The Pendragon's Hall

Michael Schiavo must be happy. His wife is dead. He killed her. And he won't even have to face justice for it because those who usually dispense it gave him permission to do so. Those who amuse themselves looking for similarities between modern America and the Nazis should look no further than this. In fact, Michael Schiavo's attorney might have had a lot to teach the Nazis. All you need to do is give the Jews stuffed toys, play Mozart to them, put flowers in their barracks and tell the Allies, "They're really all brain dead; they can't feel." Nazism might have survived to this day; isn't that a heartwarming thought? Oh wait, it did.

I don't question why this happened. I am stunned and heartbroken that we have so far to go to become a culture of life. But what happened is no mystery. It came out in the protests. The Florida Courts were humiliated in 2000; they didn't want it to happen again. They had to enforce their decrees no matter who got in the way. Hatred for Bush was directed against an innocent woman, just as that hatred is focused on troops in Iraq. When will the media start counting the dead terrorists with the same glee that they count dead US and coalition troops? The judiciary is stepping out of bounds, ruling like they're God, and whenever this is challenged, the Left goes into hyper-prevent hold. What you should hear through all the blather about states rights (which really means "state court rights") is: "We don't like representative government, because whenever the people are represented, we lose. So we have to turn to unelected elites to lay down the law." The judicial system was a check on Congress and the President but they are not the end-all of constitutional government. We need to curb their excesses to get back to three separate and equal branches of government. I'd rather entrust my freedom with two elected branches of government than a tiny minority who will never be accountable to anyone until we hold them accountable. I'm sorry that it takes this to get us to see the wildness of the judicial system. Rein in those judges.

My prayers are with the Schindler family at this time. As for that beast, I don't much care. He can't even contain his jubilation. The smile is barely hidden. I hope I never get to such a state where innocent life means so little to me.

Maybe the critics were right: maybe we are just like the terrorists. Somehow, though, I suspect, that the critics won't actually agree with this one. Starving an innocent, helpless woman does sound like something Saddam would do. Saddam's torture camps have reopened perhaps, not in Abu Ghraib where hardened terrorists who committed crimes against the US and against their own people suffered a little discomfort in order to soften them up for interrogation, but in Florida, where one of our own citizens is being put to tortuous death. And while this is going on, the NYT and various other liberal groups are trying to assure us that starvation is a painless even "euphoric" way to go. I hope all of you will remember that when someone next approaches you to plead for "food for the hungry" or to talk of all the starving children, be it in Africa, Iraq, North Korea, or downtown Chicago, you will look them straight in the eye and say, with Ebenezer Scrooge, "If they be like to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population." When you see pictures of bloated children in Kenya, tell the person showing them to you, "Why, I do declare, they've never looked more beautiful or peaceful." When someone whines to you about food disappearing for animals, like polar bears or elephants or squirrels or whatever happens to be the latest rage, tell them where to get off to the tune of, "Well, it won't hurt them to lose a little weight." If your dog is dying, as mine is, don't take it to the vet and have it put to sleep, just stop feeding and watering it. It'll die a "gentle, painless" death in a couple weeks. A cardinal from the Catholic Church (pay attention, Observer) declared on Good Friday: "Things haven't changed much in 2000 years; we still put to death innocent people who bother us." Terri Schiavo has committed no crime--if she had, the Left would be clamoring for her civil rights. I have a suggestion to make: let that creep who murdered the nine-year-old Florida girl be tied up and turned over to her family. Let no judge intervene: it's a family affair. Those terrorists in Guantanamo? Let's not only smear them with fake menstrual blood, let's stop feeding them. It costs us money to feed, money that could be used to rescue social security, and terrorists are a blight on society. Besides which, something that can be established for Islamic terrorists beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt (but can't for Terri Schiavo) is that they would rather die. After all, their religion promises that if they are martyrs for the cause, they get into paradise. Very well then. Let's make them martyrs. We'll make the world more peaceful and serene and the Islamo-fascists can peacefully slip into the arms of their God. Of course in a year or two, President Bush will get an email signed "Allah" saying, "Quit killing them. I only have so many virgins." It's a more serene way to go after all than to shoot them. It gives them plenty of time to prepare and we all save money. And while you're at it, end any overseas funding of feeding the hungry programs. Those people in Africa probably don't want to live in such adverse circumstances either. It's much more serene to starve to death. Yeah, I stand to benefit from starving Africans (in that my tax money can go to more useful things) but after all, Michael Schiavo stands to benefit from Terri's death too and he is a reasonable source. This is not a Republican-Demnocratic split. Senator Joe Liebermann (D-Conn.) is in favor of life on this issue. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) is not. It comes down to a matter of principles over politics. Those who value human life over those who simply want to see Bush humiliated. The main difference between myself and the Observer is that I wish to let the guilty die and the innocent live; the Observer would rather the innocent die and the guilty live.

