanta federal appellate court didn't consider whether there was enough 'clear and convincing' evidence that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to die in her current condition."

I wonder how much more evidence one needs?

Ms. Schiavo has been disconnected from life support systems for 13 days. One wonders what "life" she could be restored to, as several well-known neurologists, who have thoroughly examined Schiavo, say she lacks brainwave function and has not had any brainwave function since 2002. (I listened to a dissenting view from another neurologist who has not examined Terri say that lack of brainwave function was not the issue, while contradicting the neurologist who had examined her. I also listened to several other experts who had recently examined Terri who said the same thing as the first. But they're only experts, right? The predominance of neurologists on their side can't outweigh the diagnoses of the one or two others, who've never examined Ms. Schiavo, can it?)

People who think a miracle will happen if Terri's feeding tube and water are restored lack faith in my opinion. If a miracle is a miracle, then God doesn't need any help from technology to restore Terri. Remember Lazarus?

Please...leave this poor woman to die in peace!

I am amazed at Michael Schiavo's forebearance. I'd be livid by now. His graciousness and willingness to allow an autopsy after his wife dies and before Terri's cremation is beyond the call. And I'm thrilled he's having her cremated. With all of this "Terri is Jesus...I thirst" sacrilege, the next thing would be "harvesting" Terri's organs, which would, no doubt, then become religious relics.

All this is a media circus with hoopla outside of the hospice where, evidently forgotten by those outside, other terminally ill people are fighting for their lives or a peaceful death. Where is the extra money for them, Right-to-Lifers? Excuse me, but you are giving "Right to Life" a bad name. Conservative Christians are being ridiculed because of you. Republicans are losing the support of their base because of this idiocy.

Emotions always run high in families where a loved one is dying. But I've never seen anything as crass, self-serving, political, and money-grubbing as this sideshow.

Ripley wouldn't have believed this.

The Government, the Courts, and You

Quote of the day:

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." --Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787.

I hope everyone has caught the news lately. Fascinating stuff happening, and most of it will have great impact on our lives...if not now, then soon.

Did you read that the courts recently determined bloggers, i.e., people like me, are not to be afforded the same protections under the law that "real journalists" are afforded? That applies even if you happen to be regularly employed as one in another area of journalism. We, bloggers that is, are being forced to reveal sources that other journalists would not have to. (See Apple Computer v. Doe No. 1 et al and the following appeals.)

Don't get me wrong. Too many times journalists hide behind "unnamed" or "confidential sources" to say and report anything. However, I'm speaking here of legitimate journalistic practices as taught at say...Columbia?

So, let's assume that some bloggers are legitimate journalists following in the best ethical traditions of the profession. It would then seem that if they write like journalists, even if they happen to write what are now considered "blogs," and they act like ethical journalists, then they should be accorded the same Constitutional rights and legal protections, with their attendant legal penalties, as "working" journalists.

This, according to the courts, is not to be. Their logic seems based on a faulty foundation. All bloggers are not journalists; Keith Olbermann writes a blog; therefore, Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. Please. (I just picked Olbermann's name out of the air; I could have picked Dan Abrams or anyone else.)

I would agree that some standards of journalism should be applied to certain kinds of blogs. (There are different kinds, you know.) A diarist, for example, should not to be held to the same standards as someone writing an investigative piece for the Wall Street Journal. However, bloggers who comment on current events, politics, other topics which would normally fall within the scope of any reputable newspaper, e.g., reviews, op-ed pieces, features, gossip columns, etc., should be aware of the ethical norms for those kinds of topics and follow certain guidelines, such as: libel laws and how they apply, quoting sources accurately, and not engaging in vitriol for the fun of it.

But to paint all bloggers as non-journalists regardless of topic or writing quality smacks of paternalism. If withdrawing protections of free speech and free press from bloggers is Constitutional, (please refer to my piece on bloggers as the new journalists, much as the scandal sheets of the 18th Century referred to in William Safire's novel, The Scandalmongers), then are we also subject to the same tort laws which govern such things as libel?

It seems to me that the courts can't have it both ways: Either distinctions with public standards for any blogger who want to be accorded "journalist" status need to be decided, defined, and disseminated widely, or bloggers in general should be given the First Amendment Rights of free speech, without worrying about the freedom of the press restrictions and privileges.

