Instead we should say, "If God wills"

    A friend posted today on social media, “Don’t lose friends over this election.” 

    That gave me pause. 

    Some people are very invested in the state of civic affairs. I used to be one of them. 

    I still have strong views, and when I choose to “take the bait” I’m still very passionate about those views. 

    I can’t ask others to feel less about politics than they do; I cannot ask people to change their principles, values, and beliefs. I can talk, I can argue, and sometimes I might persuade someone to my views. Sometimes I might be convinced of someone else's views. But I realized several elections cycles ago that social media was not my preferred place to have such discussions. 

    As expressed in my friend's post, I don’t want to lose friends or strain relationships with loved ones because of differences in politics and worldview. Or because of the outcome of an election. I think often, at times of great societal divide, of Psalm 2, in which the Psalmist describes the kings and rulers of the world making their plans and having their counsels together against the Lord and His Anointed. He continues with, “He who sits in the heavens shall laugh.” 

    Why does He laugh? In the Psalm, the context is specific to God's eternal kingdom. There's  nothing the rulers of this age can do to undo what Christ has done for us. Apparently, to God, that notions is laughable.

    But we know from other places in Scripture that God does also take an active roll in the regular, everyday lives of the people on earth. (Proverbs 16:9, Proverbs 19:21, Jeremiah 10:23). 

    Pondering the idea of God's providence, of His control over earthly things, and His blessing of the same, I'm reminded of James 4. James starts the chapter talking about disagreements among the readers, and asking where these come from. He then answers with a list of selfish desires. James explains that they don't have these desires because they don't ask. But also that when they do ask, they ask amiss, wanting these things for selfish or evil purposes. 

    This brings me full circle now to my initial reaction to my friend’s post about losing friends. Each time we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we say, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” But consider this, do we trust that will? Do we really, truly trust that God is in control of our days, our stories, even our communities and nations? With regard to tomorrow's election, God knows where He wants our nation to go. For His eternal plan, according to His eternal wisdom, for the good of His eternal Kingdom, He will work His will. 

    We are merely players. Or getting back to James 4, we are merely vapors, here for a time only to vanish.

“Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” ~ James 4:13-15

So, let's not lose friends over this election. God's will be done.

A few thoughts on "The Government Dole" aka the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare

At risk of irritating anyone by posting a somewhat political post, .... in case anyone is curious about who's paying for national healthcare and in what amounts... I'm going to give a little object lesson. And the follow it with a short logic lesson.

Since July, we've seen doctors for the following: regular way past due check-ups for Joe and I, a sleep study for Joe and CPAP, an x-ray of my hip, and a handful of chiropractor appointments.

Our providers footed our bills to the tune of $2919.

The government pitched in $1085 of taxpayer dollars.

So, ... not only are the tax payers now paying for our medical bills, the providers are having to write off almost 2/3 of the cost of our medical care.

Take this one thought further. For every dollar written off, of real cost of providing health care, the providers have to compensate for that loss by that much by raising their prices still higher.

And stick with me please, just one more thought further. The higher the cost of the medical bills, the higher the cost of insurance. The higher the cost of insurance, the more people will choose the "free" option. The more people who choose the "free" option, the fewer "paying customers" there are. The fewer "paying customers" there, are the higher the prices have to go. And the circle continues.

Not only that. Stay with me. As the cost of care rises, the amount the government has to come up with rises, too. The more money the government has to come up with, ... guess what, folks, they have to raise taxes. Or the government could lower the percentage they have to contribute, forcing the providers to come up with an ever growing proportion of the bill.

Which then feeds the "provider having to raise prices" loop even faster.

I've nothing against helping those in need.

And my irritation with being on "the government dole" is not a matter of pride or discontent or ungratefulness.

I just can't stretch my sense of reality far enough to figure out how this is supposed to be sustainable.  And I don't like that our family is yet another stress on the already strained system.  

End of Summer = New School+New Things for Adult Children= Excitement and Trepidation

Anther post from early August that never got posted.  I'll add comments in purple with updates where applicable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where has summer gone ? ! ?

The kids start school on September 1.  The MACCRAY (Maynard, Clara City, Raymond) school district is about 1/2 again as large as Red Lake County Central, but from what contact we've had so far, it still seems like a very personal and caring atmosphere.  Just as we had up north,  there are several school workers among our members.

Sophie and Clara will be in school here in town, just a mile away.  Our younger kids will be in the neighboring city of Maynard, seven miles away.  That seems blessedly close compared to the distance our kids used to have to travel to school.  The junior high/high school in Oklee was 13 miles away, and the elementary school in Plummer was 17 miles from where we lived.

MACCRAY has a four day school week for at least the next year.  I'm excited about that.  When we first put our kids in public school five years ago, one of the neighboring districts had a four day week.  I remember saying to some of the other moms that I would really enjoy that extra day with my kids.  Well, now I get that extra day and I'm tickled pink.

Another change for us this year will be that the high school and part of the elementary is what's considered an iPad school.  My kids have had tablets.  I'm not impressed.  I was assured by the counselor we talked to regarding enrolling our kids, that the iPads they use in the schools are strong and durable.  I hope this is true.  I do not relish the thought of forking over replacement money when my chronically destructive children damage their iPads.  Oy weh.  Some of the kids are excited.  They think the idea of having a gadget/device that they are allowed to use in school is pretty cool.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So far, no broken iPads.  In the elementary school the kids leave them in cubbies at school when not in use. "That's a mercy anyhow!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Louisa has moved to Moorhead into an apartment with some girlfriends.  Whitney is one of Louisa's best friends from up north.  The girls have known each other since they were six.  Sabrina became a good friend of theirs this past year in the MSUM Nelson Hall.  Louisa has just a couple of prerequisites to take before applying for nursing school at M-State, so she has registered to take them on-line this fall and put in as many hours as able working at Eventide Senior Living.  She hopes to start her nursing classes in January.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Louisa ran into some unexpected snags with her online classes. She was familiar with the website through which she was to submit her work, but for some reason, her instructor was not seeing her assignments come through.  Because of this and other factors, she decided to simply work this semester.  She got a full time job at a day care and she's still on call for her CNA work at Eventide if she wants to pick up shifts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elsie will be returning to Bethany in Mankato this fall for her second full year of college and her final year of high school.  She will continue to live with Lance and Cassie for now.  She has hopes to get an apartment with a girlfriend once she turns 18 in January, but that option is still being, .... bandied around.  I'm in much less of a hurry for her to grow up than is she.  Because of the difference in graduations requirements between Oklee and Clara City, Elsie will graduate from RLCC in Oklee on May 27, 2016.  She is in fact in Oklee this weekend to take care of some school related business and to see her friends from there.  Elsie will move to Mankato next weekend.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elsie seems to be doing well.  She is still working at Hillrest nursing home in Mankato, but has limited the number of shifts she can do in a two week period to five so she has more time for school.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matt is also hoping to go to school at some point.  Because of expenses and missed work due to his car accident, he has decided to postpone his start date once again.  But he is still planning to move to Fargo come fall.  He's been checking out apartments and filling out the necessary paperwork.  I've not heard yet whether he has found anything for sure yet.  As far as jobs go, he's open to just about anything that will give him enough hours to pay his expenses and save some money for school.  With his experience working for Quinten, and other summer workers heading back to school, he could probably find work for a general contractor if that's what he decides to do.  He's also keeping his eyes and ears open for anything else that might sound good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matt has his own place in Fargo now, a studio type apartment.  Last I heard he still had one more load of stuff to bring down from rural Oklee.  He has a job, installing siding, but he doesn't start until Monday, since he had Marine drill this week.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeremy has also moved to a new apartment, with one of his Mankato area acquaintances.  He's working at Hardee's to pay his expenses and is also continuing his various creative pursuits such as writing and electronic game producing.  He's also in line to start with the British Amway affiliate, Britt Worldwide, once he gets his driver's license.  

