Abortion: Where do Pro-lifers go from Here?

Throughout the past four years the pro-lifers, including our outspoken president George W. Bush have tirelessly and uncompromisingly fought for an overturning of the 1989 Roe v. Wade decision. With a marginally conservative Congress and very supportive president, it seemed that if ever the possibility was realistic, it was then. Yet, despite their valiant and constant efforts, somehow, the right to lifers seemed to miss their eight year window of opportunity to right the wrongs of what they saw as national murder. Indeed this reality must have come as a shocking blow, yet undoubtedly the future is sure to lower pro-life confidence levels even more. As we are all well aware, both the law making and law enforcing branches of government have been freshly reorganized to take on a new and unsympathetic attitude toward the pro-life movement. In short, the future seems dim...

With little to no hope for overriding Roe V. Wade or even limiting the availability of abortions to the public, what is the pro-life camp to do? Most of those who hold this anti-abortion viewpoint draw it from very deep spiritual or ethical convictions that will not be easily compromised. However, few promising options will be offered for pro-lifers for at least four years, probably more. To many, it would be an unrealistic, unproductive, and ultimately wasteful endeavor to continue to fight for something that simply can not happen. These pragmatics offer more reasonable options. Drawing from the statistic that clearly links abortion to poverty, they suggest that pro-lifers divert their efforts to social, rather than legal battles. They argue that if poverty were limited, abortions would in turn decrease.

In my opinion, this suggestion on it's own is a good one. It can not be disproved that more abortions occur in places where mothers have fewer financial options. Undoubtedly increased emphasis on social justice would limit the number of abortions annually, ultimately saving hundreds, even thousands of lives. Indeed the results of this very tangible possibility are obvious and promising. For this reason I feel that, given new political circumstances, this new avenue needs to be further explored. However, this does not mean that the seemingly impossible goal of eliminating the practice of abortion should be abandoned. All social movements suffer setbacks, but only those that persevere ultimately succeed.

What's With The Dog?

Now it may just be me and my innate unfamiliarity with the post election intentions of president elects, but throughout the past week I have found myself increasingly enthralled with the amount of cold hard print, web space and airtime that have been so outlandishly devoted to the supposedly pressing question of naming the promised and long awaited presidential pooch. I have repeatedly found this topic making headlines all over the media, taking its place among articles discussing such pressing national controversies as the economic crisis, war in the Middle East, and the proposed Fairness Doctrine. As a proud dog owner I can certainly enthusiastically relate to the Obama family and their anticipation of their very first pawed pet. Indeed they should continue to joyously proclaim their search for that perfect puppy. However, I just can't help but wonder if the front page is the best place to do it.

In his prophetic book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the late author and media expert Dr. Neil Postman addressed the pressing problem of a growing number of simply irrelevant and unnecessary news items that the media chooses flash before us day after day. His reason for this influx of "junk" information is the media's late shift toward an entertainment industry. They have made it their primary goal to provide a source of sensory stimulation, not productive discourse. In my opinion this entire discussion regarding Obama's dog search is just that. Sure, it may tug at the heartstrings of some Americans and impress those dog lovers in the crowd. However, I believe this topic is taking up space in the media that should be reserved for more pressing matters. The president is adopting a dog. Good for him! Moving on.....

Where is the American Political Center?

As the great American political bandwagon is finally coming to a gradual temporary halt with the closure of the election season, the nation is at last finding itself able to pause and look back on the events of the past year in a more reflective tone. While the political game was on, it seemed that the distracting whirlwind of propaganda, hype and partisanism made realistic contemplation near impossible for many of us. Now that the dust seems to be settling, Americans are finally beginning to ask the long postponed question: so what? I choose to use this particular question, not only because it is the carefully chosen title of this blog, but because in my opinion, it represents the search for the deep implications and effects of the events which occupy our lives.

In the case of our now changed political environment, the question "so what?" is being asked by Americans everywhere; across all social categories, cultural lines, belief systems and political associations. The citizens of this nation know that history has been made. They know that this new America is not the America that it was a year ago. There has been a shift, political, ideological, ethical, toward something new. The inquiry that remains unanswered is exactly what direction the nation has shifted toward, and how this shift will effect the very uncertain future.

Some feel that the shift is obvious and permanent, symbolized by Obama's earth shattering election. Many engaged in this national conversation, such as journalists E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post, and John Judis of The New Republic. They believe that this year's election results strongly affirm their conjecture that the United States has confidently shifted its political center from the right to the left. In their opinions, "this year's election marked a fundamental "realignment," as the Republican base of older blue-collar and rural whites shrank to a minority," giving way to a new Democratic majority "composed of college educated professionals; working and single women; blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; and people under 30." In their view, Obama could not have been realistically elected in an America identified by a traditional, right centered leaning.