On a related note: to my fellow conservatives, don't be too hard on Governor Bush. He's doing all he can. If it were a Governor Reno (as it would have been if she had her way) and the issue was a little boy seeking asylum in the US, laws would have been set at defiance. But we cannot act that way. We would only set precendent for future lawless regimes like that of Bill Clinton. To those who would say that Clinton already set the precedent, I would just say we don't want to emulate it. We are not like them.

The way the courts continue to pretend they have some kind of respect for law is laughable. Even precedent here is not on their side. During the Florida Supreme Court case (SCOFLA) in 2000, Palm Beach v. Katherine Harris, I find that the Florida Supreme Court ordered all election proceedings to stop while they considered Palm Beach's complaints. The exact wording of the case: "By orders dated Friday, November 17, 2000, this Court accepted jurisdiction, set an expedited briefing schedule, and enjoined the Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission from certifying the results of the presidential election until further order of this court." At first glance this appears understandable--the justices needed time to hear the evidence and needed to stop the process until they were sure of what to do, so that Al Gore didn't lose the election in the meantime. Perfectly acceptable. Until you realize they now deny Terry Schiavo the same benefits. Judge after judge is refusing to order to feeding tube reinserted while evidence is heard. This is ridiculous. If it was necessary in one, it is certainly necessary in the other. Al Gore didn't like Terry Lewis' ruling so he appealed it. The court stopped the process he didn't like so they could hear his case. Terri's parents didn't like the lower court's ruling and appealed the decision. The higher court refused to even reinsert the feeding tube in the meantime. It really seems as if they're hoping she dies before all the legal cases come due. This is ludicrous and we know where it will lead. After this long protracted battle and agony, people will say, "Let's not do this again; let's inject them and kill them painlessly." Basically what is happening here is one branch of the government, the judiciary, is ordering the murder of a disabled citizen. The judiciary appears to think itself the sole, unchecked check on the rest of the government. There is nothing to suggest that in the Constitution itself. The judiciary was to interpret the laws and the only way they were going to be a check on the other branches was by telling them when they were acting unconstitutionally. But no judge has yet said Terri Schiavo's parents are acting unconstitutionally, or the President, or Congress for that matter. They just said: "We are not going to let you." If the executive and legislative branches allow them to get away with this, we will cease to live in a democracy and begin to live in an oligarchy, ruled by the few, the unelected judges. There is precedent for Presidential authority, or gubernatorial authority, to override that of judges. When the US Supreme Court handed down a ruling President Andrew Jackson disagreed with, he said, "John Marshall has made the decision. Let him try to enforce it." He ignored the ruling. Yet democracy continued to function. I would never argue that we ought to ignore everytime a judge speaks, but the judge's gavel is not the final word and these rulings lately have grown increasingly loopy. For example, the US Supreme Court struck down state laws allowing the death penalty for minors (anyone want to argue this is a breach of states rights?) and they did it by appealing to the laws of other countries. It's about time President Bush, Congress, the governors and legislatures of these states where things like this come up stop the judges cold in their tracks, demand that they rule based on United States law, not some other country's, and stop legislating from the bench. Only then can we go back to having a government made up of three branches, instead of one.