Except for having been mugged in Mankato over the summer, I think he is mostly happy with his life.  I'm taking him a dresser this weekend.  Then he can stop living out of boxes and be happier still.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conservatism, Libertarianism, Progressivism,...Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

A girlfriend asked me last night to help her understand the seeming contradictions being brought up in various news outlets concerning Paul Ryan's views of Ayn Rand and her philosophy.  Boy, I felt a little bit out of my depth, since on the political front, I am still pretty much playing ostrich, with my head in the sand. 

I really don't know what's up with me, since I have always struggled to control argumentative and somewhat tactless nature.  And historically I've had a huge interest in politics and political discourse and political history.  Of late, however, I've gotten tired of the unproductive discussion.  I've tired of trying to explain my views and then have people who think they know what I believe spit answers back at me based upon what they think I believe and how they think I come to my ideals.

And sometimes, I suspect, I unintentionally treat them the same, basing my arguments on what I think they believe.

It becomes a situation such as those about which we tell our kids, "If you each keep saying the same things, and you still disagree, you must either find a better way to communicate your ideas, or you have to be content to realize you disagree, but love each other anyway.  The discussion of the same disagreement over and over, quickly becomes bickering."

Sometimes I have time and energy to do my own research and study on various current topics of concern, and other times I must merely trust others.  When one is merely trusting others, her opinion is not based upon as strong a foundation as when she has done the research herself.  And since I'm not inclined to spend time on political research and study these days, I feel kind of like a fake when I get into such discussions.  My foundation is not as strong as it ought to be.  So I find myself avoiding such conversations.

Here I am then, after two years of "head in the sand" business, and someone is asking me to explain something to her.  I'm going to summarize here my reply, and I'd appreciate any further insights in the comments section.  But please, if you got to this post from facebook, leave the comments here, rather than on facebook, so they have a more permanent home.  I'd appreciate comments on the summaries I've given, but also on the particular issue of Paul Ryan's opinion of Ayn Rand's philosophies. 

I started my answer to my girlfriend straight off by saying that I could not speak particularly about Paul Ryan's views of Ayn Rand.  But that I could explain a little bit about how and why Conservatives like some of her philosophies, and why they have problems with other parts of her thinking.

We then got into a lengthier discussion of political terminology.  Keep in mind this whole discussion was kind of a primer, to introduce someone who is somewhat new to the whole public discourse on political issues and political history.  In case it makes a difference in understanding the following, this friend is also mostly on the conservative side of things.  She does not, however, have a great depth of vocabulary and historical knowledge base.  So that's why the bigger discussion came in.

Also please keep in mind that I am aware that, in the nature of a quick summary, stereotypes are always made; and therefore one must use caution when using such stereotypes for discussion.  An important aspect of this whole subject of political discourse is listen, listen, listen.  Please don't use my summaries to tell someone else what they believe and think.  But listen to them, and then try to understand from them what they believe and think.   Generalizations are never accurate for individuals; they can only describe tendencies.

1) Conservative:  The term is used today mostly by those who seek to return our nation to the rule of law established in our Constitution and its Amendments.  Some of the biggest issues today's Conservatives fight for are smaller federal government, lower taxes, less government regulation, states rights on issues that are not enumerated in the constitution as have been given to the federal governement.

2) Libertarian:  There are two main "kinds" of Libertarians, those who are Christian or have some other external standard of morality, and those who tend toward atheism and relativism.  People within the second group are not necessarily a-moral.  But their standard of morality is not based upon any historical tradition outside themselves. Each person's moral code, therefore, is seen as equally valid.

The Christian Libertarians are going to be quite similar to Conservatives.  A difference is that Conservatives tend to be less adamant about abolishing the federal laws that promote the Judeo-Christian morality that was the norm when our country was founded.  That's a little bit of a contradiction, but in a bigger discussion, I could probably explain it better.  We want to place people in office who share our moral vision, but we also would prefer any "enforcement" of that moral vision to come at the local levels rather than the national.  And we tend to go about that similar goal in a slightly different order of priority than would a Christian Libertarian.

The Libertarians share many small government economic and regulatory views with the Conservatives, but also take a stronger stand against government regulation of lifestyle than Conservatives tend to.

The relativistic/atheistic Libertarians also share the small government goals.  But because their morality is less structured, you might sense a more fatalistic or nihilistic attitude of dog-eat-dog-ness in their free market ideals.  There is a much stronger sense that people ought to be free to live and act how they want.  These people, mind you, do have a morality under which they live.  But there will be less inclination to talk about it, because each person has to establish his or her own moral code, so there is less commonality.  Also there is a much stronger sense that any and every morality is OK.  Each moral code is equally valid.

3) Progressive:  Progressives see the flaws and faults and failures in the free market system and seek to use experts and institutions and the government to solve them, rather than allowing or trusting individuals, families and other local entities to do so.  I tend to lump Progressives into two camps, also.  Again it's based upon religious foundations.  This is where this discussion will likely become offensive to those who hold the Progressive view.  But again, I'm on the outside of that view.  This is a summary, and I am willing to learn where I am wrong.

There are Progressives who genuinely seek to better the world, and genuinely think the government and the experts are capable of fulfilling this better than individuals.  Many of these people are Christians, or hold to the Judea-Christian moral code.  They understand and believe that bigger and better and more inclusive government programs are a valid option to show Christlike love to our neighbors.  They see the societal ill of people suffering, as trumping the societal ill of ignoring our legal foundations. 

But there are other, less noble or ethical Progressives.  Again, these tend to be those who espouse no organized religion and who find all morality relative.  These people are Marxist to their core.  Logically, since they have no moral code because they believe in no higher power, they believe that a "noble" end justifies any means.  But again, how does one define "noble", under this Godless philosophy?

These people will use any person or people group and any situation as they see fit.  Their primary goal is to maintain their power.  We are seeing in America today, an accelerating use of the standard Marxist ploys in the currents of society and government.  This faction of the Progressive movement imprison people in dependency under the guise of generosity and care.  They provoke and nurture class warfare and jealousy.  They take advantage of crises, or even perceived crises, to grab more and more power.  They twist the truth in order to forward their agenda, because remember any means justifies their "noble" end.   It's not wrong to lie and deceive when you're trying to help people.

But all this, these people do under the mantle of those same Progressive ideals that the religious Progressives promote out of genuine love for others.  They cloak their talk in terms of love and peace and betterment.  But they see themselves as the brokers who ought to define what those same terms mean for each person, group and situation.

After that introduction to some of the political terminology that is active in the current discussion, I continued to explain to my friend the different levels at which one might claim adherence to or defend Conservatism.

From the legal angle, adherence to the Constitution and its Amendments is a goal.  Conservatives like to live according to the rules.  They feel that society is more stable and therefore more peaceful and prosperous when the rule of law is followed. And becasue they tend to believe in respect for authority, they consider following the Constitution to be the morally right way to govern.

From the academic or philosophical angle, Conservatives can explain based upon the long standing principles of free market capitalism, limited government, freedom, positive human rights, etc. why our system works.  And in a lengthier discussion, I could explain why we don't see capitalism as greedy or selfish or cold-hearted.  Let me summarize this aspect by saying that we believe in the intrinsic morality of individuals making their own choices for their altruism and their business dealings.  We believe that although there will under any system be bad people doing bad things, that more people are benefited when individuals rather than the government make more of the choices for people.

From the historical angle, Conservatives believe that history bears out the futility of solving societal problems with bigger government. Simply put, whenever and wherever it's been tried, it has failed.  People work less diligently when they are heavily taxed and heavily regulated.  There is an ever increasing number of people needing government help and and ever decreasing number of prosperous businesses and individuals to foot the bill.  People under such increasing government largess, do progressively fewer individual acts of altruism, and they gradually care less and less about their neighbors, since the governments and institutions can provide what others need.  "That's what the programs are for." 