On the other hand, many by viewing the most recent exit poles have come to disagree. The poles show that 22% of registered voters identified themselves as liberals, while 34% claimed a conservative identity. The remaining 44% considered themselves moderates. According to these statistics, the numbers remained virtually the same as those observed during the 2004 election period. These less convinced citizens, including journalists Rod Dreher of Realpolitics.com and Rich Lowry of the Washington Post, feel that the true motivation for the election results was simple dissatisfacion with the republican party and President Bush, not a central political shift.

I tend to agree with journalist Steven M. Wharshawsky, a writer for the American Thinker. His conclusion is that it is simply too soon to tell. Noting the large, unignorable presence of those "wishy washy" unidentified moderates, Wharshawsky insists that there is a large number of Americans who simply do not fit in a cookie cutter partisan identity. They are caught somewhere in the middle. It would seem that apparently we are as well. I guess we will just have to wait a bit longer for that dust to settle...

This week's article discovered in the November 21, 2008 issue of The Week magazine.

Those Ten Commandments Again...

It would seem that yet again that pervasive issue of the presence of religious symbols on government property has reared it's ugly head in another small town. As recorded in a recent Washington Post editorial titled 'The Seven Aphorisms,' the small town of Pleasant Grove City, Utah is being opposed by a minority colic group known as the Summum, who believe the town is unfairly favoring Christianity by choosing to maintian a "10 Commandments" monument while decling their offer to erect a monument commemorating their religious texts. The town's hall has been embellished with numerous historical and culturally relevant monuments for decades. According to the town, these monuments are placed for the specific purpose of commemorating the many historic forces that took part in it's formation and growth.

By description, this town appears to be like most others. It is a town that has been shaped by many contributing organizations and groups. One such institution that has had an immense part in forming this city is the church. This should come at no large surprise. The hand of the church in American community growth has proven common in most other American cities as well. Indeed, one would face a great challenge in seeking to find even one town in their travels across the U.S.A that does not contain at least one Christian church. It is an indisputatble fact that the Church has been among the strongest and most accomplished institutions in fostering positive community growth throughout American history. The town of Pleasant Grove City is undoubtedly no exception.

Yes, when one addresses the issue regarding the presence of religious symbols on public property, there are a host of considerations that need to be made. Some of these include freedom of expression, separation of church and state, religious discrimination and equal representation of social groups. One could discuss and debate these issues for hours on end, but unfortunately I don't have hours (you probably don't either) and I only wish to address a few undisputable facts that I believe play a large role in the understanding of this particular case.

The fact remains that the mainstream Christian church has for many centuries been and continues to remain an influential presence in the town of Pleasant Grove City. The disputed symbolic monument displays the 10 Commandments, which were (and believe it or not largely still are) absolutely foundational principles of American society. Pleasant Grove City's monument attests to this fact, having been erected on the property now for nearly half a century. Religion aside, there is enough empirical information here to prove the continued importance of this monument to the community as a representation of the town's orgin.

Have you ever heard of the Summum? Congratulations if you have, and don't feel bad if you haven't. The Summum is a marginal minority group that has only existed for a few decades in the town of Pleasant Grove City. Outside of the state of Utah, it is nearly unknown. The historical contributions to the town and the nations are inarguably minimal. Why then do they deserve a place on the Town Hall lawn? If every minute special interest group were to be granted representation at their town hall, undoubtedly the lawn itself would soon be invisible under the piles of potential monuments that could be erected. Relevance and practicality should be the deciding factors in such debates of symbolic display on public property. Sorry Summom, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

2.89.....and Dropping?

I don't get out much. This inevitable fact faces a writer who currently sits in his room in the middle of the practically invisible little town of Houghton NY. This town is completely enveloped by the rolling, (and in some cases tumbling) hills of the Allegany mountains. In order to reach a location of any cultural or geographical significance at all, I would need to plan on traveling for at least 45 minutes by car. I believe the easiest way to illustrate my innate isolation is to admit that the nearest Wal-Mart is an entire hour away.

While I have come to treasure the immense land barrier that separates myself from civilization, I have found that it does, as with most circumstances, have its disadvantages. One small example of such a disadvantage is the lost ability to follow current gasoline prices as I used to. If I am fortunate enough to leave the fine village of Houghton at all during my week, I will find myself even more fortunate to happen upon a gas station in my travels. Because of this slight hindrance, I am most likely somewhat off in my current gasoline price estimates, but based upon last observation, I have found them to have reached the seemingly glorious level of only $2.89 per gallon. Undoubtedly, if this is close to the current price of gasoline here in Houghton, I can be assured that it has fallen even lower in many other states including my home state of New Jersey. This recent downward trend has come as a tremendous relief to countless Americans facing the busy Christmas season and and an impending cold long winter.