Then to add to the complexity of the conundrum along comes a Pennsylvania civil case in which a newspaper journalist accurately quoting slanderous remarks of a borough councilman against another councilman and a mayor is sued, along with his paper. The lower court judge said the borough councilman owed the other two men money, but said that the paper and its reporter were not liable under a widely accepted "neutral reporting privilege" which allows members of the media to report a credible public person's defamatory remarks, as long as those remarks are conveyed neutrally and accurately. (Source: The Wall Street Journal, (WSJ), AP article, "Justices Let Stand Ruling Rejecting Journalist Privilege," March 28, 2005.)

The two allegedly aggrieved men appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which overturned the lower court's ruling. The Court stated that "no such privilege exists under U.S. or Pennsylvania constitutions," and ordered a new trial to decide the journalists' liability under an "actual malice" standard..." (Same source.)

The newspaper appealed the case, now called Troy Publishing Co. v. Norton and Wolfe, to the U. S. Supreme Court which allowed the lower court's ruling to stand. That ruling "asserted that journalists lack constitutional protections allowing them to safely report defamatory comments made by public figures, even when the comments are described in a neutral way." (Same source.)

So as things now stand, journalists, i.e., by definition non-bloggers, in quoting the slanderous remarks by both sides of a controversy may now find themselves guilty of the defamatory statements they quoted. It is yet to be decided whether or not the standard of "actual malice" should also be applied and what that verdict will yield.

Excuse me. How are these rulings possible? If I am a reporter covering an election and report potentially slanderous claims one candidate makes against the other candidate or candidates, and I then turn around and give the other side their chance to rebut, and they do, and I report their rebuttal remarks exactly, am I then to worry about whether I am going to be sued for their slanders or even libel because I accurately reported their remarks? Preposterous, right? Not anymore.

Does anyone remember the CBS debacle concerning certain falsified documents regarding President Bush's service record? Who broke the story that the documents were false? A blogger. But now the blogger is not accorded the status of journalist, while the reporters involved in the false reporting are still considered journalists.

I'm feeling like I've been on a merry-go-round too long...a bit queasy.

The Congress takes a civil case away from the state courts, puts it into the federal system, only to have the lower courts upheld. Then we see it begin again with even less credible claims than before.

Anyone recognize the Schiavo case? And I thought it was all over, but I was wrong. More today.

My point is, if I can stop reeling long enough to sharpen it, that lines are being blurred that should not be. Definitions, duties, decisions become a gumbo of wrong-thinking by people whose responsibilities for those actions lie elsewhere.

Courts making laws, lawmakers acting like courts on no evidence but emotion, and logic and reason are out the door with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights being dragged out with them.

Thomas Jefferson warned:

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."--Letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820.

People Who Give Biblical Christianity a Bad Name

I once had a wonderful English Literature Professor during my years in graduate school at the University of Oklahoma. I shall not mention his name, because he and I were great friends, and his nature would not brook puffery. I shall refer to him as The Professor.

He served, dear man, on my doctoral committee, though we often disagreed. Suffice it to say, he was a Jew, and I was then, and am now, a biblical Christian.

His subject was Charles Dickens, upon whose fiction I doted. I had written a paper on David Copperfield, in which I had found Christian symbology. He, a Freudian, disagreed, and asked me to rewrite the paper. I did. It was called, "If Not God, Then Agnes." I got an A.

Shortly after this incident, The Professor called me into his office. I sat down. He asked: "What kind of Christian are you? I don't understand you at all."

I laughed. I understood him all too well. And I replied, "I'm a Miltonian Christian. I believe in Grace."

Our talks were often and fun. I never remember his trying to convert me, and I knew it was not my job, nor my place to convert him: In my view, the "Great Commission" is not stuffing theology down someone's throat, but simply "being ready to give an answer."

I came to Christianity in my late twenties. By that time, I had been married to a minister who got his graduate degree in theology from Yale. (Women were not allowed to attend at that time.) I heard all the arguments regarding "inconsistencies," the JEDP Theory (which basically says that whoever was in power at the time of the writing of a certain book, rewrote it to fit their ideology--no "inerrant Scripture" there), and the most horrendous teaching of all: that Christianity and belief in an actual God was the best possible ethical system around, for it kept the masses in order, and so, we (the intellectuals) should continue to provide the masses with this religious crutch, which they so desperately needed.