From an economic angle, and somewhat related to the historical, Conservatives believe that wealth creation comes from individuals not the government.  Everyone's standard of living benefits from greater freedom, less regulation, and lower taxes.  From a purely economic analysis, in an institutional system of social programs, there is a huge cost involved in administering such programs.  Time and time again, the private sector has been shown to do a more efficient job of administering such programs.  But this focus on "the bottom line," when isolated from the bigger principles of Conservatism, can easily leave the impression that Conservatism is all about money.

In a word, Conservatives believe that history bears out the idea that big government is unsustainable from both an economic, and an ethical or moral stand.  Both prosperity and morality decrease as government control and social programs increase.  Freedom, motivation, and happiness itself is sacrificed when government is bigger and more invasive.

To bring this back now to Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, again, I can't speak specifically to that.  But I can say that Conservatives tend to agree with Rand on the economic principles of small government and free markets.  But we also tend to demand a morality based upon the Judeo-Christian moral code that was the norm when our country was founded.  The founding fathers and other thinkers of that era wrote often that this system of government, and its economic and societal freedoms, would only work as long as the populace held to that same standard. 

This is not the same, mind you, as making laws to enforce a certain religion.  Each person's eternal well-being, and their views on the meaning of life in general, must never be codified by government.  But for a free society to work well, there must be some tradition of shared morality.

I suspect that Paul Ryan would agree with that.

The following quote is one of my favorites to explain how conservatives see morality working within the freedoms established in our founding documents.  It's from a letter John Adams wrote to rally the troops of the Massachusetts Militia.  But this little nugget of a quote is not nearly as good as the whole, so take a moment later to read the whole thing.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The great French proponent of classical liberalism, Alexis de Tocqueville, toured America to discover the secrets of her greatness, and perhaps put them to use in his native land during her struggles and revolutions. He wrote extensively about his discoveries in the two volume, Democracy in America.  About morality in America, he wrote, "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

Those ideas must frame any discussion of Conservative principles as opposed to the principles of Libertarianism.  Conservatives will promote and strive for the limited government ideals espoused in our Constitution and her Amendments.  We will base arguments upon the historical wisdom and philosophies held to by those who founded our country.  But we will stop short of holding to any philosophy that is based upon a shifting or relativist morality.  In order for our system to work well and properly, there must be right and wrong.

Summer and Goldwater...is this a pattern?

I finally got around to ordering my very own copy of Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative.  I'm very eager to read it again.  I will possibly post a few choice snippets in the next few weeks as I read.  Perhaps they will be just quotes alone, or perhaps with commentary.  Great writing and clear thinking doesn't need much commentary.

I first read Conscience of a Conservative and wrote about it in early August, 2009.  I had written at that time that 1) I'd get my own copy; and 2) I'd write more about it.

I finally did buy myself a copy, but I don't know if and when I'll ever give the book all the attention it deserves by posting about it and from it.

Apparently I get in the mood for Goldwater in the summer, since the second and last time I checked this book out from the library was a year ago already.  In late July last year, I highlighted some of the best points in Goldwater's introductory chapter.

I've only just begun Conscience of a Conservative this time around.  Even so, I've already discovered several poignant vignettes.  The following section jumped out at me this time around.  I think it caught my attention because its subject, the idea of the common man, is directly behind the renewed acceptance of Marxist philosophy that has quickly slipped into mainstream thinking during the last several years.

We have heard much in our time about "the common man."  It is a concept that pays little attention to the history of a nation that grew great through the initiative and ambition of uncommon men.  The conservative knows that to regard man as part of an undifferentiated mass is to consign him to ultimate slavery.

Just think about the idea of the common man a minute.  There are the obvious examples in socialist theory and particularly those philosophies of Marxist socialism that thrive on pitting worker against administrators, owners, and executives of any flavor.  We see the impact of the idea of the common man in the Occupy movement; the national reaction to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's stand against the union system; the resurgence of the term, progressive, in mainstream politics; and much in the news because of the recent Supreme Court ruling in its favor, the health insurance takeover that has come to be known as Obamacare.

But the whole premise of the common man is a myth.  There is no such thing.  There is no group, no subgroup, etc., for which all members shares the same intrinsic make-up or circumstances.  To make policy based upon an idea of group mentality or group situation, or as Goldwater put it, an "undifferentiated mass," is dangerous and illogical.  But it is also immoral.  Such groupings as the common man or administration, worker or owner, renter or landlord, African American or white, male or female, etc, create artificial classes.  Putting people into such groups, and defining them by membership in such groups, enslaves people to such groups.  And it also binds them to the intrusive policies such thinking engenders.

Vince Flynn

Several years ago, I believe it was in the spring of '09, I discovered Minnesota author, Vince Flynn.  I've been trying to recall how I stumbled upon his books.  I think it was a mention on Kelly the Kitchen Kop's website, about a new book coming out, maybe with a link to her favorite reads page.  I followed Kelly's link to Flynn's first book, Term Limits, and was intrigued.  I quickly requested it through the library.  I liked it well enough to immediately request the next one, Transfer of Power, also.  It was after Transfer of Power, the first of the Mitch Rapp books, that I was really hooked.  I haven't read them all yet, but I look forward to such an indulgence. (As a little aside, if you are interested in learning to cook with more nutritive ingredients and methods, Kelly's website is a great place to start.)

From a fan perspective, Vince Flynn is an all around great author to admire.  He writes excellent political thrillers.  He researches his material well.  He's one of those authors who writes about things that might be, and later we find out they were in fact true all along.  His book, Memorial Day, was so accurate that Flynn fell under the watchful eye of the Department of Energy.

Mr. Flynn is from Minnesota, from the Twin Cities area.  He self-published his first book, which is very cool from a writing standpoint.  It is not easy to gain enough of a following in the self-publishing world to garner the attention of a major publishing house.  Mr. Flynn is a family man with fairly traditional values.

Mr. Flynn has a new book out just recently.  The new book, Kill Shot, is the second prequel in the Mitch Rapp series.  I heard in one interview I've listened to that Flynn has a third prequel in his mind that he hopes to write one day, but that his next book will continue the later Mitch Rapp story. 

Mr. Flynn's new books are usually released in the fall, October, I think.  Kill Shot was released several months late, but it's quite amazing that Mr. Flynn was able to finish the book at all.  He was diagnosed with stage three metastatic prostate cancer in November of 2010, in the middle of the book tour for what was at that time his latest book, American Assassin.  The cancer had moved into his hip bone and he at first thought he might have only months to live.  After consultation with his specialists, however, Mr. Flynn was assured that, although his prognosis was certainly serious, it was not as dire as it would have been even a few years ago.  Treatments for his type of cancer have progressed to the point that they gave him a likelihood of living at least five years, but that depending upon how his system handled the treatments, he could very well live a long and full life.

What great news for him and his family!  But also for us fans.  I've really enjoyed reading about his experience, and listening to some interviews.  It's always heartening to hear of someone joining the ranks of cancer survivors.  He is not out of the woods yet, but his treatments seem to be progressing well, and the cancer is diminishing in a predictable fashion, as they hoped.  But Mr. Flynn's story is very inspirational.  He talks openly in interviews about his Catholic faith, his writing career, the importance of his family.  Mr. Flynn has a 16 year old step-son, and two daughters, ages 11 and 9.   He projects such an over-all great attitude that it has reminded me to make better use of my own time here on earth.

Minnesota blogger, Caryn Sullivan, wrote a nice piece on Mr. Flynn and his struggle to produce this recent book while undergoing his cancer treatments.

The most extensive interview that I came across is this one from the Dan Barreiro Show out of the Twin Cities, on KFAN, 100.3. The interview is an hour long, so I wasn't able to listen very carefully to the whole thing, but it was really fun to listen to as much as I did.  Mr. Flynn talks about writing during this cancer battle, about his fear of prescription pain medications, and the frustration of undergoing hormone treatments.  Mr. Barreiro asks about Mr. Flynn's writing career and where he plans to go from here.  And they talk about national security and the very real threats to such security.