This $2.89 astonishment has caused me to question, what exactly are the causes of this drastic price change? I received at least some insight into this question upon reviewing a recent issue of The Week magazine. The article, curiously titled 'OPEC: Trying to Set a Floor Under Prices,' seemed to view these staggering price drops with a "too much, too fast" outlook. It would seem that experts are very worried about the roller coaster price changes that have occurred within the past year, fearing that they merely further attest to the increasingly declining international economy. The article notes the astounding fact that "oil prices have fallen 57 percent from their July high of $147 per barrel" and that "Americans in August drove 15 billion fewer miles than they did a year earlier. " This "5.6 percent drop is the largest recorded since 1942." These statistics truly reveal that the rapid price decline may in fact warrant more concern than celebration.

As a result of the unhealthy plummet of the of oil value, OPEC, that is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has recently taken the precautionary measure of ordering its member nations to cut oil production by 1.5 million barrels a day. The organization feels that a floor needs to be immediately placed beneath the falling prices before they drop to potentially unsalvageable levels.

In my opinion the recent changes we have witnessed at the gas pumps offer only another testimony to the extremely unstable condition of the current economy and its subsequent need for aid and repair. According to the article, OPEC's recent attempts to limit the prices have thus far proven largely unsuccessful. Indeed this economic predicament has swelled beyond the reach of even the largest regulatory institutions. If big business isn't "big enough" to remedy it, then who?

Oh that's right...our president elect has been making many impressive claims throughout his campaign to turn all of our economic hopes and dreams into reality. Well Mr. Obama, I'm not so sure about realizing hopes and dreams, but a little more stability would be nice...

Ready Set VOTE!

Finally...after seemingly endless campaigning, advertising, deliberation, mud slinging, hair splitting, analyzing and reviewing, that blessed day has arrived. So many of us have watched and waited. Some of us have simply chosen to ignore. I am still not fully convinced as to which has made the wisest choice, but nevertheless we will all be facing the same choice on election day.

As closing arguments were fired today, both McCain and Obama sought to distinguish themselves from their opponent as much as possible, drawing heavily on economic policy differences. While Obama was fighting off accusations of socialism and higher taxes, McCain attempted to further detach himself from the economic policies of George Bush. Each candidate wants to be something new, fresh and dependable for the American people. Undoubtedly the American people will have a difficult decision to make, choosing between an experienced, more predictable and uncompromising leader, and a movement motivated, unpredictable, yet enthusiastic one.

Is the United States up for the gamble? Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain. This has become a very historic election, bringing many firsts for the American people. My feeling is that this election has in store quite a few more firsts for the nation.

Article Found At: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/90357/3/McCain_Obama_Closing_arguments

The Independent Voter

It appears to many disgusted Americans that this political year has proven to illustrate just how polarized the nation's two leading political parties have become. The democratic and republican parties have uncompromisingly sought to define their respective camps as essentially being the antonym of the other. Each has made it their highest priority to place as much space as possible between itself and the opposing party for the purpose of providing voters with clearly labeled leadership options. They would probably prefer that those two options be labeled something like good and evil, though each would undoubtedly differ in their opinion of which is which. Somehow in their efforts to delineate their differences, the democratic and republican parties may have created too great of a chasm between themselves—a chasm that more and more American voters seem to be falling into.

Surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that the growing new mainstream in American voters is now, by the numbers, the independent voter. According to an column by John P. Avlon titled "What Independent Voters Want," independents make up about 40% of the electorate in the United States and represent a political majority in six states already. These new numbers represent a resoundingly large and influential group of voters that just can't seem to find a home in either end of the American political spectrum. These voters may be able to accept viewpoints on specific issues from each party, but are unable to find enough common ground allowing them to identify with that party. These branded independent voters find themselves stuck in the middle of two American extremes.

I feel that it is this new emerging conglomerate that will become the essential deciding factor in the upcoming November elections. It has already been reported that a decisive number of these independent voters occupy several swing states including Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. I agree strongly with Avlon in his conclusion that "The next president can unite the country even in difficult times if he understands this truth: Americans are not deeply divided—our political parties are—and the independent voter is a direct reaction to this disconnect." Indeed it is the overly polarized parties that are giving a national allusion of disunity and unrest. It is my feeling that the growing independent constituency is largely unimpressed with the edgy and quarrelsome partisan politics that have grown out of the past few presidential election campaigns. Americans are united—under the assertion that political parties need reform.

