This posting is for little other purpose than to keep the blog alive. It may be that 2 blogs is too much for me. However, I will likely never concede that opinion and just limp this one along. It also may be that I will revive this blog and send it to the top of the list of most visited blogs on the web. Until then...
If nothing else, I can provide a list of notable works of literature that I have enjoyed in the last few months.
***Currently Reading:
TIME magazine - every week, or when I make time to catch up.
The Bible - reading through with the family for the second time. First time took us nearly 6 years at approx. 1 paragraph per night. Currently in the 31st chapter of Genesis.
A Heart for Freedom by Chai Ling - Reading this with Bec. Currently half way through the book. Quite an enlightening perspective on the oppression and modern history of China.
The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien - Reading this with the family. This has also taken over a year to read aloud to Ella and Bec. We nearly have the Hobbits home again. Middle Earth has been saved.
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli - If I were anticipating the takeover of a medieval kingdom, I would be taking notes. Does Machiavelli get a bad rap? I wonder...
The Supreme Court by Jeffrey Rosen - Listening to this on audio book while I drive. Fascinating. Unfortunately I should be taking notes - difficult while driving.
***Recently Read:
The Lord of the Flies by William Golding - Basically everything you need to know about the makings of anarchy.
7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey - I have so much to learn.
One Bullet Away by Nathaniel Fick - A Marine Recon officer's account of his experience with the Marines and his time in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interesting seeing the battle from such a limited perspective. He limits the reader's access to plans and intel - to mimic his own experience. No omnipotent point of view here. Also no role for Stallone or Schwarzenegger.
The Great Deluge by Douglas Brinkley - If I was to define objective - Brinkley's handling of hurricane Katrina would be included in the definition. Very poignant.
San Francisco is Burning by Dennis Smith - Not sure how I got on this track of reading about destroyed American cities. Waiting for the real thing...
Several others that either elude me or have not been worth my time.
***Failed Attempt:
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky - I became so depressed reading this that I gave up shortly after the murder. Someone please tell me if there is light at the end of that dark Russian tunnel. If so, I may try again.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Little House on the Prairie
I looked around the corner of the living room at my daughter sitting in MY chair and realized that she was 3/4 of the way done with her first novel. 335 pages of Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House on the Prairie.
I had seen my 8 year old flipping the pages 2 days earlier, and asked her to read to me while I rested. Within minutes I was captivated and my short rest was extended. I got to hear about how Pa and Ma built their cabin out of logs pulled from the creek bottoms, and how Mr. Edwards had moved in right down the creek and was going to help Pa finish the cabin and barn.
I walked through the room at one point some hours later and she looked up with wide eyes and said, "The fire was like a wall all around their house!" and then said something about them saving baby Carrie before getting lost again to her new world. As if to allay my fears, a few moments later she reassured me that they had all been saved.
I learned in passing that the horses had been named Pet and Patty by the girls, that Indians had snuck into the cabin, and later that the Indians had returned to steal Pa's tobacco.
My mother claims, and I suppose I have some recollection, that she read this story to my sisters and myself when we were very young. So with what little I recall from at least 25 years ago, and the snatches of expression emitted from my recliner I've pieced together a few bits of the story.
To try for a more didactic approach, I quizzed her about her book a few days later:
So what did you like most about the book?
-I liked it best when they were traveling.
Why were they traveling?
-Because the Big Woods were getting too crowded and there wasn't enough game.
Who is your favorite character?
-Jack.
The dog?
-Yeah cause he's a dog.
Which character did you learn the most from?
-Laura and Mary.
What did you learn?
-I don't remember...
Did anybody change in the book?
-I don't remember - but Laura or Mary had a birthday.
-Laura and Mary learned something about the Indians.
What did they learn?
-They learned that they had built their house in the Indian's territory.
Were the Indians mean to them?
-No - but they would steal stuff from them sometimes. And they had skunk skins on them sometimes. They were stinky!