I can't wait to read Kill Shot.  If you've never read any of Mr. Flynn's Mitch Rapp books, you'll have to give one a try.  They are a pretty fast read, with excellent characters, and lots of suspense.  I do suggest reading them in order, starting with Transfer of Power.  The characters really develop as the stories unfold.  And although someone could make the argument that one could start with the prequels, I think the mystery about Rapp's background might be less interesting when read in that order.  It's like getting to know a friend.  One doesn't generally gush everything out at the first meeting, right?

Happy reading!

I'm Starting to Get a Little Excited...

Just starting.  The excitement is trickling into my system at a pathetically slow rate.  But Rick Santorum's excellent showing yesterday is helping to get the election juices flowing.

We've had such a whirlwind of ups and downs in Conservative politics and society in general the last several years.  There was ambivalence during the last campaign until the "Republican machine" candidate, John McCain, chose Sarah Palin as a running mate.  That choice generated a little bit of excitement.  People became energized.

We had the economic crises and bailouts, both before and after the election.  Obama was elected and initiated so very many power grabs I wouldn't even know where to begin.  The health care bill stands out as the uber power grab.

There's been the TEA Party movement (and the left's vitriolic misrepresentation of it), Wisconsin's "Governor Walker vs the Teachers' Unions" battle, and the Occupy movement.

It's really been too much.

Somewhere along the way, I lost all interest in current events.  I even started listening to country music.  Really.  That's how bad things are.  If getting drunk and getting ditched by your best girl is better than real life, isn't that pathetic?

I threw up my arms and said with the psalmist,

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together, ...
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.

And really, that's so true.  What do our little participations in such things matter, anyway?

Come, behold the works of the Lord,
Who has made desolations in the earth.
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two;
He burns the chariot in the fire.

But here's the rub.  Even knowing full well that God controls things, and believing that He works everything out for good, we still have a responsibility.  God has placed us in a land with many freedoms.  He has blessed us to live under a government system in which we are privileged to be able to participle.  How far each person takes such a privilege is between them and God.  But for me, that means doing what I can to at least try to help the candidates closest to my views attain office.

Usually that means I try to keep up with current events and the issues facing our nations and the different sides of each issue and the variety of opinions about how to solve such issues.   I try to attend precinct caucuses.  I try to help my local political party of choice in whatever way I'm able.  I give money to candidates when we can.

But that "doing what I can" thing, that gets a little bit gray.  God has given Joe and I many little hands to train and hearts to love and souls to fill with knowledge of Him.  And what is a more primary responsibility?  Being involved in politics, or raising children?  Kind of a no-brainer there.

I complain frequently about the busyness in our lives and our lack of family evenings.  I begrudge the fact that our kids, being in public school all day, now also have occasional evening obligations.  We don't allow them to participate in many things.  But even so, considering how many children have, it still adds up to considerable disruption in the evenings.

With that in mind, I was very unsure this last week or so, whether I was going to attend last night's Pennington County Republican caucus.  When I consider how few nights we have together as a family, taken with my political ambivalence of late, and remembering that God controls all such things anyway, I was rather disinclined to attend.

But then I thought about all the Ron Paul supporters who I knew would be out in droves ... Just kidding... that's for two good friends who I hope know I love them ...

I don't really know why I decided to attend.  Probably a very wide and indefinable set of factors.  Not the least of which was the supper fiasco during the final minutes within which I needed to make my decision.  Nothing like a little supper time fiasco to drive a mother out for the evening, right?

But I must say that I'm cautiously happy about Rick Santorum's victories around the country last night.  Cautious because it's too early to tell whether these victories will be another step in a bigger victory, and also because no candidate is perfect.   Anything can happen.

But suddenly, the primary season is just a little bit more exciting than it was at this time yesterday.

Major Logical Disconnect

I feel really bad about the shooting of Mt. Rainier National Park Ranger, Margaret Anderson.  Please do not take the following rant as in any way an attitude of disrespect for the deceased.  In fact, the reason I've been following this story is because of the way the story pulled at my heart strings.  Ms Anderson had two young children; it is a tragedy when any young children are left motherless.  It is also hard when any law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty.  Certainly a two-fold tragedy!

However, a quote included in the Huffington Post article by Mike Baker, portrays a major lack of cohesive thought. I can't see why Mr. Baker even included it unless he was hoping the Huffpo readership is so anti-gun that such readers would not stop to think about the content.  I suppose to be fair, I could imagine that he only wanted to highlight the stupidity of the anti-gun crowd, ... but ... somehow ... well ... it is Huffpo ... sorry if I have trouble stretching my imagination that far.

Let me set the stage here, according to the information included in Baker's article.

• Benjamin Barnes was under a restraining order, because of his violent tendencies, thought to be due to post traumatic stress disorder related to his military service.
• Barnes was released from his army service due to driving under the influence and transporting private weapons illegally.
• Barnes appears to have fled to Mt. Rainier National Park to escape investigation regarding a shooting at a house party south of Seattle at which four people were injured.  The article stops short of alleging Barnes was the shooter, but only just.  It is certainly implied.
• Barnes disregarded the Park Ranger checkpoint set up to enforce vehicle chain requirements.

So, we already know Barnes was given to violence.  He didn't respect weapons laws. We are lead to assume he had recently shot several people.  And he blew through a Ranger checkpoint in the moments preceding the shooting.

And yet according to the article, this tragedy is refueling debate over a 2010 law that allows legally permitted gun carriers to carry their weapon in national parks.

As proof of this refueled debate, Baker found Bill Wade, outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.  Hmm.  Already I'm convinced.  Nothing against Mr. Wade; I'm sure he's a decent guy.  But by including this big long position title, "outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees," the author calls upon readers to listen carefully to the quote.  To respect the opinion.  But instead, I think to myself  sarcastically,  "Oh, a prestigious position, indeed! Kind of makes me wonder how long Baker had to search to find the opinion he wanted." 

(For any couch logicians out there, Joe just informed me this is called the fallacy of appeal to authority.  It actually has a name.  The gentleman has been the chair of a reitree group.  He is a former Park Service Employee. The title says nothing about his knowledge of guns, gun laws or gun crime statistics.  But the man's title is included to give credence to the assertions being forwarded.)

According to Mr. Wade, as quoted in the article, "The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now."

Mike Baker continues the article with more of Mr. Wade's opinion, "Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010."

So, in spite of Barnes' violent tenancies, a previous firearms citation, the fact that he was fleeing a crime scene at which numerous people were injured by gunshot, and the obvious disregard he showed for Park officials by ignoring their checkpoint, we are supposed to believe that were it illegal to bring weapons into a National Park, Barnes would have stopped somewhere along the way to deposit his guns for later pick-up.  Or perhaps he would have turned around when he got to the park entrance.  Or maybe, if he simply forgot about the law until the checkpoint, when he got there, instead of racing through it, he would have stopped, apologized for having weapons in his vehicle, and surrendered them at that time.

But sadly, history shows people are swayed by such arguments.

Reminds me of the Gun Free Zone parody that circulated a few years back.

The Magic Meadow

Most homeschool families are familiar with the biographical and historical picture books of Ingri and Edgar Parin D'aulaire.  Besides the historical value of the biographies of notable historical figures such as George Washington, Pocahantas, and Bemjamin Franklin, the D'aulaire's are known for their vivid lithography.  Their biography of Abraham Lincoln, for instance, won the Caldecott Medal in 1940.

But until reading about their lives in order to write this post, I didn't realize how very prolific was their body of work, and how interesting their backgrounds. 

Edgar was born in Germany, but was of Swiss citizenship.  His father was Italian, and his mother appears to have been an American who lived in Paris.  Both his parents were artists.  Edgar studied under Henri Matisse.