This weeks article can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445963016248615.html

The Way of all Empires

As most historians would agree, the story of humanity can in many instances be described as the Greeks thought of it; cyclical and repetitive. Of course many can hearken back to the cliche old phrase, "History repeats itself," perhaps recalling a history teacher or other mentor who may have used it. Indeed this phrase undoubtedly holds historical weight. One need not search very far in the history of any group of people before discovering clearly repetitive trends and tendencies. The Middle East is no exception to this concept. To the contrary, it may in fact act as an indefinite witness to it.

In reading among this week's most discussed foreign newspaper columns, I discovered a rather intriguing and somewhat daunting piece by the columnist Anwar Kemal of the Arab News. The title, "How to Fix the U.S. Financial Crisis," at first gave the impression of a small pleasant suggestion. As I read, I found it to be slightly more weighty than a mere suggestion. The article immediately began by referring to the concept of a cyclical history, bluntly stating that "The U.S. is going the way of all empires." Kemal continued by describing his suppositions that the United States has financially over-extended itself, to the point of endangering it's leadership role on the world stage. Drawing from the historical well, he cited two former empires of the recent past, as examples for his conjecture that economic meltdown brings political meltdown. The 20th century empires of Britain and the Soviet Union both illustrated Kemal's belief that economic overreaching, particularly due to extraneous war efforts, can easily hurt the international stability and political standing of even the most influential nations.

In light of recent years, I would be inclined to agree with Kemal on many points. Undoubtedly, the United States, at least at the moment, seems to be fitting the mold for the average declining empire. It fits nearly the entire historical description: economic instability, costly, controversial, and largely unproductive wars, crumbling ethical foundation, and growing international unpopularity. However, Americans should not abandon hope in their nation so soon. Even Kemal noted in his largely critical column that "There's still time for the USA to salvage some of its international standing and influence." Yet, the nation needs to see change before this can happen. It will have to soon extricate its self from those money spending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and return to a less aggressive and more conservative national budget. It is my personal opinion that the United States is in need of some serious self evaluation. A reversion needs to be made back to the traditional American identity. This identity is rooted in the tried and true values of financial discipline, investment in knowledge, and hard work. It is my sincere hope that our next president, whomever he may be, will make it a national priority to bring the United States back to that humbling position of cold hard re-evaluation.

This Week's Article taken from: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=115150&d=6&m=10&y=2008

Is the Presidential Race Really Worth all this Attention?

After yet another week of presidential combat and the dramatic closure of debate number two, it seems that the media, and consequently the American public are finally beginning to draw conclusions as to winners and losers. Headlines all over the country proclaim that Obama is pulling ahead in the race. Yes, in reality this new development is only a small one, and the changes in public opinion are minimal, just a few percentage points. The massive amount of attention that the presidential race receives from both the media and the public is simply unprecedented by any other political event or occurrance. In reality, the office of the president is only one piece of the greater governmental system framed by the U.S. Constitution. It is just one branch on the massive tree that is American government. In light of these facts, is it really so crucial that the citizens of America place this race under such uncalled for magnification? Is it truly necessary that we pay attention to every percentage point change from the latest straw poll?

I discovered this week a transcript taken from a recent broadcast of the popular television show, 'Hannity and Colmes,' which sought to discuss this very issue. This past year, a brand new book, titled "The Failure Factory" has been published with the purpose of realistically questioning the function of the office of the president of the United States in current times. The author Bill Gertz makes it the goal of his book to illustrate how "unelected bureaucrats are the true power players in Washington." Providing much historical evidence as well as current examples, Gertz ventures to expose the evolution of the presidential office to a state of unprecedented corruption. He feels that the president has become nothing more than a complacent figurehead who is completely subject to the wills of the bureaucrats. It is a point that I indeed can see as holding weight, especially in light of the seemingly petty banter that occupies a large percentage of the public conversation about this current race.

This week's document discovered at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436842,00.html

Hope

A hair-splitting presidential election, a continuously spiraling economy, and endless international struggles--yes there are moments when one might indefinitely have a cause to leave the newspaper or magazine with at least a slight case of "the political blues." Indeed, a deeply contagious pessimism has saturated recent public opinions. Polls continue to illustrate the continuing decline in political confidence among the general public, both inside and outside of America.

As the nation nears the end of another presidential administration, many citizens are finding themselves scratching their heads, wondering what our dear president did with the past four years. Some (even a majority of) citizens are apparently convinced that the past eight years have been nothing short of political chaos and disaster. Everything from Bush's financial plan, to the war in Iraq seem to be under the most distrusting scrutiny by Americans at the present.