What did they use the skunk skins for?
-They were hats or to cover their bodies. Because they're bare - you know. At least mostly bare. -The children were all bare!
Indeed.
What did they eat?
-Meat, cornbread, and they drank water. And milk.
How did they get the milk - did they have a cow?
-Yep, and it had a calf. Actually it was bull.
The calf?
-No the cow.
So how did they get milk from a bull?
-It must have been a girl bull.
Huh?
-Well it had horns.
And then I remembered why reading is so important. I really don't think I knew - at 8 years old - that cows could have horns.
Horns, Udders.
Sit, Stand.
Red, Green.
Either, Or.
In the time I've gotten around to publishing this, she has now also archived the next book in the series. The library book bag is hanging by the front door, and I suspect Laura will grow older and have more adventures over the next week.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Incapable of putting my thoughts into words, I have mused on Harriet Beecher Stowe's poignant masterpiece for several weeks. What can be added to her expose' of such a grim era?
Lincoln is quoted as having commented upon meeting Stowe, "So this is the little lady who started this great war."
If it is possible that you are completely unfamiliar with Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, then in short the novel is a tale of the antebellum south, slavery, pride, and pain. An ever omniscient point of view puts the reader into the mind and motive of the slaves, the free, children, aged, poor, and wealthy all playing a part in the quagmire of an economy and way of life dependent on the subjugation of mankind by his neighbor.
From the perspective of a contemporary, Stowe draws the reader into her novel with piercing pleas for sympathy. The story is frequently punctuated by addresses to the audience such as her depiction of Tom on the night of finding he is to be sold away from his wife and boys:
"He leaned over the back of the chair, and covered his face with his large hands. Sobs, heavy, hoarse, and loud, shook the chair, and great tears fell through his fingers on the floor: just such tears, sister, as you dropped into the coffin where lay your first-born son; such tears, woman, as you shed when you heard the cries of your dying babe. For, Sir, he was a man, ---and you are but another man. And, woman, though dressed in silk and jewels, you are but a woman, and, in life's great straits and mighty griefs, ye feel but one sorrow!"
The agenda of this book needs no epilogue for clarification. Though driven heavily by emotional appeal, the force and purpose of the book are nonetheless consistent and, in a word, Christian.
The characters are realistically drawn on the canvas of imagination. Both static and dynamic characters brush through the pages providing flesh for the stereotypes. The static, prototypical, cruel master found in the character of Simon Legree lives up to the debased standard of wretchedness, and indeed fails to find grace in the eyes of the author. Only a moment's flicker of conscience is allowed for such a brute who is ultimately punished greater than all of Stowe's creations, being damned to the fires of hell, skids greased by his mind numbing alcoholism.
The death of Tom's previous master Augustine St. Clare is a different tale altogether. St. Clare who had lived a similarly godless existence, but with a morality the polar opposite of Legree, is permitted to reach out for grace on his death bed, and the prayers of Tom lead St. Clare on a final journey of peace.
A novel obviously says as much about the author as it does about the subject matter. Indeed, this particular book does also, so much so that one could imagine feeling at ease chatting and discussing the characters with the lady who conceived them.
For me, the most impressive characters lie in Eva, and her father St. Clare. As a father of 2 daughters, the young Eva (Evangeline) embodies the 2 blonde haired gifts of conscience I know all too well. How her innocence struck at the heart of the issues at hand and proved a catalyst for hope in the lives of her negro friends. And I shed tears over her part of this tale.
I certainly sympathized most with the kindly yet austere Augustine St. Clare. I envisioned myself in his plight, and struggled to see how I might have lived any differently. His perspective on life and candid nature were kindred to my own. Of all the lines in the book, the one I remember is that spoken by him to his somewhat self-righteous cousin from the North. When pressed to give his honest impression of the slavery dilemma, he retorted:
"I am one of the sort that lives by throwing stones at other people's
glass houses, but I never mean to put up one for them to stone."