Ingri was Norwegian.

After they married and came to America, both pursued careers in art.  They were drawn into the world of Children's literature by the director of the New York Public Library, and worked together to produce eventually 27 picture books.

They seem to have specialized in the folk tales and historical figures from their combined cultural backgrounds, producing stories of Norwegian, Swiss, and American heritage, and also an extensive book of Greek Myths.

A few months ago, before the school year started, I took my elementary aged kids to the open house at their school.  The school librarian had placed a couple of boxes of "free" books in the hallway.  Even though I was in the thick of weeding out our home library, I simply could not pass it by without taking a peak.  And as any true bibliophile can understand, it's pretty hard for me to take a peak at a box of old books without finding at least a couple that simply need to come home with me.

One of the books I found in these boxes was The Magic Meadow by Ingri And Edgar D'alaire.  This book presents many apsects of Swiss heritage, including the story of William Tell, the freedom loving representative governmental system of the Swiss cantons, the rugged beauty of the Alps, and a snippet each of folklore and the history of tourism based economic development.  And as a constant backdrop, through it all, flows the quaintly beautiful lithograph illustrations.

I'm not sure how the D'aulaires managed to come up with a story that included so much, but somehow it all holds together.  As are most of the D'aulaire books, this one, too, tells a sweet story with lasting value at many levels.

On the Benefits of Public Libraries to a Free Society

This is what I prepared to deliver to the Red Lake Falls City Council and the Red Lake County Commissioners. I was asked by my branch librarian to prepare something for these groups, to solicit their continued support for the local library during these difficult economic times.  I also prepared a brief outline for the members to follow, highlighting the quotes and summarizing the point for which I was using each.

All quotes except the last, are readily available on the internet, on any quote page, and some biographical pages. The final quotation is from a discussion of the trend toward library programs, at the expense of providing more traditional library services.

Hello. My name is Mary Abrahamson. I’m a mother of ten. My husband is a pastor of four churches, east and north of here. Until a year ago, I taught most of our children at home. They are currently enrolled at RLCC, both in Plummer and in Oklee. We are avid library patrons. We use many of library services, and also try to pay back a fraction of what we receive by helping with summer programs when we can.

I’m going to share with you three brief quotes, one each from three of America’s founding fathers and early presidents.

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know." ~  John Adams, in his 1765 Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey in 1816

"A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." ~ James Madison wrote to W. T. Barry, in 1822

We are blessed to live in communities and a country that allow us to have a say in our government. We elect officials at all levels of government. If we choose, we may attend caucuses. We can sign petitions and call our representatives. Our systems of government allow us many opportunities to be involved with the process of governing.

But in order to arm ourselves for this responsibility, we need access to information. The public library is an important source of information, whether in the form of internet access, books on the local shelves, books ordered through the broader regional system or throughout the entire state. Through our Red Lake Falls branch library, that little building just across the way, regular people like myself have access to all the knowledge in the world.

We, the people, make our society what it is. Regular people in our communities, our neighbors and friends, perhaps even some of you, serve on boards and committees within a variety of service, civic, and business entities.

Even if not in any official capacity, most of us are in a position to set an example for the youth in our communities, as parents or friends of the young people in our neighborhoods.  This too is leadership.

But in order to do all these things well, we need access to the means of self-improvement. Perhaps John F. Kennedy said it most succinctly...or I ought to say, he planned to say it, since this quote is from a speech that was to be delivered in Dallas, TX, on the day of his assassination, “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.”

∼ ∼ ∼

Libraries in one form or another, have been in existence from ancient times. It’s fairly common knowledge that there was a library in ancient Alexandria during the Greek empire,  Archaeologists have found evidence of libraries throughout the ancient middle east from as early as 2500BC, and onward. These were collections of manuscripts, and repositories of information.

The the modern public library in America is something different. The Straight Dope website had the best definition of the modern library that I could find. The author used these marks to distinguish the idea of the modern public library. It
1) is publicly owned and supported by taxes;
2) is open to any citizen who desires to use it, and
3) contains a wide range of material, both popular and scholarly.

Using that definition, public libraries in America got their start in the early to mid 1800s. By the early 1900s, the idea had flourished and libraries were making their way into communities across the country.  Andrew Carnegie, who donated so much of his own money to promote and build libraries throughout the country said, “There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration.”

The public libraries in our communities today have changed a bit in the last 200 years, and even since the time of Andrew Carnegie. But they still fall into those same three points mentioned above. The library systems have changed. The inter-connectedness to each other around the state, country and even globe has increased markedly. The manner of accessing the materials, and even sometimes the format of the materials themselves have changed. But our public libraries still offer for anyone who chooses to use it, an immensely wide opportunity for learning and improving oneself, and also for leisure time enjoyment of the written word.

“The student has his Rome, his Florence, his whole glowing Italy, within the four walls of his library. He has in his books the ruins of an antique world and the glories of a modern one.” ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Your local library offers fiction and non-fiction books and magazines for all age levels. There is internet access for online research and pleasure. Audio books and DVDs; downloadable e-books for those who have the proper readers.  If a local child is interested in aviation or gardening, beekeeping or pet care, he or she can find help and learning at the library. A retiree can check out the latest book from a best selling novelist or research his or her family tree. A person can read about fixing the roof or building a chicken coop. A teen can get the information he needs to decide whether or not to attempt to replace the head gasket on his car’s motor. And a sports fan can keep up with the achievements of her favorite college teams.

There are a wide variety of programs going on all the time at the library. The regular things The Red Lake Falls branch library lists on its website include a preschool story time, a writer’s group, family nights, and craft days. Each summer the library sponsors a program that offers extra enrichment, such as presentations by artisans, dancers, singers, and a variety of other entertainers. Within the last year there have been several “Meet an Author” events, which include a brief talk on some aspect of her trade and craft, and also, usually, a writer’s workshop, for local writers to learn from the experts. The library, through the Minnesota history legacy grant has been able to offer, at no cost, to anyone in the community, a wider variety of cultural events which celebrate and highlight the rich cultural diversity of our state. These are things many small towns are not able to offer their people, things such as concerts by a harpist and a hardanger fiddler, and performances by a ventriloquist, singing groups, and storytellers.

“The richest person in the world - in fact all the riches in the world - couldn't provide you with anything like the endless, incredible loot available at your local library.” ~Malcolm Forbes

I’ve read that at times of economic downturn, such as during the Great Depression, library use increases markedly. I asked our local librarian about this, and she affirmed that they have definitely seen this to be true during our recent economic woes.

I understand that the government entities that support the public libraries are also experiencing hard times. And I am not fully comfortable with asking everyone in the community to support with their tax dollars a service of which not everyone chooses to make use.

However, for the enrichment of your community, you have in the past supported, and probably will continue to support a variety of none-essential services. I am here today to make a plea that the local branch library be one of those none-essential services that you choose to continue to support.

I was given a stack of information on the local library and also on the regional system. I am not a professional researcher, so things like statistics, and pie charts, and cost comparisons, these things go in through my eyes and hide away in a dark corner of my brain. I read through the materials I was given. I tried to prepare a clean and crisp analysis of the library’s needs. And I couldn’t do it.

But I am a library user. I love my library and the many things it offers. I believe in the idea of an educated citizenry. I believe the services offered by our Red Lake Falls branch library play an integral role in offering educational and leisure opportunities to the people of Red Lake Falls and the surrounding communities.

I understand that our local branch is struggling financially. I’ve noticed that the hours of operation have been re-arranged and cut several times in the last few years. Various services have been cut

I’ve been told that the library is short $4,874, just to maintain the services they currently offer. There is a certain amount of patron demand to reinstate the hours and days of operation that have been cut. The total anticipated operational cost of $54,276 would not allow for that. It would only sustain the current operation.

If you flip to the back page of the paper I handed out, you can see the numbers presented clearly before you.