I must admit that I have in some ways become unwillingly absorbed with this extremely pessimistic political worldview. I didn't realize just how absorbed I had become until I disbelievingly came upon a New York Times headline titled "Iraq's Shocking New Calm," by the Time's Correspondent, Dexter Filkins. Accompanying the headline was the true attention catcher: a stunning little photograph of a jovial Iraqi family, full of smiles sitting around a glowing birthday cake. This scene was one that I never expected to associate with the deemed perilous and chaotic country that seems to exist within most forms of daily media.

The topic of this article is one that many would have deemed simply "too good to be true." In it, Filkins discusses the seemingly impossible changes that have occurred in the city of Baghdad since his previous visit to Iraq two years ago. He notes observing women in jeans--walking alone, newly opened stores and businesses, blossoming commerce, and a renewed and less restrained Iraqi culture. In Filkins own words, "It was an astonishing, beautiful scene--impossible, incomprehensible, only months ago." He also admits in the article that two years ago he was sure that "Evil had triumphed, and that it would be many years before it might be stopped." Yes, he too had been enveloped by this feeling of hopelessness for the nation of Iraq.

In his article, the author makes very real and honest observances that just happen to communicate hope for a war-torn nation. He sheds light on a fact that has become taboo among Americans: Iraq is indeed rebuilding and improving. The article notes that while American forces are still an important presence in Iraq, they are an ever diminishing one. The power to keep peace is currently in the process of being ceded from Americans to the hands of the Iraqis through an initiative that has become known as "The Sunni Awakening." By this new movement, the American forces are winning over previous freedom fighters, motivating them to lay down their weapons and join the peace keeping effort. This Awakening has been nothing short of a success, as many previously violent Sunni tribes have changed their focus from the promotion of aggressive rebellion, to the securing of national security. The resulting national security has resulted in an unanticipated blossoming of a peaceful and thriving Iraqi society, in which people can truly live again.

I am deeply inspired by this article. It has shown a glimmer of hope for the Iraqi future, and inadvertently for the future of the United States. Yes, as Filkins notes, the risks have not disappeared and the improvements made are fragile ones that should be guarded and maintained at all costs. It is a single flame in the cave that we cannot afford to let die out.

Mixing Preaching with Politics

As I was reading my weekly copy of "The Week Magazine," I happened upon an article that has once again touched upon the ancient, never ending argument over the "Separation of Church and State." Understandably, this conflict is not a new one. The question of the right of the state's power over the church certainly has been long debated in ancient times, through Roman history, during the Medieval period and beyond. The political theorist and philosopher, John Locke was one of the first to suggest the modern view point that is generally accepted among Americans today. His principle of the "social contract" helped to frame the basic belief that the state should have no right to make personal religious decisions on behalf of it's citizens.

It would seem that originally, the chief concern of the early philosopher and even the early American, in regards to the separation of church and state, was to limit the power of the state from presiding over religion. Over the years this concern has progressively grown and evolved, as this week's article appears to show. Concern has come to exist not only for the state's influence over religion, but also for religion's influence over the state.

I have often heard the old phrase told, "Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill." It would seem that a group of itchy preachers just had to do that. They had to push the non-profit envelope in making the daring and unorthodox decision to explicitly endorse a particular political candidate from ther pulpit. Quoting the article from The Week titled "Preaching and Presidential Policies," we find the debate rousing news that:

"A group of 33 ministers in 22 states agreed to endorse a presidential candidate from their Sunday pulpits, said the Las Vegas Sun in an editorial, to challenge a 1954 law that says nonprofits, including churches, lose their federal tax exemptions if they back candidates."

The article goes on to describe how the ministers and their supporters are hoping to gain momentum from their dubbed "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," perhaps enough to overturn the decades old law on the argument that it an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech. They claim that because pastors are already able to make their political affiliations clearly known without mentioning names, they should be further permitted to make official endorsements.

A scenario like this gives me some cause for worry. Perhaps the first amendment rights of these ministers are being limited by this 1954 law which prohibits the announcement of official political endorsements by non-profit churches. Yes, I would in fact grant that these church leaders are losing some personal freedom in choosing to label their organization as a non profit, even if that freedom may be nothing more than a trifle. However, this is a choice that they have consciously made. It is an explicit agreement if you will. Based on common American principle, there are few instances when an explicit agreement should ever be broken.

Excluding the fact that the churches have agreed to withhold from official endorsements, there is certainly another fact to be considered here. While the possibility stands that the courts may rule in favor of the churches and their right to free speech, a distinct alternate possibility remains. Realistically, the courts could find that the church has indeed over-stepped it's political bounds in this instance and could easily rule their actions to be unjustified and illegal. Let us be reminded that a fairly large representation of Americans is of the opinion that the church should not be involved in politics at all. Drastic actions like this one on behalf of these 33 ministers could potentially ignite a completely contrary governmental and public reaction that was never anticipated.