"If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am nothing." As Terri Schiavo's life is drained away by the order of elitist men in black, I am reminded of the real difference between Right and Left, me and the Observer. In the end it comes down to motivation. What motivates people to act in certain ways? It depends of course on who you're talking about. But it is love, actually, that should be our primary motiovation, especially if you call yourself a Christian. This is what is motivating people to act on Terri's behalf. We have a high view of human life because we actually do believe all life is precious because we believe these people are created in the image of God. What is motivating those on the other side? Quite simply, it's hatred. Read the Observer's gleeful comments on my March 22nd post, read the arguments flooding from the other side, hear Michael Schiavo ask, "Is the bitch dead yet?" It's different kind of hatred than simple hatred of Terri. For the Observer it's hatred of Bush, so much so that she is willing, no even happy, to let an innocent woman die as long as we "lose." The hatred she has for some leads her to a complete contempt for human life. It's a disastrous place to be at. This is why she can pontificate (I choose that word with care) about how Christians should demand withdrawal from Iraq on the basis of 21 dead Italians. In other words, I should mourn personally over each dead soldier, shot in pursuance of duty, fully capable of defending themselves, but I should ignore the plight of an innocent American citizen being starved to death by the order of her own government, or rather a branch of that government acting as its sole agent. Observer, you may have "some" knowledge of Constitutional law, but that probably only extends to knowing what the Constitution is. Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the right to establish the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and that is what they did. Your hatred of Bush obscures all else: this is why the Left plasters our papers with names of dead soldiers, and big banner headlines reading THOUSANDTH SOLDIER KILLED!!! It's a circus. You whine and complain about my "insults and name calling" but at least it's only you I'm aiming it at. Your posts are an insult to all of humanity, that you think that little of human life, that you find glee in its loss. I defy you: read any of my posts and find a place where I am gleeful over the loss of life. I'm glad when terrorists are killed or locked up because I have a love for innocent people that you do not share and I want anyone who could harm them safely put away. But I do not celebrate soldiers' deaths in an attempt to discredit Bush and make my own political point; and I do not rejoice in the death of an innocent woman because it means my political enemies "lose" a battle. If we ever withdrew food and water from the terrorists, heck, if we ever withdrew food and water from our dogs, there would be a tremendous outcry, and so there should be. Starving someone is about the most tortuous way to go, even worse than sawing off someone's head with a butcher knife. And if you try to go on about some kind of Christian answer to how we ought to mourn every death, I have but one thing to say: You didn't read to the end of the book. Revelation contains a two chapter song, sung by the angels at God's command, celebrating the utter destruction of Babylon, the city of doom. I do not think it wrong to rejoice when liberation comes to an oppressed people, which it has in Iraq. Those of us on this side of the argument act from love--love for the innocent, love for the oppressed, love for justice. You act from complete and utter hatred, and your posts show it, you hate Bush, you hate anyone who agrees with him, and you hate anything that will make him look good, like a victory over the tyranny of the judiciary, or the establishment of his "culture of life." So don't try to talk Christian virtue to me. You've ruined your credibility on that score with your last few posts.

Does anyone wonder...

...why Terry Schiavo's husband Michael was the only one to witness her accident?
...why he, though certified in CPR, did not perform CPR on her?
...why he will not let her parents take her over and he can get just get on with his life?
...why nobody else ever knew that Terri wanted to be murdered?
...why judges are ignoring that some doctors have said Terri did not have a heart attack, but rather showed evidence of a blunt blow to the back of the head?
(see first question.)
...why, if she will not recover but her parents want to take care of her, her husband still wants her dead?

Big question: what does Terri know, and would maybe remember if she recovered, that Scott--er, Michael, doesn't want anyone to find out?

Governor Jeb Bush should take matters into his own hands. When Florida courts declared Elian Gonzalez in the guardianship of his family in Miami, the Clinton Justice Department sent armed guards to seize him at gunpoint and send him back to Cuba...all because Castro said so. In effect, the Banana Boat Republic dictated to the United States what it would do. So where was the vaunted respect for states rights then? When the Left says "states rights" what they really mean is "states court." Courts are the only branch of government liberals want, because then they'll never have to be judged by the people. When the Supreme Court overrode state's laws outlawing abortion, liberals cheered. So, who's blowing their cover now? The Left is now being revealed for what they are--they don't care about states rights unless it agrees with their ideology, and what they are for in reality is death of the innocent. Terrorists and murderers are their protectorate--helpless women and children are their victims.