I don’t know what you spend on other none-essential programming, such as ECFE, summer rec, and theater programs. But I agree with the sentiment in this nugget I found from Walter Cronkite, “Whatever the costs of our libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant nation.“

And I’ll leave you now, with a final quote, it actually appears on the front flap of your paper. It is an excerpt from Darwin, a researcher at the Askville question and answer forum at Amazon.com regarding Andrew Carnegie‘s vision.

“[Andrew] Carnegie had two main reasons

for donating money to the founding of libraries.

First, he believed that libraries added

to the meritocratic nature of America.

Anyone with the right inclination

and desire could educate himself.

Second, Carnegie believed that immigrants like himself

needed to acquire cultural knowledge of America

which the library allowed immigrants to do.

Libraries for Carnegie were the ultimate extension

of democracy to the people.

He felt that the sheer existence of a library

and the individual’s right to use it was essential.

He did not see the library as needing to reach out,

but rather to allow in anyone who wished to come.

His formal education ended at the age of 12,

and he was exceedingly affected by being unable to afford

the $2.00 per week fee to join the "free" library,

so he resolved that libraries should be free and open to everyone.

That is why over the doors

of The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh,

carved in stone,

are his own words,

"Free to the People."

As a self-made man

he believed anyone could do likewise

as long as the tool (the library)

was there to be used.”

Thank you for your time.

Brainstorming National Defense

As the title states, this is brainstorming.  I've not had time to research this topic, but it's been on my mind for several years.  Please share with me any further knowledge or opinions you hold.

The Congress shall have Power

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;          

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution

 And also, 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.      The Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I've on occasion thought that the idea of a standing army is not in accordance with Constitutional principles.  I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative.  And as such, I've wondered whether a standing army is somewhat inconsistent with a strict constitutional outlook. 

However, many people who likewise consider themselves constitutionalists, and have studied Constitutional history more so than have I, consider a standing army as necessary to national defence, which is one of the few constitutionally assigned responsibilities of our federal government.  My understanding, again with little personal study, is that a standing army became the norm very early in the history of our country, and therefore through very early precedent, is considered legitimate.  If I have it straight, the idea of a standing army was the source of one of the original disagreements between those known as Federalists and those known as anti-Federalists, in the struggle for ratification of the Constitution.  Since those same statesmen were involved in the continuing debate after our Constitution’s ratification, and since as soon afterwards as the early 1800s we've had a standing army of sorts, that although not part of the constitution, strict constitutionalists consider a standing army as consistent with the founding principle of national defence. 

Does that make sense?  Have I represented the history accurately? Really, I admit, this is poor scholarship.  I'd love to do a bunch of reading today to figure it all out, but I simply have other callings. 

However, I did want to get these thoughts down and hopefully elicit some discussion.

Mary's thesis for today,

Whereas  throughout the history of this sinful world, it's been shown time and again that the more a civic institution does for its citizenry, they are increasingly less inclined and eventually less able to do for themselves;

and whereas our founders had some very specific reasons for fearing a standing army;

and whereas the founders did provide us with an organized way for the states to take responsibility for their own defence and to contribute to the national defence, through the maintenance of a well regulated militia;

and whereas there is an inverse relationship between the growth of a standing army and the dwindling of state militias (which one might argue is a corollary of the first "whereas");

perhaps we who consider ourselves Constitutional Conservatives ought to find a way to justify our stance more closely to that which the founders intended. 

Is not our military structure, the way it is today, a bit like socialism, in that the more the government does for us, the less we do ourselves, and then the less able we become to do for ourselves?

I came to these thoughts this morning while reading The King's of Clonmel, Book 8 of John Flanagan's, The Ranger's Apprentice series.   Will, for whom the series is named, is a former apprentice who is now a full fledged Ranger.  He is now working with the other apprentices at the Rangers' annual gathering.  The Rangers in the fictional Araluen kingdom, are primarily an undercover and intelligence gathering group in this feudal system of Flanagan's world.  But as such, they also assist the various Lords and battle masters with strategy when the need arises.  Will's assignment is to guide the apprentices in developing a strategy for a tactical exercise, according to the assets listed in the exercise.  As I read today, Will reminded the apprentices of their unstated assets, such as the trained archers each village of more than 100 citizens is required maintain.

This put me in mind, once again, of the militia system originally included in our founding documents, and my persistent questions about national defence and a standing army.

The way I understand it, militias were to be maintained by the states; each state in its freedom was to set up their militia according to their own needs and assets.  But the states were not allowed the freedom to neglect this responsibility.  I think I've read that not only were the citizens required to own firearms, they were responsible to know how to use them, and how to act together as a military force when needed.  Part of the states' responsibility was to call periodic musters to train and to test the militias for readiness.

I've heard some say that the national guard is the modern rendition of the state militias. I don't buy that.  Again, this is speaking off the cuff, because I've not researched it.  Perhaps readers could comment?  But the the primary way in which the militias are autonomous is that they have to be called out at the command of the state governors, and led by the command structure within such a state.  Is that right?  In case of some state disaster or national military need, must they be called out by their governor and assigned under the auspices of the particular military structures from within that state?

Further though, I believe the National Guards are set up uniformly throughout the nation, and their operation is subject to federal authority.  And they certainly do not involve the broad societal training in firearm use and military tactics.  Only those who choose must participate.

Are there still militias in the original sense?  Groups of citizens who gather to maintain skills in firearms and military skill?  I've been told there are.  I've even been accused of being a militia type, since our family owns and practices the use of firearms both for putting food on the table and for maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and those around us.  But we certainly don't participate in any military training exercises. 

It seems as though the idea of "militia" today has become a dirty word and those who strive to maintain such skills are perceived as crazies.  I've never known anyone who is part of a militia group, that I know of.  Therefore, I can't defend or criticize such activities.  All I know is the rumors, which seem to span a broad spectrum as far as the legality of activities, but also as to the veracity of the rumors.

But perhaps we need to explore the possibility of renewing the state militias.  Perhaps there is a place for a lessening of the national military, and stronger state run militias.  Could it work?  Is it conceivable?  I don't know.  But I am interested by the thought that we've become locally weaker as our national defence is provided for us by the federal government.  We've become so dependent upon the national military that many people aren't even aware of the many ways our military contributes to and defends our freedoms.  We tend to just float through our days, complaining about one thing or another that is wrong with our country, with little or no thought for how peace and order are maintained both at home and abroad. 

This seems to me to coincide with an attitude of, "Well, the government will do it.  I probably won't like their decisions, but what can I do about it?"  This is a typical symptom of dependency in all manner of nanny state issues.  I believe an argument could be made that this attitude of dependence puts us at a higher risk of ever increasing federal encroachment on our individual and states' rights.  I believe the founders would be appalled at the amount of freedom we've thoughtlessly conceded.  And I wonder if the demise of the state militia system is an important facet of states' rights and limited national government.  Not only are we ambivilent about our national defence and critical of it, we also have forfeited any ability to defend ourselves against any tyranny that would arise from within our borders.

Almost Exactly Two Years Ago, I First Read Barry Goldwater

When I first read Barry Goldwater's, The Conscience of a Conservative I enjoyed it immensely.  I'm reading it again, and enjoying it just as fully.

As stated in the Foreword, the book, written in 1960, is Goldwater's attempt to, "bridge the gap between [conservative] theory and practice."  He explains that conservatism had become something to be disparaged by those who did not hold to its principles, and something for which its adherents felt the need to apologize.  He attributes this to a lack of clear articulation of how conservatism is carried out in practice to the benefit of all in society.   

I love this introduction, because this is the same problem conservatives still have today.  We like to blame media bias, or liberal lies, or any number of other extraneous things when our message does not resonate as strongly as we'd like it to.  But we conservatives need to better learn the message.  We need to become more articulate spokespersons for conservatism.  We need to elect those who are statesmen and women rather than politicians.  (I'm not really sure if my disctinction is valid, but this is how I define the difference between these two types of leaders.  A statesman has an opinion, and is able to promote and defend such an opinion loudly and clearly, regardless of the end result.  A politician tempers his or her speech to effect what he or she considers the optimal political result.)