Throughout the past 50 years the state has been involving itself in a slow but steady process of removing the voice of religion from government and politics. From restricted prayer in school, to the removal of religious icons from public places, the church is indeed being limited in America with each passing year. Even today individuals are challenging the rights of the church to uphold allegedly "offensive" moral standards that have been considered unspoken ethical law for centuries. Undoubtedly the state has been following a definite trend of religious suppression in recent decades that shows no sign of stopping. It is this trend that leads me to question if this recent move on behalf of the church was a wise one. In raising the question, the Church may very well be only speeding their own furthered political limitation.

Is it really worth the risk to fight for the simple right to mention the name of a political candidate from the pulpit? Come on Church, let's think about this now...

This Week's Article Gleaned From: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89295/3/3/Preaching_and_presidential_politics

Financail Crisis Brings Political Benefits?

Let's play a guessing game...I describe an extremely influential national concern, and you guess which one it could possibly be. Here are the clues:

Clue 1. It is probably the most observed national problem in the nation.
Clue 2. It's outcome will affect everyone.
Clue 3. It influences politics on every level.
Clue 4. It was referenced to in the last blog post (green).

The individual who has not been able to guess it by now may need to venture out from under a certain rock. Yes, it should be obvious that I am referring to our national economic status, which seems to be on a continuing steady spiral. Of course, politicians have taken specific observance of this issue, knowing it's vital importance to each and every voter, and it's effect on how they cast their vote. Although it pervades every level of political contest, I will, for now, just focus on the primary election that seems to be on everyone's mind: the presidential election.

I have just recently read an article from The Week, unsurprisingly titled "Does the economy help Obama?" In this article, the author considers the question of whether or not the declining economy will or will not follow the American tradition of driving voters toward the democratic candidate. American history has certainly illustrated a noticeable trend in which times of economic crisis have caused Americans to give up on the more fiscally conservative republican, and opt to follow a more aggressive agenda. The prime example of this can be seen during the years of the Great Depression, during which the despised Herbert Hoover was completely abandoned for the promising Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Th article offers two separate opinions: the first is that of the supposed "experts." They claim that the rule firmly stands for this election, just as it has in the past; no changes. The second opinion is that of recent polls which suggest that this election may in fact be a trend breaker. Why? Well, Obama's high tax plan is the greatest potential deterrent to worried entrepreneurs.

I happen to be a firm believer in the phrase, "history repeats itself." It is my contention that as long as a culture does not drastically change, the decisions of that culture (in regards to politics) will generally remain the same as well. However, I certainly do not deny the fact that our modern American culture has indeed changed, even within the past few decades. The seemingly age-old American concepts of personal fiscal responsibility, stewardship, and contentment have given way to an age of a desire for bigger and better, flippant spending, and the assumption of truly unrealistic loans. The skyrocketing national debt bears witness to this very unhealthy national "mega-consumer" economy.

Has our culture changed enough to alter deeply entrenched political trends? Only time will tell. What we do know is that our nation needs strong economic leadership that can work toward resolving the national slip-ups of past decades. May the best man truly win!

Article Address: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89095/3/3/Does_the_economy_help_Obama

To Drill or not to Drill

Gas prices continue to rise. Consumers continue to complain. Daily, pressure from all sides mounts in Washington DC, forcing politicians to do something about it. Yet, as the political and economical stakes are steadily rising up, the congressional season is indefinitely winding down. Now with only weeks left before November's climactic elections, Congress has little time to remain productive, before new representatives will soon (once again) alter the political balance indefinitely. Washington has many decisions to make and little time in which to make them.

In the issue of offshore drilling, the lines have been clearly drawn. For Republicans, the majorital consensus is essentially "drill, baby, drill!" Many agree that our nation is faced with a very obvious problem that demands an equally obvious answer. After all, why would you even bother acquiring the black gold from your untrusted enemies, when you have it yourself?

Of course there still is, and ever shall be a staunch and very vocal group of Democrats who continue to hold against offshore drilling. They make many convincing and relevant arguments: harm to the environment, increased national addiction to oil and decreased interest in alternative energy sources. Yet, even with all of these relevent and valid arguments, the democrats appear to be continuing to lose ground with the public opinion. Why? Because one political force has been proven strong enough to conquer even the most enthused and logical of national movements. What force is stong enough to stop even the power of "Going Green" in its tracks. One clue: The answer is also green... money!

In my opinion, both sides of this debate truly hold equally important points. Yes, our environment is changing for the worse, and yes, it appears to be related to human consumption of oil. Yes, we are nationally addicted and dependant on oil that comes from our enemies. This is a problem. Yes, we ultimaltely will need to end this addiction, simply because our supplies are limited and will eventually run out.