I learned that "Isaiah" was not written by a prophet named Isaiah, but by three Isaiahs. Why? Because "the prophecies contained in the one book were too accurate to have been written by someone not living at the time." The so-called "miracles" were the products of imagination or attempts to explain something to the ignorant people around them. Jesus didn't walk on water: He walked on a sand bar. Jesus didn't rise from the dead: his disciples came and got him. (Anyone read or hear of The Passover Plot?) Of course the Roman guard stationed beside the tomb to guard it had a small problem, i.e., any one of them would be killed if they fell asleep on the job. But the disciples would have had no problem overcoming them easily, and then rolling away the stone, which had been rolled down an incline to cover the cave in which Jesus lay dead. Of course not.

But maybe after being crucified, tortured, and stabbed by a Roman Centurian to make certain He was dead before he was taken off the cross was just rigged? Surely Jesus was strong enough after all that to simply roll this gigantic bolder uphill from inside, overpower the Roman guard, and heal Himself before telling the disciples it was all just a hoax for the benefit of centuries of fools who would believe anything.

Even the most avid Atheist must see there are definite logical and logistics problems with this mode of thinking.

But that doesn't stop anyone from saying or writing the following: Genesis does not talk about literal 24-hour days, but is an imaginative story to explain the beginnings of things to an ignorant populace spanning several thousands of years. We all know evolution does a much better job...(big knowing smile here from the speaker).

My husband, now deceased, did not believe in God, but he was an ordained minister. In fact a lot of ministers, priests, rabbis I have known do not believe in any God, certainly not the God of the Bible.

All of which brings me to my points--sorry, but there are several.

I am not an idiot, unschooled, ignorant, stupid, easily deceived, or emotional. (You may argue with that later.) I also have no axe to grind, except with those people, whether genuinely deceived (they are myriad), deliberately deceptive, hypocrites, hypocrites who use the name of Christianity to enrich themselves, modern Pharisees, legalists, and some TV evangelists who, if they ever truly intended "to win people for Christ," should have gone about it quietly rather than making themselves and my faith seem ludicrous, money-grubbing, and intolerant of those who most need God's Grace, and last, but not least, those who hold themselves above the "common herd" as authorities, but who hide behind "tolerance" when asked directly what their own credo is.

False prophets abound. It is not surprising; the Bible clearly states that they will come. It also states that many false messiahs will appear, claiming to be the Christ. Cults abound in the name of Christ, leading people down a false highway to ruin and disappointment. (I could name names, but libel laws prevent me. It's difficult to prove Truth to so many who are willing to believe lies.)

So, do I have the corner on Truth? Am I smarter than everyone else? Nope. I'm just a modern day disciple, which doesn't mean I'm anything special; a disciple means a "committed learner." And I am that.

You know what I believe. If you don't, you can read my "Pam's Box Theory: the Theological Version" on this site and find out. Unlike many, I'm not afraid to state my beliefs, even if it means a drop in readership (horrors!) or worse yet, being branded a "fundamentalist."

What I do have is a job to "extract the precious from the worthless," and believe me, there's a lot of worthless out there lately. Trying to find the precious in the dungheaps is not a job for the squeamish. You have to have waders sometimes. But there is a shard of Truth hidden in much of the waste.

This is something you should know: many lies contain a shard of Truth. It's the Truth which makes them believable, so that you walk right into the muck, oblivious that you are not in an apple blossomed lane.

Shall we take a case in point? Why not?

Allison DuBois is a public figure now as well as a psychic or medium; the term is not a problem. Is what she experiences and says real? You bet it is. And it's very real for her, and it is not a fun job. But there are a few problems with what is going on with "The Medium." If we take the TV show as giving us a version of actual psychic happenings, then we see a heroic woman, fighting with unseen forces, trying to figure out why she has this "gift" and what "the purpose" is behind it. She finally decides, even though she doesn't believe in any "religion" necessarily, that it must have been given to her by a "higher power" for a reason. That reason, she soon discovers, is to work with law enforcement people to find where the bodies are buried, who did the crime, foretell events which may or may not come to pass, and she does it all for "good" purposes--to save lives, to give the dead peace, to uncover the truth.