I'm afraid my cynicism found a kindred spirit in Augustine St. Clare.
This is a classic literary work that though highly criticized at its inception, will have my voice join the choir of its proponents. There are only a few books which I feel should be required reading for any young person. This is one of them.
It could be tempting to imagine that the raw power of this work was spent on an era that was healed long ago. Shame on us for thinking that its didacticism is now impotent since the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment. The abolition of southern slaves hardly brought about a universal abolition of the slave trade. It is said that today more humans are enslaved than at any other time in history.
The themes of justice, love, honor, purity, honesty, and a pure and undefiled religion are timeless. And, only a fool would say that bigotry, subjugation, and cruelty have been eradicated from humanity. On the contrary, the battle for morality is harder fought and the battle lines no less clear for us in this century than they were for those in the past.
Lincoln is quoted as having commented upon meeting Stowe, "So this is the little lady who started this great war."
If it is possible that you are completely unfamiliar with Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, then in short the novel is a tale of the antebellum south, slavery, pride, and pain. An ever omniscient point of view puts the reader into the mind and motive of the slaves, the free, children, aged, poor, and wealthy all playing a part in the quagmire of an economy and way of life dependent on the subjugation of mankind by his neighbor.
From the perspective of a contemporary, Stowe draws the reader into her novel with piercing pleas for sympathy. The story is frequently punctuated by addresses to the audience such as her depiction of Tom on the night of finding he is to be sold away from his wife and boys:
"He leaned over the back of the chair, and covered his face with his large hands. Sobs, heavy, hoarse, and loud, shook the chair, and great tears fell through his fingers on the floor: just such tears, sister, as you dropped into the coffin where lay your first-born son; such tears, woman, as you shed when you heard the cries of your dying babe. For, Sir, he was a man, ---and you are but another man. And, woman, though dressed in silk and jewels, you are but a woman, and, in life's great straits and mighty griefs, ye feel but one sorrow!"
The agenda of this book needs no epilogue for clarification. Though driven heavily by emotional appeal, the force and purpose of the book are nonetheless consistent and, in a word, Christian.
The characters are realistically drawn on the canvas of imagination. Both static and dynamic characters brush through the pages providing flesh for the stereotypes. The static, prototypical, cruel master found in the character of Simon Legree lives up to the debased standard of wretchedness, and indeed fails to find grace in the eyes of the author. Only a moment's flicker of conscience is allowed for such a brute who is ultimately punished greater than all of Stowe's creations, being damned to the fires of hell, skids greased by his mind numbing alcoholism.
The death of Tom's previous master Augustine St. Clare is a different tale altogether. St. Clare who had lived a similarly godless existence, but with a morality the polar opposite of Legree, is permitted to reach out for grace on his death bed, and the prayers of Tom lead St. Clare on a final journey of peace.
A novel obviously says as much about the author as it does about the subject matter. Indeed, this particular book does also, so much so that one could imagine feeling at ease chatting and discussing the characters with the lady who conceived them.
For me, the most impressive characters lie in Eva, and her father St. Clare. As a father of 2 daughters, the young Eva (Evangeline) embodies the 2 blonde haired gifts of conscience I know all too well. How her innocence struck at the heart of the issues at hand and proved a catalyst for hope in the lives of her negro friends. And I shed tears over her part of this tale.
I certainly sympathized most with the kindly yet austere Augustine St. Clare. I envisioned myself in his plight, and struggled to see how I might have lived any differently. His perspective on life and candid nature were kindred to my own. Of all the lines in the book, the one I remember is that spoken by him to his somewhat self-righteous cousin from the North. When pressed to give his honest impression of the slavery dilemma, he retorted:
"I am one of the sort that lives by throwing stones at other people's
glass houses, but I never mean to put up one for them to stone."
I'm afraid my cynicism found a kindred spirit in Augustine St. Clare.
This is a classic literary work that though highly criticized at its inception, will have my voice join the choir of its proponents. There are only a few books which I feel should be required reading for any young person. This is one of them.