I wondered when the Observer would return and give me more patent absurdities to refute. Intriguing is her resort to polls. 70% of the American public supported the war in Iraq at its outset yet somehow I suspect those polls aren't legitimate enough. The hypocrisy of the Left is something absolutely ridiculous, so much so you can't even accuse them of it without being accused of hypocrisy yourself. The Observer believes that the Right would be applauding the decision of the state courts if it were what we wanted. This is probably true. And Scott Peterson--I mean Michael Schiavo (sorry, Freudian slip) would probably then have wanted Congress to intervene and the Observer would be happy for them to do so. So don't flatter yourself on your elitist superiority. The point of the last post was, Congress has the authority to establish the jurisdiction of the courts and how far the appellate process (that's anything to do with appeals, Observer) can go. That's all they did. They didn't order the rube reinserted. Nor have they put any pressure on the Federal judge now hearing the case to do so. All they did was in keeping with their constitutional rights. The Federal judge has not even complied with the parent's wishes, so I am not quite sure what the Observer was belly-aching about. Must have been something at dinner.

I wish I could transport the Observer back in time to the 1950s, for more reasons than one actually, but the primary reason being she could preach to the Eisenhower administration about not sending troops to desegregate the schools. This is a matter that should have been left to the states after all. You'd better believe if a state court ordered a terrorist suspect held without food and water, the Observer and her companions on the Left would be more than happy to see it go to Federal Court or even to have Congress simply intervene. The hypocrisy on this question is so great you can't even call it without being hypocrite. That's life with a Left gone wild.

It's ridiculous--a professor at the University of Wisconsin said last night that starvation of Terri Schiavo would not be painful for her because "she can't feel pain." Yesterday's NYT took it a little further, applying it across the board. It calls starvation "a gentle death." Rush Limbaugh was rightly skeptical: Why do we have to feed people in Africa then? This is true. The people in Africa probably don't like their lives either. This is so patently ludicrous. Starvation is a horrible death. This is why we spend billions to provide food for people overseas and why people get all teared up and when confronted with the plight of millions of people in Africa or the Middle East or South America or downtown Chicago or wherever it happens to be. The Common Room details how a survivor of the "persistent vegetative state" who had been starved for eight days feels about the whole thing.

The Left and the pseudo-Right are wrong on this issue on so many levels. We don't even starve animals, we call that inhumane. The Left isn't really interested in protecting the rights of the state. They are interested, however, in protecting the power of the courts. This is the real reason they wish Congress to remain out of it. It is not unconstitutional at all--Article III of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the court system, which is what they did. They gave Federal courts the power to review the case. This is completely within congressional authority. But Leftists don't want the court power to diminish--how will they rule the country without these unelected elitists dictating to the majority of the country?

I am pleased to announce, as probably everyone who doesn't live in a cave knows, that Congress approved Terri's law very late last night. I am impressed. The Republican Party is finally learning to govern. Those who know me well know that I am continually frustrated when the majority party, the Republican Party, continues to wring their hands, apologize, and act like a minority. Then again, I sometimes wish the Democrats would learn to act like a minority party and stop pretending they can dictate everything. But if the Republicans are fool enough to let them, we deserve what we get. As for the anti-Bush crowd's latest ploy, "51% is not mandate" I'd like to know what is. Certainly not the 47% Clinton got the first time around, or even the second time when he made it up to 49%. Bush won 51% and he won a majority in both Houses, something not even Clinton ever did, not that it mattered. Clinton governed like he had a mandate anyway.