For those of you who think I'm about to condemn her, think again. For one thing, it's not my job. For another, she's honestly doing what she thinks is right.

Deception is not easily detected. Good is used for evil purposes, which the doer never intends.

I'll give you an example from a recent episode of the "Medium" in which DuBois discovers a serial killer, but the problem was that the man she knew did the killings hadn't committed them yet. In fact, he wasn't going to kill anyone for several years. So DuBois confronts him. (I'll have to paraphrase here, since I don't have the script in front of me.) "You may fool these people, but you and I know who you are. I don't know who the fiend is or what happened to you to make you into what you are, but you are this killer. You know you think about these things all of the time. You know you do, and you will do these things. I have warned the girl you plan to kill...." It goes on. But the basic problem is this: DuBois senses that something turns this guy into a killer. It never occurs to her that she and her reputation for never being wrong could be the straw that does it. The powers of suggestion are great. He's just been told in no uncertain terms that he's going to commit these murders. Wouldn't you think about it?

So, at the very least, DuBois has set the factors in motion. Did she intend to? Of course not. Will this guy actually turn into a murderer? The chance is there, but so is free will. She's just made it harder to choose not to kill.

The more publicity, the more her "predictions" come true (Satan can and does cause these things to come to pass so her credibility will grow), the greater the chances are that this man, who's done nothing wrong yet, will, if he doesn't break the chain, become the murderer she foresaw.

The other problem with her "gift" from "a higher power" is that she doesn't seem to be able to save anyone. She knows a lot after the fact. In fact, she gets distracted by one "vision" which keeps her from actually saving an innocent.

I agree with DuBois that her power is from a "higher power." But not all "higher powers" are from God or have anything to do with Him. She admits she is not religious, but feels that her "gift" must have a reason. It does. But it's not the one she hopes for.

How do I know this? I was once an Allison DuBois. My "saving grace" was that I had my "gifts" from birth, and I knew they were terrible. I lived in terror for 27 years of my life, always believing and told by other ligitimate psychics that I was having this terror only because I didn't understand how to use my gift. I went to psychiatrists hoping to be told I was crazy. The result? A sane-as-they-come, card-carrying, lab-tested psychic. Oh joy.

I even had one minister in Connecticut ask me to conduct a seance in his sanctuary. I remember telling him, if he believed that my gift was from God, then he believed in another God than the one I'd always heard of. As it turned out, I was right.

I had the nightmares...always between 3 a.m. and 4 in the morning. I was always accurate with Tarot cards, not so much without. I couldn't walk up to someone and tell them what they were thinking or what they were going to do. But when I knew something, I knew it. Totally. Every detail clear. I knew it before it happened, and always too late to do anything about it. And I had witnesses to "visitors" from the "other side." Yes, other people could see them.

Was I excited about this gift? No. Did I try to study and perfect it, so that I could help? You bet. Did it work? No.

I became a Christian unexpectedly on a visit to Illinois. I was very wary of "evangelicals, fundamentalists, and bible-beaters." I'd been to Yale, remember? I knew the Bible. I also knew that all my prayers to "God" had gone unanswered.

So why did I become a born-again Christian? I found someone who could answer my questions and who made sense. I found out why Jesus wasn't just part of the Trinity but the Way...the ONLY way to "God the Father." And it made sense. Perfect sense. No leap of faith, which I didn't have, required. Besides, I hadn't tried that particular venue yet.

Guess what happened when I actually decided to make a decision to trust that Jesus was Who and What He said he was? Nothing. No flashes of light. No speaking in tongues.

But a week later, a head appeared (not an unusual sight for me, I'm afraid) on my bedside table at--you guessed it--about 3:15 a.m. I said, "Jesus, would you handle this; I'm really tired." I turned over and went to sleep. I didn't realize until the next morning how astounding that was--the first night in my entire life that night didn't hold terror.

I thought, hum, might be something to this. There was. The "gift" was gone. You'd think that if it had come from God, I would have still had it, wouldn't you?

Oh, I still have discernment and know when something odd is going on, but I don't have "visitors" anymore, and I don't, thank God, know the future.

I can see deception when it occurs, however. I know what Satan and his cohorts can do and what they can't. And I know that he uses "good" people to do horrible things in the name of Christ and of God.