No, we cannot continue to afford the ever rising price of oil. No, we should not depend on unstable, anti-American governments to supply it. No, we do not currently have a well enough developed alternative source of energy to replace fossil fuels, and no, we do not have many other options than to drill off shore.

America needs to take both sides of this argument into equal consideration. It is my opinion that we should, for the moment, do everything in our power to keep oil prices reasonable. If that means drilling offshore, than we truly have no other choice for the moment. Yet, faith needs to be maintained in our alternative energy sources, because they are our future, whether we like it or not. America will need to rely on its historically tried and true resource: compromise. This, I feel, is the best and most effective way to deal with this current national pickle.

Information gathered from: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/88721/3/3/The_congressional_oil_drill

Is Attacking Palin Sexist?

As the presidential race heats up a few more degrees with the addition of Sarah Palin, McCain's unexpected VP pick, of course the media has felt it necessary to address and re-address the obvious fact of her gender. The word "sexism" has been flying all over newspapers, web pages and television screens seemingly nonstop since McCain's announcement. To no surprise whatsoever, I happened upon this headline article on the web page for The Week Daily, curiously titled "Is Attacking Palin Sexist?" In this brief article, the author explores the two aspects of Palin's person-hood that the American people are currently calling into question: her credentials, and her motherhood. Some appear to feel that neither of those aspects are very conducive to effective national governance.

It is my opinion that feminists tend to often request "special treatment" in the ways that they are observed and criticized by the rest of the world. Even the nature of this article suggests this. It is actually asking whether or not it is right for people to criticize Palin at all. Current American culture has long deemed it perfectly acceptable for male politicians to engage in brutal, endless mudslinging battles from beginning to end of the campaign season. However, now that a female has entered the political arena, the slime throwing must stop. She has been deemed untouchable, simply because she is a female. I feel that our current culture is attempting to compensate for the sexist actions taken against women of past generations. Now, rather than truly placing women on equal status with men, we are in fact placing them on a pedestal; a pedestal that even exempts them of even the most relevant political criticism.

The article seemed to conclude that questioning Palin's credentials was allowed, while questioning her motherhood was not. My conclusion is that criticism of Palin should not be restricted in any way. If women are to truly obtain the equal standing that they so eagerly and verbally long for, they should also have to endure the stresses that come with it. To discourage the criticism of any candidate is to remove the ability of the public to question government and to maintain accountability with leaders. The American people need to be aware of any potential hindrances to Palin's ability to perform the job of Vice President. If her motherhood is one of those perceived hindrances, so be it. The job of the American people in an election, is to seek, and find the best possible candidates for the job of president and vice president. The people need to properly perform their job, before Palin should ever be allowed to perform hers.

Link to Article: http://www.theweekdaily.com/article/index/88670/3/3/Is_attacking_Palin_sexist

Orwell and Huxley weren't the First...

As I have read and analyzed the messages of the two utopian, or rather anti-utopian novels, Brave New World by Alduous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, I did not originally view these two works as being truly prophetic in their bleak depictions of futuristic societies. Extreme technological advancements, obliteration of history and religion, large scale deception of the masses, and vaporization of those who rebel—it all seemed a bit far fetched to me. As I explored these novels, I did not realize that the authors who penned them were not only giving a general warning about the encroaching power of government, but were making distinct and exact predictions of what our world will look like a few centuries down the road—if our course is not changed. It was a comparative article titled ‘Conclusion: The Two Futures A.F. 632 and 1984,’ that provided me with valuable insight into the minds of these authors and their beliefs about government in our world of the future. I was astounded to find that these novels actually represent the author’s genuine beliefs for the future. It caused me to reflect on my own beliefs for a worst case futuristic scenario. It didn’t take long before the term “End Times” came to mind, referring to the Christian eschatological prophecies and beliefs (aka. What Christians believe life will be like at the end of time). I could not help but find countless similarities between the predictions of Huxley and Orwell, and those of the Bible. Some of the closest similarities include extreme technological advancements, obliteration of history and religion, large scale deception of the masses and vaporization of those who rebel. Hmmmmmm, who’d of thunk?

Christian eschatology has been long studied and interpreted in many ways over the years, yet nearly every Christian will agree on many fundamental beliefs for end time prophecies. One of these fundamental prophecies predicts that as the “last days” draw near, human kind will experience an incredible growth of knowledge and technology in a short time (Daniel 12:4). Just as the ruling governments of Oceana and the World State rely heavily upon technology to allow them to maintain control of the governed, many Christians feel that the evil government that will reign in the end times will only exist in a modernized world that has experienced an immense increase in knowledge.