Rants aside, something was raised last night that deserves serious consideration. Certain Democrats (who shall remain nameless, largely because I don't know their names) as well as certain lawyers opposed the bill because it would overturn "centuries of juris prudence". One aspect of this is that state courts are "being ignored" and the Federal government is intervening where it should not. I ignore this, largely for the reason that the Democrats are more than happy to ignore state laws if it suits their political purpose. So that's not a serious argument, it's just political maneuvering. The other issue raised though is that of the law of the land being "general", that is not applied to a single person. Here the Democrats are absolutely right. Laws are not supposed to be applied to one specific person and I wish that Terri's Law would have been written much more generally. But let us understand: time is of the essence. A deliberative body should, by nature, deliberate and unfortunately we just don't have time to argue about ins and outs while the woman is starving to death. But the deeper issue here is that the original Constitutional Order only applies itself in all its glory to a moral and upright people. This is something the Founders definitely believed in. John Jay commented, "America will be ruled by the Bible or by the bayonet." Something that echoes in the writings of all the Founders is that people must govern themselves or the government has to enforce morality from the outside. And this is true. If people cannot decipher for themselves what is right and wrong, then government must do it for them because that is the purpose of government. So, today, we see a man who was about to get away with murdering his helpless wife has been stopped by the decree of government. Do I think this the ideal way of doing things? No. I would have preferred Michael Schiavo to have been able to not do this on his own because he is a moral human being. This is clearly not being done and so now, the last resort, the government is being forced to do it.

If you're interested in pursuing this case further, and don't want to leave nasty messages for the poor people running it, hop over to The Common Room. The objections you can leave for me.

I had hoped this case would be out of the news now, but Terri Schiavo surfaces again as her husband, the father of two children by his mistress, seeks to kill her. I don't care what anybody says, this one is clear cut. I'm sick of pseudo-conservatives pretending this isn't the government's business and liberals warbling about "the dignity of death." Pseudo-conservatives: This is the government's business, in fact, it is their only business. Romans 13 declares that government is an agent to do good and punish evil. Protecting an innocent woman from murder certainly falls within the do good/punish evil category. As for the rest of it, I don't think that it is analogous to those doctors who decide to stop trying to save the life of the patient. For example, someone on life support is not expected to live anyway, so the doctor, in conjunction with the patient's family, decides to stop the life support. I am not condemning this. Because sometimes the patient can live without the life support, and if they do, the doctor isn't going to leap on the bed and smother them. They've stopped actively trying to save the life but they are not actively trying to take it. But to stop feeding a patient can have only one end: death. As far as I can tell, Terri displays all the vital signs--she smiles, she laughs, she responds to touch and words. And just why is her husband so eager to have her dead? He won't even allow her parents to buy him off and assume the responsibility to care for Terri. This is straightforward: Terri's husband is trying to murder her for reasons of his own, and the government is well within its rights to step forward and stop this.

Meanwhile, they recently captured another animal in Florida, about to be charged with the kidnapping and murder of a nine-year-old girl. Where are the pseudo-conservatives saying the government shouldn't "get involved" in this case? Or how about this: let's let the father meet the guy. Preferably in a dark alley where his screams for help will not avail him. It's a family affair after all.

In the interest of a little humor, I post some "additions" to the famous cow herd that my political science professor handed out in class the other day:

DEMOCRATIC--You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. Barbara Streisand sings to you.

REPUBLICAN--You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?

COMMUNIST--You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

FRENCH CORPORATION--You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch and drink wine. Life is good.

JAPANESE COPORATION--You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school. (And the first one to tell me this is a racist joke gets canned.)

GERMAN CORPORATION--You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles per hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation every year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION--You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION (My personal favorite)--You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION--You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creatures' private parts. You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION--You have two cows. They go into hiding. They sent radio tapes of their mooing.

BELGIAN CORPORATION--You have one cow. The cow is schizophrenic. Sometimes the cow thinks he's Flemish, other times he's French. The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow. The French cow wants to control the Flemish cow's milk. The cow asks permission to be cut in half. The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION (Just to be fair)--You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best-looking cow. Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out of state tell you which one you think is the best cow.