In the Bible, 1 John in the New Testament, you will find John's warning: "You shall know them by their fruit." If they profess a faith in Jesus Christ, but they don't act like Him for a long period of time, you can probably make the assumption that they aren't Christians, or that they are, but they are "worse than non-believers" because they are turning their backs on God. It takes more energy to do that when you're a Christian than it does when you aren't, so Christians who do are worse than any non-Christian.

No one is without sin. I once saw a bumper sticker that was actually Biblically accurate: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." And that's it.

I didn't make the bad things go away; Christ did. I didn't become perfect overnight; Christ and the Holy Spirit are in the process of "perfecting" me. I don't save anyone; Jesus Christ died to save everyone (yes, even you).

How does Christianity differ from other "religions?" Christianity says salvation has been accomplished; all you have to do is accept it as a free gift from God. Salvation is DONE. Other religions always have something you must do to earn salvation. (Clue: You can't earn it.)

How does salvation work? I am saved by Grace--that means I don't get what I deserved which was hell--through believing that Jesus did what the Bible says He did. I believe it; He applies that salvation to me. Did I have a lot of faith? Heck no. Remember? It was just something I hadn't tried yet. You're not saved by some magical "gift of faith," as some would have you believe. You're saved by a choice to believe God or not.

Read the Bible for yourselves. I recommend the New American Standard Version. It's not as pretty as the King James' Version; it's not as contemporary as the New International Version, but it is the closest English translation to the original languages as you can get.

Suppose, just for a moment that God really can do ANYTHING; that He can work real MIRACLES; that He transcends Time, so He can Know the FUTURE, Past and Present, without necessarily causing it. It's sort of like my going into space and taking a picture of Earth five years from now. The picture will be true; did I cause it? No, I merely saw it. God has a Plan A...no Plan B...and all the possibilities and probabilities were taken into account before He made it, so you can't mess it up. But you do have free will. He just planned around your choices.

This weekend is Easter. For me, Easter is the most important holiday in the Christian calendar. Read 1 Corinthians 15 and you'll see why.

Happy Easter, everyone.

PS. Comments and real questions are always welcome. I had questions. Lots of them. I expected answers. I didn't get them. But if you ask me, I'll do my very best to answer you or point you to someone who can.

And the Oscar Went to...You're Kidding, Right?

I have a blog in the works which takes, ugh, research, which is why you haven't seen much new on this site in a while. (That could be a good thing....)

However, I feel it incumbant upon me to mention a few things in the meantime. One, if you haven't checked out Harry Webber's website www.madisonavenew.com lately, or ever, rush to do it now. Hey, this man can think, and he's funny. Hummm, Truth and Wit...dynamite combo.

Two, you really need to check out Steve Simonsen's website on left. Click above pic and WHOOSH, you're in the middle of wonderful.

Three, please notice that Jacquie Lawson is ready for St. Pat's Day, as if any of us with more than several drops of the Emerald Isle running in our gene pools aren't. Have a drink on us just by clicking.

OK, enough news: Now to the real issue...the Oscars. Truly I have had to screw my courage to more than a sticking point to tackle these usually delightful displays of silliness, glamour, and cynicism.

Let's face it, Chris Rock, Mayer, the Carson Tribute, Robin Williams's speech, and a few deserving actors, very few, were all that were worth the time.

Let me treat the deserving first: Chris Rock shocked the critics by being tasteful while being dead on funny. (Please Mr. Penn, get a sense of humor. Do you really think that Jude Law was insulted? We all know that Mr. Law can act well. Did you truly think we needed your reassurance? And while I'm speaking to you, Mr. Penn, Kevin Bacon deserved the last award you received, but I'm sure you know that.)

Sorry about that. You see why I had to wait a while before tackling this?

Back to the deserving: Cate Blanchett actually deserved her Best Supporting Actress Award for her portrayal of Kate Hepburn. Well done, Cate! (And I also think you deserved something for "The Missing" along with Tommy Lee Jones, but that's bilge under the bridge.)

Jamie Foxx: Got to hand it to him. He had Ray Charles spot on. The movie wasn't that good, but Jamie Foxx was. Now, tell me why he didn't win for his turn in "Collateral." Oh...wait...I know. Everyone already knew that Foxx was going to get Best Actor. How could I be so dumb?