It could be tempting to imagine that the raw power of this work was spent on an era that was healed long ago. Shame on us for thinking that its didacticism is now impotent since the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment. The abolition of southern slaves hardly brought about a universal abolition of the slave trade. It is said that today more humans are enslaved than at any other time in history.
The themes of justice, love, honor, purity, honesty, and a pure and undefiled religion are timeless. And, only a fool would say that bigotry, subjugation, and cruelty have been eradicated from humanity. On the contrary, the battle for morality is harder fought and the battle lines no less clear for us in this century than they were for those in the past.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
PRA vs. UNCRC Part 3 - So Let's Talk About It
By now you should have read Part 1 & 2 of this discussion...
To be very clear - We are completely in favor of protecting children. Absolutely. However, based on statements from socially left-leaning policy makers, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty is obviously being staged as a battering ram to be used against the "traditional" family, ultimately harming the very children they want to protect!
So, if the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Treaty is indicative of a problem, then what is our proposed solution?
Good question.
Ingeniously, some of the foremost thinkers in "Christian" legal circles have proposed a constitutional amendment to secure the rights of fit parents. The PRA or Parental Rights Amendment has been drafted with the intent of heading off the what many see as a critically dangerous trend toward state control over the functions of the family. You must visit their site or an array of others and study the arguments yourself, as that is not the point of this posting. However, I've quoted the following from their site...
In a nutshell that is the point of the amendment. But there is a problem. Who knows, or worse yet, who cares? I haven't seen any related banners, billboards, or television commercials. Who is getting out the word, and is the communication effective?
I recently attended a seminar co-sponsored by associates of the Parental Rights crowd, where the precious and spirited Beverly LaHaye spoke. Among the topics she broached was the downward spiral of our society. (Granted, this is nothing new.) She claimed that the largely uncontested and underestimated battles against prayer in school, and for homosexual marriage were the elephants in the room 20-30 years ago. No one cared to address them; those that did obviously failed to light up the night; thus, here are those pachyderms stampeding our children today. She made the clear point that we have another elephant in the room.
I agree with her that we need to step up and recognize the tusks, ears, and huge piles covered with flies for what they are. Unfortunately that same seminar, which spent much time on this very issue, sent me away with an ironic dilemma:
How do we communicate our concerns to our friends and neighbors? I'm a Christian and have many Christian friends who will understand my Biblical reasons for opposing the UNCRC. However, there are simple common sense reasons for more than just my Christian friends to become active in this fight. A united effort is essential for the PRA to pass.
In this series of posts, that question has been the foundation for my writing. How do we communicate this need? I respect the ParentalRights.org crowd deeply, but at this point they preach to the choir. In order to get a Parental Rights Amendment signed, we need to move out of the pulpit and into the public. What is preached to the choir will be disregarded by those less inclined to sing. I believe that our manner and tone must be different when communicating outside traditional Christian circles. And, though fear and sensationalism are fine for the media, we frankly weary of the emotion, and that certainly isn't the tack we want to take.
For example, do we think that the authors of the CRC had the undermining of the US justice system, the US family, and the Christian faith in mind when composing that document? Possibly, but not likely just like that, or at least not in that order. So why would we attack the treaty as if that was the intent of the treaty? I don't think we should.
Here are some words / concepts that I think may help us reach a broader audience with regard to the UNCRC...
Expensive.
Misguided.
Tedious.
Irrelevant.
Superfluous.
Waste - in regard to our legislators' time.
Excessive burden on already over-burdened social workers.
Likewise, here are some words / concepts that may help our audience understand the importance of the PRA...
Timing.
Morality.
Judicial indiscretion.
Family autonomy.
Diplomacy is not just for diplomats. These views must be communicated and not just preached. Preaching is what is emitted from bumper stickers, while communication must involve your time.