Can it get any more bizarre? Italy announced recently that is beginning withdrawal of its 3,000 troops in what CNN refers to as "a new crack" in President Bush's coalition. Now I do not want to bash Italy--they have been a firm ally. And I know Europeans have never quite got under their belt that bigger things must be considered before simply caving to every whim of the majority. There are serious political realities to be faced and, of course, Berlusconi is interested in being re-elected. It's only natural. So no hard feelings. Nevertheless, I had to laugh, somewhat bitterly at the way the media lionized Italy suddenly. When Italy was standing strong and firm in their resolve, the media focused on the antiwar riots in the streets. Now that they've waffled, they are the new heroes. The media talk about their firm commitment "despite 21 casualties." 21?!?? Pardon me if I sound unimpressed but does anyone remember wars where the casualty rates were in the hundred thousands? Then the media put together a list of other countries that have/had troops in Iraq. Monico had twelve. That's right: twelve. Now, I know Monico is a small country, but what's the point of simply sending twelve? If it was an invasion of France, it would probably serve to take a whole city but it wasn't. This says something different to me than it does to the media: To the media it says the coalition is crumbling. To me it says: Maybe it is, but it's something that a country would be so eager to get into the coalition in the first place that they would go to all the trouble of sending just twelve soldiers (probably all they could spare from the great empire of Monoco) just so they could say they were involved. All I can is, it must be excruciating for the left and their pet, the trained media, to see that even with the coalition "unraveling" all Iraq is not disintegrating into chaos. Then again, it never was: the media, in their endless quest for excitement and defeat, has ventured into the 5% of Iraq, by our own soldiers' words, that is unsettled. 5% ain't bad. By the end of two years we probably hadn't even civilized Japan yet and they're one whole country with the same culture from head to toe, not three separate cultures.

There really is something I wish George Bush would get off his duff and do, and that's fire the Jap who's been running the transportation department for the last four years. He put him in in 2001, figuring even a Democrat couldn't mess up running transportation (it was a real blow for the Democratic Party who had fondly thought that perhaps they would merit a higher position, like, I don't know, maybe state or defense). Bush had good intentions but unfortunately the tragedy of 9/11 not only propelled us into two wars but actually made the department of transportation a rather key player in the government. Under Norman Mineta, we strip-searched little old ladies on their way to Idaho, but couldn't search more than two Arab-looking men per flight. Never mind the fact that every plane-hijacking for the last twenty years has been committed by Muslim extremists, most, if not all, of whom have been of Arab descent. Heck, Mineta wouldn't even let airport security screen passengers more on the basis of their name--such as Mohommed. His concern for civil liberties is all fine and good, especially in the new age of pointless litigation, but insofar as his job is keeping transportation safe, you'd think he'd actually put partisan politics behind him. But no, instead, as usual, we get maximum discomfort with minimum protection. It's a typical Democrat strategy--Clinton used it in Kosovo: Risk American lives and use up American weapons without making the US any safer or any better off. Mineta was not in a position to do that but he did what he could for the cause. He made airport security the laughingstock of the world. And why? He said why, he said he couldn't "discriminate" between potential terrorists and innocent bystanders...(drumroll please) because sixty years ago another Democratic politician didn't. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, because FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans without discriminating between enemies and friends, Norm Mineta thinks he should follow his example and leave the real enemies alone while torturing those not likely to cause any trouble. I'm all for tighter security and I'll do anything they want me to do to prove I'm not a terrorist as I'm boarding a plane, but it seems to me ridiculous that as long as two Syrian cab drivers have already boarded a flight and been searched, Osama Bin Laden himself could get on the plane and could not be searched. In the midst of their writhing over the resignation of Colin Powell liberals ignore that one of the few members of the first administration to remain is this miserable failure. This is ridiculous, Mr. President, and enough is enough: Fire Norm Mineta.

The Observer correctly points out that to some it may seem illogical that I praise reformers in the same paragraph as I criticize those supposedly seeking to reform the Church today. She compares me not to Martin Luther, but to the Church leaders who would have criticized Martin Luther's arrogance. She is right on the surface: Martin Luther and John Wesley and the other reformers were open to this criticism from higher up.