In The Conscience of a Conservative Goldwater addresses several of the most pressing issues of his day and offered a conservative solution for each: "The Perils of Power"; "States' Rights"; "And Civil Rights"; "Freedom for the Farmer"; "Freedom for Labor"; "Taxes and Spending"; "The Welfare State"; "Some Notes on Education"; and "The Soviet Menace".  The intrinsic problems addressed under many of these topics still plague us today.  Some have grown to even greater threats to our freedom and American way of life than at the time Goldwater's book was written.  Others have evolved to encompass slightly different issues.  And still others, most notably, what Goldwater calls The Soviet Menace, have mostly evaporated, or changed enough so that his concerns (and solutions) are difficult to recognize in the situation we face today.

I have often expressed frustration that during his first presidential campaign, the soon to be President George W. Bush took up the term Compassionate Conservative, as if Conservative itself is not compassionate.  I said at the time I first heard the phrase, and I still say today, that what we need is not leaders who apologize for conservatism, but someone who can explain and defend, loudly and clearly, the intrinsic compassion of the conservative political viewpoint.

Among those of my friends who tend to vote Republican, but who have no interest in being involved in the bigger discussion of political philosophy, the most often heard accusation against conservatism is that it is heartless, or that its adherents only care about money.

Apparently this idea is not new.  Goldwater includes two quotes in his first paragraph of the first chapter of The Conscience of a Conservative that indicate the prominence of similar sentiments already in 1960.  According to Goldwater, when President Richard Nixon was still Vice President Nixon, he had said, "Republican candidates should be economic conservatives, but conservatives with a heart."

And further, during his first term, President Eisenhower said, "I am conservative when it comes to economic problems, but liberal when it comes to human problems."

In a paragraph that is surprisingly similar to pop-political ideas, Goldwater highlights two slightly different views of those opposed to conservatism.  Firstly, that liberals are interested in people, whereas conservatives are interested only in preserving privileged classes.  Or further yet, a second view, that liberals care about little people, while conservatives care only about the, "malefactors of great wealth."

Goldwater, in the rest of the first chapter, claims the moral high ground for Conservatism.  He states as the underlying premise of that high ground, Conservatism's belief that each man has an individual soul, that each person is capable of great and unique good, and that he or she is more than a mere animal.

In light of that belief in each person's individuality, Goldwater turns the accusation of conservatism being only about economics on its head,

...It is Socialism that subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being.  It is Conservatism that puts material things in their proper place--that has a structured view of the human being and of human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role.

Goldwater continues with three points defending the intrinsic morality of conservatism, basing it on the "accumulated wisdom and experience of history," regarding, firstly, the individuality of each person.

Only a philosophy that takes into account the essential differences between men, and, accordingly, makes provision for developing the different potentialities of each man can claim to be in accord with Nature.

Touching on the inter-connectedness of economic freedom and the freedom of the individual spirit,

[Man] can not be economically free,  or even economically efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man's political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.

Goldwater continues the theme of the individuality of human reality. Because of the uniqueness of each person, government cannot direct well humanity's development.

Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development.  The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collection of human beings.

When addressing the extent to which conservatism embraces freedom, Goldwater explains that tyranny in any form is abhorrent to a conservative.  He uses as an example, the French Revolution, during which tyranny was enacted both against the peasants by the monarchy; and also by the reformers who used the new egalitarianism to reign over and terrorize whomever they chose.  Goldwater sums up the conservatism of his day as being

...at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.

Goldwater finishes up this first chapter by summarizing conservatism as being in favor of only as much government oversight as will maintain order in society.   He explains that political power is a "self- aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating."  He exhorts "utmost vigilance and care" in keeping political power in its proper place.

The final paragraph in this introductory chapter discusses the many variations among governments on earth of the balance between order and freedom.  He warns that the current battle in America is not about establishing order; but on the contrary, about preserving freedom.  Goldwater suggests we always first answer this question when addressing the various societal issues facing our society,

Are we maximizing freedom?

Big Tractor and the TEA Party

One hears much these days about "Big Oil," and "Big Money," and "Big Pharmaceutical,"  Or Big Whatever.  We don't hear much about, "Big Tractor."  But it's all there, just the same.  Those successful tractor guys who might be deemed evil on account of their success.  But more basically, the tractors about which I'm going to write later are are..., well..., big.

But before I get to back to the tractors, let me tell you about the parade.  Joe and I and our family have been asked to walk in the Thief River Falls parade again this year with the TEA party float.  Oh,oh, here it is again.  That word.  Big. We're part of that Big Group of Extremists, the TEA party movement. 

I'll be glad to tell anyone all about it, and why I align myself with the TEA party movement.  But for now I'm going to give only a brief overview. 

What We Primarily Believe (I say primarily because I can't say that every TEA partier will believe all these things.  This is a list of primary common beliefs.)

• We believe in the Constitution.
• We believe in Limited Government.
• We believe history shows that the best way to rescue our economy is to Lower Taxes at all levels.
• We believe that Those Closest to a Person or Situation can best offer Help and Assistance rather than Washington Bureaucrats.
• We believe in Personal Freedom together with Personal Responsibility.

Not the Primary Reasons We Stand Together (I say it this way, not because we are none of these things.  Some of the following, I hope and pray might describe none of us; other things on this list may describe many of us.  But these are not the purpose behind the TEA party movement.  None of the following are why we stand together. 

• Racist
• White
• Wealthy
• Republicans
• Militiamen and women
• Violent

There are many stereotypes and false allegations being spread around by the mainstream media.  And I imagine each TEA party event will be as varied as the communities in which they take place and the individuals who plan and attend such events.  I've been to three TEA party events in the Thief River Falls area (not counting the parade last year).  Each has been unique and interesting in it's own way. 

I'd like to invite any readers who think we are violent, heartless crazies to attend a TEA Party event in your community.  Engage TEA party leaders in your area in a conversation (not an argument).  You may not ever agree with them.  But you will almost certainly come away with an opinion of the movement different than that portrayed in the Mainstream Media.

My husband can remember playing with die-cast tractors and farm equipment when he was young.  You know the kind I mean, the ones often made by Ertl, that can be picked up at stores like Runnings, Big Bear, Tractor Supply or Fleet Farm.  Joe has fond memories of those tractors. Case, John Deere, and International.  McCormick, Massey Ferguson, and Steiger.  He even had a couple of Waterloo Boys.

But it tickles him pink to get a phone call from Kay Steiger, one of the Thief River Falls TEA Party organizers, asking us to help out. 

Kay's husband is Doug.  Doug and his brother, Maurice, built the first Steiger tractor in their dairy barn outside of Thief River Falls during the winter of 1957-58.  They had skill, they saw a market, they built up a reputation, and they became an industry leader because of their innovation and hard work.  They were able to provide jobs in the Fargo Area for many people throughout the years.  They contributed to the local economy.  They made a product that benefited farmers nationwide. 

This story captures the essence of the American Dream.  And protecting the ability of people to pursue the American Dream is what the TEA party movement is all about, in its support of freedom, lower taxes, and limited government.

Or maybe it's like detractors claim; maybe it's all about money.  Maybe it's all about those greedy folks in the Big Tractor industry.

But I refuse to believe it.

OK, I feel a rant coming on...or maybe two...

I was e-mailed this little thing the other day.  Generally I don't even open these, but this one from someone who rarely sends this sort of thing, so I thought I'd see what kinds of things she does send.

The Green Thing

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. The woman apologized to her and explained, “We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”

That’s right, they didn’t have the green thing in her day. Back then, they returned their milk bottles, Coke bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, using the same bottles over and over.  So they actually were "recycled."