But then, what good is knowing what to say if we choose not to speak? On May 3rd I attended a Holocaust Memorial Service at Temple Sinai in Oakland, CA and was reminded by one of the speakers of the famous Edmund Burke quote - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Interestingly, the actual origin of that quote has not been discovered, though some suspect that it rises from Burke's Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Either way it is speaks to us today. It speaks to this issue.
Action Steps:
To be very clear - We are completely in favor of protecting children. Absolutely. However, based on statements from socially left-leaning policy makers, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty is obviously being staged as a battering ram to be used against the "traditional" family, ultimately harming the very children they want to protect!
So, if the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Treaty is indicative of a problem, then what is our proposed solution?
Good question.
Ingeniously, some of the foremost thinkers in "Christian" legal circles have proposed a constitutional amendment to secure the rights of fit parents. The PRA or Parental Rights Amendment has been drafted with the intent of heading off the what many see as a critically dangerous trend toward state control over the functions of the family. You must visit their site or an array of others and study the arguments yourself, as that is not the point of this posting. However, I've quoted the following from their site...
The only kind of law that can override a treaty is the Constitution of the United States. State laws or state constitutions cannot override treaties. There is no guarantee that federal statutes could override treaties—moreover, we enter a binding legal promise to obey a treaty when we ratify it. America should not promise to obey a treaty and then claim it is appropriate to obey the treaty only when we want to. America of all nations must respect the rule of law.
There is only one possible solution for the eroding support for parental rights in the Supreme Court that can also stop the encroachment of international law.
We need to place the time-honored test of parental rights, as recognized by the Supreme Court for over seventy years, into the explicit text of the Constitution.
We cannot wait until our rights are formally demolished. We must act now to stop international law and protect these two key principles:
· Fit parents should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.
· American legislators, not international tribunals, should make the public policy for America on families and children.
In a nutshell that is the point of the amendment. But there is a problem. Who knows, or worse yet, who cares? I haven't seen any related banners, billboards, or television commercials. Who is getting out the word, and is the communication effective?
I recently attended a seminar co-sponsored by associates of the Parental Rights crowd, where the precious and spirited Beverly LaHaye spoke. Among the topics she broached was the downward spiral of our society. (Granted, this is nothing new.) She claimed that the largely uncontested and underestimated battles against prayer in school, and for homosexual marriage were the elephants in the room 20-30 years ago. No one cared to address them; those that did obviously failed to light up the night; thus, here are those pachyderms stampeding our children today. She made the clear point that we have another elephant in the room.
I agree with her that we need to step up and recognize the tusks, ears, and huge piles covered with flies for what they are. Unfortunately that same seminar, which spent much time on this very issue, sent me away with an ironic dilemma:
How do we communicate our concerns to our friends and neighbors? I'm a Christian and have many Christian friends who will understand my Biblical reasons for opposing the UNCRC. However, there are simple common sense reasons for more than just my Christian friends to become active in this fight. A united effort is essential for the PRA to pass.
In this series of posts, that question has been the foundation for my writing. How do we communicate this need? I respect the ParentalRights.org crowd deeply, but at this point they preach to the choir. In order to get a Parental Rights Amendment signed, we need to move out of the pulpit and into the public. What is preached to the choir will be disregarded by those less inclined to sing. I believe that our manner and tone must be different when communicating outside traditional Christian circles. And, though fear and sensationalism are fine for the media, we frankly weary of the emotion, and that certainly isn't the tack we want to take.
For example, do we think that the authors of the CRC had the undermining of the US justice system, the US family, and the Christian faith in mind when composing that document? Possibly, but not likely just like that, or at least not in that order. So why would we attack the treaty as if that was the intent of the treaty? I don't think we should.
Here are some words / concepts that I think may help us reach a broader audience with regard to the UNCRC...
Expensive.
Misguided.
Tedious.
Irrelevant.
Superfluous.
Waste - in regard to our legislators' time.
Excessive burden on already over-burdened social workers.
Likewise, here are some words / concepts that may help our audience understand the importance of the PRA...