On the foundation level, however, she is wrong because she was inattentive to the later comment, which also perhaps should have been more clearly dealt with by myself. I will try to remedy that now. Edmund Burke criticized the revolution in France, not because the French system was, he believed, the best one going, but because they treated their country as "carte blanche", that is, a blank slate on which they might write anything they chose. They had no regard for the institutions of their country, nor really, for the people they were supposedly helping. In claiming to stand for "the rights of man" (whatever that ephemeral phrase might mean) they sought to sweep away all the institutions that had formed the people over the years. Those of you who studied the French Revolution in History may remember that they basically declared war on Christianity--destroying monastaries, dethroning the church, altering the calendar, abolishing the holy days, even seeking to change the structure of the week, all because they thought they knew better than anything based on Scripture. These are the liberal "reformers" of the day. I am not. Nor was Martin Luther, nor was John Wesley. By contrast, Burke had commendation for the American revolutionaries because rather than sweep away everything and start complete afresh, they sought to alter the existing system only in very minor ways. Yes, there was something revolutionary about what they did. Certainly Jefferson's sweeping and not very well thought out preamble to the Declaration of Independence spoke of abstract dreams like "life", "liberty", "the pursuit of happiness", "all men are created equal", "inalienable rights". This sounds pretty radical, especially given the context of the times. But when they actually sat down to frame a government, what they came up with, while very different in some respects from the British government they had thrown off, was not radically different, so much so that many opposed it for fear it would usher back in the age of British oppression. While there were certain things they felt were outdated and needed to be changed, in the long run, they returned to the traditional way of doing things.

All this to say, there are two kinds of reformers. Those who, with no respect for God's Word or tradition, seek to drag new ideas in from all over and "new" becomes synonomous with "right" (this is not an argument, by the way, that "new" always equals "bad"). With no respect for the great men of the past or for the Bible, they seek simply to impose their own extra-Biblical views, usually exceedingly new, onto what the Church has taught for centuries. This leads to questioning everything, not as a basis for finding the truth, but as a basis for questioning as an exercise in and of itself. Questioning becomes something you do not to find the truth, but because, for lack of a better word, it's "cool" or it seems intellectual. People like this have gone way beyond Descartes even, because at least Descartes ended with something that he considered rock bottom and could not be questioned. And in the end, he sought to find the truth. These "reformers" do not, because to them, there is no truth. But that was not the style of Luther or Wesley. Nor was it the style of Jesus. Luther never wanted to break away from the traditional church; he only sought to reform certain abuses that grew out of it. Wesley included in his famous "Wesleyan qudrilateral" both Scripture and tradition, not just reason and experience. Reformers need not be revolutionaries--that is, they need not destroy what they seek to reform. Jesus Himself did not condemn traditions as such--in John 8, He kept the Feast of Hannukah, not commanded in Scripture but dictated by tradition. It was when traditions superseded the Word of God that He felt obliged to alter or abolish them. I would not say that all traditions must be kept inviolate--some are flat out wrong, some have outlived their usefulness. But reformers need not be revolutionaries in the French sense of the word, nor should they be, that is, they should not have to destroy what they are trying to reform. Saruman sneers at Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings, Book I that white light, the primary color, can be broken, and Gandalf answers firmly, "In which case it is no longer white. And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." They have also left the path of reformation, you may call them revolutionaries but reformers they are not and arrogant they certainly are, because they hold themselves aloof and above all "lesser mortals" who happened to live before them.

Given my recent history, I thought maybe I'd talk a bit about the bloggers who were recently fired for blogging about their jobs--one, a flight attendent, for showing somewhat risque photos of her in company uniform, and two, a commentary on his own job. Given all the talk about freedom of speech and suchlike these days, usually commentaries on this could fall into two camps: the liberals, who are divided, because on the one hand they don't like the free speech of the internet, but on the other they do say anyone should be able to say what they want regardless; or the conservatives, who generally think that speech should be held in by responsibility but who generally don't approve of government restriction of free speech that isn't indecent.

I am torn to decide what I think. Obviously, I believe in free speech. It is in the Constitution first thing, so the Founders thought it was important. And since these people weren't using company time to blog, which is what I originally thought from the headlines, it seems they should be allowed to write what they want on their own time. I did not see the pictures, but apparently a few of them showed her bra strap. I'm not hugely in favor of this of course, but it's not like she was the first. Go to AIM.com and you'll see plenty of such pictures and these people are not censured. But the fact remains: She was using her company uniform to sell herself. What the company probably objected to was her risque pictures using their uniform. This seems reasonable to me.