But they didn’t have the green thing back in her day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she’s right. They didn’t have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because they didn’t have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power did the drying. Kids often got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right, they didn’t have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a pizza dish, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric machines to do everything for them. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used wadded up newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right, they didn’t have the green thing back then.

They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty, instead of using a plastic bottle or cup every time they had a drink of water. They refilled pens with ink, instead of buying new pens, and they replaced the blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn’t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus, instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from a satellite 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But they didn't have the green thing back then!

OK, maybe I'm not going to rant.  I changed my mind.  I love this anecdote, even if it is fiction.  We don't have to contrive various ways to "be green" and spout about them all the time.  It doesn't make us somehow more righteous to use cloth diapers or ride a bike to work.  These are choices each person might make.  And the ways to "be green" are so much more varied than the popular ideas being crammed down our societal throats non-stop. 

How about shoe repair?  Do you know how hard it is to find a cobbler?  And it's also more expensive these days to get a good shoe repaired than to buy cheapo shoes and just replace them.  But I do it because it makes more sense to me. 

How about mending clothes? 

Or buying parts for appliances?  Oh, that one really torks me.  They make these totally cheapo appliances that are made to break down.  And the parts are nearly as expensive as buying a new one.  My Mother-in-law just replaces the stove she had for forty-some years.  Why? Not because it needed to be replaced.  But because she could no longer find parts for it.  And she had to get a cheapo piece of junk that will last her maybe fifteen.  Maybe.  And only because she's not cooking for a family anymore.  They wear out much faster in that case.  Trust me, I know.  But our society is not geared toward those common sense practices that used to be common.  Because a certain segment of our population wants new things all the time, producers don't make things that last.  We have to invent ways to "be green" since common sense has flown the coop.

Ok, I guess I did rant.  And I think I just might a second time.

As long as I'm on the subject of environmentalism, I am going to spout just a little about something that really irritates me about the elementary school my kids attend.  I might even rant.  This is just a pet peeve thing, really, not anything important, just really, really irritating.  Officially, the kids are not allowed to bring homemade treats to school.  I had planned to approach the school board about getting this rule changed, but now I've heard it's become a state law in Minnesota!  

I think this is ridiculous on a number of levels, but the two that I might draw upon to convince the "super, hyper, protect everyone from everything crowd" that makes rules like this is such a law's health and environmental impact.  How so, you might ask?

I can make food that's way, way healthier than what I can buy pre-processed at the grocery store.  Really.  I don't feed my own kids store bought treats except on rare occasions (a road trip, for instance, might warrant a package of vanilla wafers to be split ten ways), because I don't believe in giving them junk.  I don't even bake much because I don't think kids need to develop a sweet tooth.  When I do, I generally cut back the sugar, or use raisins, dates, honey, or molassses for part of the sweetening.  I tweak all recipes to make them healthier.  I don't use dyes or preservatives or additives or fillers.  Just regular wholesome ingredients.

On the environmental front, how many packages in the course of a year is this going to add to our landfills with all the store bought stuff?  If I were to make something to send to school, I'd send it in Tupperware.  Which could be sent home, washed and re-used.  But the store bought stuff has at very least, a plastic wrap to toss.  It might have a plastic wrap and a cardboard box.  It might have styrofoam.  It's even likely the treats would be individually wrapped.  Yikes!  I bought fruit snacks for our recent road trip for the way home (only six kids along) and the wrappers are still driving me nuts.  I found one floating around the grass when I mowed today.  I thought I had them all contained, but sure enough there went one under the mower.  Good grief!

So, in these days of health and environmental consciousness, even a protectionist should be able to see that this is a stupid law.  And it's not like the food supply is safe anyway.  I'd like to see a comparison of how many people get sick from bake sale items compared to the allegedly tested and approved things they are constantly recalling because somebody or some group of somebodies has gotten sick from something that has passed the inspections. 

Ok.  I'm done now.  I feel better.

Eminent Domain at White Bluffs

When I was little, my paternal grandmother periodically mentioned White Bluffs.  Grandma was always a bit sad about it.  I didn't understand at the time the significance that place held for her.  Nor had I any idea of the role that little town and the area surrounding it played in the history of the modern world.

I eventually came to understand that my grandparents had farmed near White Bluffs.  And that they had to leave.  And that leaving was not something they chose to do.

But the name White Bluffs was still a mystery to me.  I only knew it made Grandma sad.

When I got a little older, I tried to find White Bluffs on a map of Washington.  It did not exist.

More mystery.

At some point, probably well into adulthood, I put it all together.  I had asked enough questions and done enough reading on my own to figure out the mystery.  This brief history is probably still not fully accurate, but this is what I've pieced together thus far.

The town of White Bluffs had its start as a ferry site across the Columbia River.  Native peoples used the site for crossing the Columbia.  Later, The Hudson's Bay Company ran a trading post there. Miners on the way to the British Columbia gold rush could cross the river and stock up on supplies.  By 1850, steamboats came up the Columbia from Portland bringing people and supplies to join the packtrains heading north.

By the early 1940s, the region was a rich agricultural area and the small towns were growing.  The Milwaukee Road ran through White Bluffs providing residents the goods they needed and taking away the literal fruits of their labors.

According to the U.S. Government's Hanford history page

Hanford and White Bluffs epitomized the early American West.  Farming and agriculture were the dominant industries in these little towns, even though the area receives just seven inches of rain a year.  An early irrigation system provided water from the Columbia River to orchards and field crops, and fruit ripened more quickly here than in any other part of the Pacific Northwest.  Small, family-run stores and other businesses began to open after the turn of the century, and some of the earliest automobiles could be seen on the dirt streets of the communities.  A ferry docked near White Bluffs and shuttled passengers across the Columbia River.  A railroad called “Sagebrush Annie” carried riders between Hanford and White Bluffs.  Children attended schools in both communities and White Bluffs even had a weekly newspaper.

The worst years of the depression were finally over and things were looking up.

My grandparents had a farm outside of White Bluffs.  They had planted a vineyard and lovingly tended their vines.  They looked forward to harvesting their first full crop of grapes.

Then came the announcement.  I suppose it was a letter, but that is not clear from the history I can find.  Perhaps it was just a public announcement through posters and newspapers.

The government needed the land for the war effort.  Most residents had only 30 days to get off their land.  Some residents were given only a couple of days to two weeks to leave. 

As part of the Manhatten Project, the government needed a site well away from major cities and transportation centers, and yet near a plenteous supply of clean water.  It was here in the area around the towns of Hanford and White Bluffs, that the Federal Government chose to process the plutonium needed for the nuclear program.  The government used their power of eminent domain to take the land from the local people.

 

The area became the Hanford Engineer Works where the plutonium was processed for the first nuclear test bomb that was detonated at the Trinity site in New Mexico, and also for Fat Man, the bomb dropped over Nagasaki, Japan.

The Hanford site continued into the cold war as the primary plutonium processing facility in the United States.  Currently there is one power plant still in operation there.

Because nuclear science was in its infancy during the early years at Hanford, the area has very high levels of radioactive waste.  Clean-up is ongoing.

I have an uncle on my mom's side of the family who ranched and raised his family within a few miles of the borders of Hanford.  Uncle Max passed away last year on my birthday.  He had lived into his 90s.

Several years ago, I asked Uncle Max how he felt about the reports of the high levels of radioactive waste that were alleged to be slowly leaking into the area.  Max replied that he never worried about it too much.  This was his home and he farmed it the best he could and that was all he could do.

But he also said that the plutonium made in that facility probably saved his life.  You see, Uncle Max was fighting in World War II with the US Navy in the South Pacific.  Uncle Max had always figured, based on the rumors that were going around at the time regarding the plans for the ship he was on, that he and many others would not have come home alive were it not for the nuclear bombs.

All that remains of White Bluffs today is the bank.  It looks kind of lonely, doesn't it?