Timing.
Morality.
Judicial indiscretion.
Family autonomy.
Diplomacy is not just for diplomats. These views must be communicated and not just preached. Preaching is what is emitted from bumper stickers, while communication must involve your time.
But then, what good is knowing what to say if we choose not to speak? On May 3rd I attended a Holocaust Memorial Service at Temple Sinai in Oakland, CA and was reminded by one of the speakers of the famous Edmund Burke quote - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Interestingly, the actual origin of that quote has not been discovered, though some suspect that it rises from Burke's Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Either way it is speaks to us today. It speaks to this issue.
Action Steps:
- The PRA website has a great page that lays out how to help in this fight.
- Start talking about it!
- We will try to keep this issue alive here at Lamp Lit. Please let us know your thoughts, ideas, or observations.
Friday, April 15, 2011
PRA vs. UNCRC Part 2 - So What?
Link to Part 1
Read this first if you are new to this discussion, then hit BACK on your browser to be brought back to this page, or click on the title "Lamp Lit" to go to the latest posting.
In the 1970's the EPA began the crackdown on lead (Pb) in consumer products. Those of us born since then should be thankful for the scientific research that discovered the deleterious effects of this heavy metal. What no one could have predicted however, was the expansive effects of this phase out.
To name a few:
So what does this have to do with the PRA : CRC debate? Nothing directly other than this: Government involvement seems to always result in a remote - yet poignant - list of unintended consequences, and there's room to suppose that the list is not so remote or so unintended.
Don't get me wrong; I don't want my children to breathe lead fumes or nibble the lead paint off their toy blocks. However, what a government body does today will not only affect the specifically stated target, but will inevitably spread like the shot from from a 16-gauge shotgun and land in unexpected places. What concerns me more is that just as the trajectory and spread of a shotgun blast is carefully analyzed and formulated, even so the trajectory and spread of recent government action in the promotion of the UNCRC Treaty has been analyzed and formulated far more liberally than many will admit.
My purpose here is not to argue in minutia the dangers of the UNCRC Treaty. Others have done that more clearly than I could ever hope to. My simple purpose in this post is to encourage you to care about this issue.
As I stated in the last posting, I believe the UNCRC Treaty could be beneficial to some. I would even like to believe that the authors were purely altruistic in their motives and ambitions. What I can't be sure of however, is the impetus of the liberal lawmaking and judicial elements of our country and their intended use or abuse of this loaded shotgun.
The issue at stake is not the corruption and liberality of the UN and the CRC promoters - though in the main, that may be established many times over. Nor is the issue the legal ramifications of accepting a treaty. Both of those are merely fodder that feeds the beast. It seems to me that the beast to be contended with is actually an open door. In ratification of this treaty, we undeniably open a door for further state sanction and regulation endangering the sanctity of the family unit.
Are we simply talking about the law of unintended consequences? Assuming that we can predict the unintended consequence is defiant of the idiom's very definition; thus obviously we are not fearful of the unexpected, but rather anticipating an intentional direct action. If that sounds ominous then I'm getting my point across.
It is here that I recommend you to do some serious study of this specific issue. I can only stand here and wave a flag. And for that matter, the nature of blogs is that the only ones who typically see the flag waving are those who intended to come. Take some time to read the websites linked below. Formulate your own opinions. Then direct your friends and family to do the same. If it's helpful, forward the links to your friends or use the Facebook link below to toss this in the lap of your 465 friends.
PRA website
UNCRC
Are we willing to take the chance that liberal legislators, and judges will overlook a goldmine of indiscretion? I am not, for they already have not.
In the next posting, I hope to give some advice and my opinion on how to discuss this topic and give some possible action steps.
Read this first if you are new to this discussion, then hit BACK on your browser to be brought back to this page, or click on the title "Lamp Lit" to go to the latest posting.