The harder one is the case of the guy criticizing his company. But even here I can cut some slack. The Constitution says "Congress" shall not abridge freedom of speech or of the press (whichever you would call this) and a later amendment (the 14th) has been interpreted to mean that state governments must not do this. But the Constitution does not prohibit private corporations from dismissing employees for any and every reason. Only recently has it become fashionable to claim that corporations somehow owe it to their employees to let them say whatever they want. Now, I know the first objection to be raised will be, what if something unethical is going on and the employees want to speak out? Well, what if? They can still speak out and indeed they should, but they should also remember that they will probably be fired and they can't appeal to some kind of right of freedom of speech to protect them from that, because they simply don't have one that is guaranteed by anything binding in a court of law. Many companies do have policies of not basing the offer of a job on, you know the drill, "race, ethnicity, religion," or what have you. Shooting off at the mouth isn't one on the list that I've ever seen though. And constant complaining about the job lowers job performance. Trust me; I know.

I don't know that this is what happened here. The story on CNN was pretty bare on details, but while freedom of speech, especially on the internet, is protected from government interference, I think from what I can tell that these people did do something that their company was entitled, not obligated though, to enforce penalty on. And one never even knows. The firings may have had nothing to do with blogging: people trying to elicit sympathy for their cause will often claim they were fired, or not hired in the first place, because of something like this. I read once where someone disobeyed the rules clearly set down by an organization and was rejected for a top job, and then complained it was because he had "liberal progressive" ideas. Somehow I doubt it.

A visitor to Monticello once noticed that Thomas Jefferson had placed a bust of Hamilton, his arch-nemesis, directly across from a portrait of himself. The visitor commented on this to the old patriarch, who smiled and said, "Ah yes. We are just as opposite in death as we were in life."

Pope Charming: I have deleted the entry in which I mocked your apology and I apologize for so doing. Possibly in later years we will be like Adams and Jefferson of old, crusty elderly gents writing letters about politics back and forth. I'm sure I hope we are.

Thank you to the Observer for her last comment. I am truly flattered, I mean this sincerely, by your words. I have never really thought of myself as a "future leader of America." I laughed for an hour after reading it. The fun thing is, I would probably stand a better chance of being elected than you, but that's neither here nor there.

I will of course be labeled arrogant for this. It's always been a real mystery to me that the one who simply believes he's right and tries to prove it is arrogant, while someone who lists among their areas of expertise "everything" is not. In the long run, however, liberals are really the arrogant ones. The only reason there are liberals among those calling themselves Christians is because American Christianity, like European Christianity before it, has somehow decided that "traditional" equals "wrong." The people who think they know better than the church fathers, the reformers, the thinkers and theologians of the centuries, these are the arrogant ones. Chronological snobbery is the worst form of arrogance and it is, unfortunately, in vogue upon Christian academics. They treat their church like Burke said the French revolutionaries treated France, like a "blank slate upon which one may scribble whatever one pleases." The fate of the French revolution is the fate of these people as well. They will find themselves adrift, without anything, in the clutches of what they tried to avoid.

I was listening to the news today and heard something odd. Martha Stewart was released from prison but now must endure five months of house arrest with an electronic bracelet on her ankle. Now I have not followed this story at all, so I don't know whether I think she deserves arrest or not. But...is it not just a tiny bit odd that someone convicted of possible business misdealing is basically having her life wrecked. There is nothing too bad for her. Meanwhile terrorists are having hundreds of people plead that they be allowed all the comforts of home. If we ever start putting electronic bracelets on terrorists, you'd better believe you'll hear about it. It seems ironic to me.

My personal life has been coming up a lot lately in this blog, mostly in connection with one wonderful young lady. Today I have an announcement to make, as of Friday, February 25th, Gillian has agreed to be my wife, the wedding date is currently set for December 31st of this year. As I stand upon this new threshold, somewhere I never thought I'd reach, I am just amazed. I love Gillian so much (yeah, Jon, this is the sappy part--deal with it), and I really do want to be with her forever. She made me the happiest man in the world. I hope I can make her as happy.