The Biblical prophetic books also go to great extent to speak of a final dictatorial leader who will rise to power in the end times. He is often referred to as “the Beast” or the “Anti-Christ by Christians.” This deceptive and power hungry figurehead is largely comparable to the “Big Brother” of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is written that he will lead an unstoppable regime that will abolish all who oppose it (Daniel 7:23, Revelation 13). It is also said that the arrival of the Anti-Christ in the end times can not take place until “the time of rebellion comes” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This description of a rebellion immediately brought to mind the Huxleyan prediction of an “ultimate revolution,” which he believes will be a precursor to his futuristic society. Huxley seemed to agree with the biblical prediction that there must be some type of a political rebellion in order for such a society to become reality.

Huxley and Orwell both seem to agree that their futuristic societies will bring with them an incredible deception of the masses and a denial of the “whole truth.” Yet again, I discovered that Biblical prophecy concurs. The book of Daniel states that the Anti-Christ will have every intention of changing the established times and the laws (Daniel 7:25). It also describes him as being one who will “hurl truth to the ground.” Perhaps this abolishment of truth is close akin to the removing or rewriting of history that Huxley and Orwell guess will become reality in their futuristic governments. It is fact that all three books predict that their future governments will be masters of deception who will lead the majority of the masses to trust their faulty messages and resultantly subject themselves to dictatorial rule:

“The arrival of the lawless one will be by Satan’s working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonder, and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved.” (II Thessalonians 2: 9-12)

But what will happen to that small minority who realize the deception and choose to rebel. These are the Hemholtzs, the Savages, the Bernards, Leninas, Winstons, and Julias of these futuristic societies. The Bible uses the term, the remnant—those who continue to remember the “whole truth” and who refuse to accept deception. All who have read 1984 and Brave New World know without question what happens to the rebellious remnant. They are suppressed, exiled, disposed of and forgotten. They are ultimately vaporized. Similarly, Christian eschatology affirms that even the men and women of truth who will live in the end times will be defeated by the power of the Anti-Christ—at first. Yet here is where I finally found my first clear divergence of the Biblical prediction from those of Orwell and Huxley. The two modern authors most likely did not allow for a happy ending in order to motivate their audience to take action to prevent such a future from becoming reality. The Bible, having an entirely different purpose and audience, does promise an ultimate victory in the end to those who stand firm. While it does not promise that the road will be easy, it does assure an ultimate victory for that which is true, good, and righteous. At last, someone will finally dare to proclaim that those who rebel will not be forgotten, but will finally find the truth that they seek. I am glad that is God is the someone making that prediction. Aren’t you?

I Have Faith

In a recent conversation, I was discussing the conflict between faith and reason with a friend. The following quote was brought to my attention: “Faith is the crucifixion of reason.” I, being a person of devout faith, found that quote to be quite fascinating. It is truly an absolute statement to be make, although it does hold truth on many levels. It begs the question; can faith and reason truly coexist in one’s life? For me, however, the more appropriate question may be can you have one without the other? While faith and reason are often thought of as polar opposites that compete for precedence in the life of the decision maker, it has been my conclusion that the decision maker can not function properly without the use of both.
Humans are not all knowing beings. We never have been, and we arguably never will be. It is simply impossible for our brains to completely and wholly comprehend the vast nature of our universe, though we may make our best attempts. In fact, we spend the first twelve years or more of our life in a vigorous effort to learn and gather all information possible, that we may be educated decision makers who work under the banner of logic and reason. Yet even after extensive education, there are still so many questions that remain unanswered. Indeed, some of the most educated people I know are the ones who will be the first to remind me that we never stop learning—simply because there is too much information to fathom. As Aristotle once said, “The more (knowledge) you own, the more you know you don't own.”
If we as human beings are simply unable to understand everything, then at some point in our decision making, we must make a leap of faith—a choice based on insufficient information. Just as the deist requires faith to believe in the existence of God, so too an atheist requires just as much faith to deny the existence of God. Both of these opposite parties simply do not have enough information to prove their beliefs to be correct, so both must have faith. No matter what your belief may be, faith is required on some level to truly and fully hold to it.
It was said once a long time ago that faith is “the assurance of things hoped for and the certainty of things not seen.” By that definition I would confess that I have an incredible amount of faith, and I’m sure that you do as well. We all have hopes and dreams that we believe in. Is it provable that those hopes will become reality? No. But we must have faith that they will. Without faith, all the reason in the world is literally useless, because our faulty human condition does not allow us to realistically know all. Logic and reason absolutely hold appropriate place in the life of any decision maker. Knowledge is undoubtedly necessary in order for the individual to make wise and accurate decisions. Yet still at some point, human knowledge is insufficient. The human race needs to admit it—we don’t know everything and we never will. We all need faith