Annette Benning versus Hilary Swank...again. Look, I happen to think that Hilary deserved a Golden Globe for her performance in "Iron-Jawed Angels," but what do I know? But Annette has given Oscar-winning performances for years. How about her performance in "Open Range"? Oh...forgot...that was a Kevin Costner pic. Forget that. The fact that the film was incredible with an ensemble dream cast and a terrific story no longer matters in Hollywood.

How do I know? Check out "Sideways." Did anyone actually see that movie? The acting, while superb, could not cover the absence of story. Church did a great job, but his character was a total jerk who did nothing but use people, especially his best friend, Giamatti, who, strangely was not nominated for his subtle and tour de force performance. Rave reviews by critics who only wished they could have been on that wine tour; get more therapy, people.

I've loved and admired Clint Eastwood since he was "Rowdy" on "Rawhide." I even liked his singing in "Paint Your Wagon," but please.... Doesn't it seem like anything he's associated with gets a "sentimental Oscar?" These SOs are so plentiful these days, that I wonder why the Academy just doesn't creat a new category for them to honor actors whose contributions to the film industry as a whole deserve recognition, even if they don't really deserve an Oscar that year. I'm not saying that "Million Dollar Baby" wasn't good, but it wasn't GREAT. In fact, I liked "Finding Neverland," and please tell me why Cate Winslet wasn't nominated for her performance in that film, rather than in the "surely-we-can-do-better" film, "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." But perhaps there is a message to be heard there....

Ray Charles...God love him...the man could tear your heart out with his music. I saw him live, and I was simply in awe. But, sorry, the film majored on the worst part of his life. A true downer. Sort of like "The Passion of the Christ" minus the Resurrection. (Mel, why did you leave that out? Sequel?)

Speaking of "The Passion of the Christ," did anyone but Chris Rock and me notice that it wasn't nominated for any category except make-up? Please, people. I thought you guys liked money-making blockbusters. You certainly are quick to jump on Costner or any other filmmaker who 1) goes over budget (unless it's you, of course), 2) makes a movie that might say something important, unless, of course, you agree with the politics even if they're wrong and slanted, or 3) makes a movie over 120 minutes long. What did those people do who had to sit through "Gone With the Wind," "Lawrence of Arabia," "The Ten Commandments," "My Fair Lady," etc.? Or do you simply think the viewing public has no brains and ADD?

Gee...think "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter." And what did you do? You waited for three years to give LOTR the Oscars they'd deserved for all three segments. (Hello? Where were the acting awards in that?) Emma Watson got a nod, and so did the special effects team for Harry Potter, but please...nothing? Are we to wait for all seven years to pass before you hand out Oscars?

Now, since I'm ranting (right, but definitely ranting), please explain why certain actors are never given Oscars when they deserve them every year. I'm talking about people like Kevin Klein, Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgewick, Tom Cruise, Helen Mirren, and Gene Hackman.

Did you see the acting duel between Hackman and Dustin Hoffman in "Runaway Jury?" Hoffman was skewered at Hackman's first subtle flick of his acting foil. Hoffman's lunge? He channeled "Tootsie," but hasn't he been doing that since "Tootsie" came out? Unlike true giants of the screen like Jack Nicholson, he is truly a pigmy.

While I'm stomping on Hoffman, may I point out that Tom Cruise out-acted him from start to finish in "Rainman?" Think about it. How hard is it to play a character who never changes? While Tom underwent every emotional gamut known to man, and he did it with style, an honesty that actually hurt, and the Oscar went to ... that's right. Hoffman. Actually, Tom Cruise gets the short end of the stick most of the time. Why?

I'll go on record and say I can't like Scientology, but surely that can't be holding him back....

Babs, sorry, honey, but I love your singing. Period.

Clint, know I love you, but do something about these great actors who never get the recognition they deserve and the pictures which never get recognized.

Please...what happened to "Finding Forester" and Rob Brown? "Bagger Vance" and Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Robert Redford?

Heck, if we need more Oscars for great pictures, then make them! If all the actors in a film deserve Oscars, then give them all Oscars for ensemble acting.

Forget your politics...keep them to yourselves. Those of us who actually like and study film would be eternally grateful if the Oscars began meaning something besides a popularity contest within the "In Crowd."

Clue: You're not in high school anymore. Grow up.