In the 1970's the EPA began the crackdown on lead (Pb) in consumer products. Those of us born since then should be thankful for the scientific research that discovered the deleterious effects of this heavy metal. What no one could have predicted however, was the expansive effects of this phase out.
To name a few:
- Our modern paint doesn't coat as well and definitely doesn't last as long. Those bright reds and oranges popular in our grandparent's homes were suddenly toxic, and it took many coats of fresh paint to banish them. Now professional renovators must be licensed to even scrape it away.
- Banning lead shot for use in hunting water fowl drove up the cost of birdshot and presented additional challenges to gun barrel and shot shell manufacturers.
- And certainly among the most far reaching effects of the lead ban was in regard to automobile fuels;
So what does this have to do with the PRA : CRC debate? Nothing directly other than this: Government involvement seems to always result in a remote - yet poignant - list of unintended consequences, and there's room to suppose that the list is not so remote or so unintended.
Don't get me wrong; I don't want my children to breathe lead fumes or nibble the lead paint off their toy blocks. However, what a government body does today will not only affect the specifically stated target, but will inevitably spread like the shot from from a 16-gauge shotgun and land in unexpected places. What concerns me more is that just as the trajectory and spread of a shotgun blast is carefully analyzed and formulated, even so the trajectory and spread of recent government action in the promotion of the UNCRC Treaty has been analyzed and formulated far more liberally than many will admit.
My purpose here is not to argue in minutia the dangers of the UNCRC Treaty. Others have done that more clearly than I could ever hope to. My simple purpose in this post is to encourage you to care about this issue.
As I stated in the last posting, I believe the UNCRC Treaty could be beneficial to some. I would even like to believe that the authors were purely altruistic in their motives and ambitions. What I can't be sure of however, is the impetus of the liberal lawmaking and judicial elements of our country and their intended use or abuse of this loaded shotgun.
The issue at stake is not the corruption and liberality of the UN and the CRC promoters - though in the main, that may be established many times over. Nor is the issue the legal ramifications of accepting a treaty. Both of those are merely fodder that feeds the beast. It seems to me that the beast to be contended with is actually an open door. In ratification of this treaty, we undeniably open a door for further state sanction and regulation endangering the sanctity of the family unit.
Are we simply talking about the law of unintended consequences? Assuming that we can predict the unintended consequence is defiant of the idiom's very definition; thus obviously we are not fearful of the unexpected, but rather anticipating an intentional direct action. If that sounds ominous then I'm getting my point across.
It is here that I recommend you to do some serious study of this specific issue. I can only stand here and wave a flag. And for that matter, the nature of blogs is that the only ones who typically see the flag waving are those who intended to come. Take some time to read the websites linked below. Formulate your own opinions. Then direct your friends and family to do the same. If it's helpful, forward the links to your friends or use the Facebook link below to toss this in the lap of your 465 friends.
PRA website
UNCRC
Are we willing to take the chance that liberal legislators, and judges will overlook a goldmine of indiscretion? I am not, for they already have not.
In the next posting, I hope to give some advice and my opinion on how to discuss this topic and give some possible action steps.
PRA vs. UNCRC - More Important Than You Might Think
Over the next few weeks and months, I want to go on a fact finding mission regarding the debate between those in support of and those in opposition to the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). For this time, I will attempt to remain neutral, though I suspect my opinion has already been formed and will be seen to seep in around the edges.
I've been listening to and reading arguments from both sides and each presents a plausible set of arguments against the other. For any uninterested person reading but one side of the argument, sway toward that opinion would be relatively simple. UNICEF's web pages for this particular convention are splendid and articulate. Likewise, the Parental Rights web site is overtly ominous in their portrayal of the treaty's impact on our families.
What is one supposed to believe - no less do? Well, we could continue with current protocol and do nothing but talk. However, it seems that recently talk is escalating and trending toward action.
So basically what is the UNCRC Treaty?
The UNCRC is an international treaty created and brokered by the United Nations. This treaty is not with the United Nations, as the UN is not a sovereign state. However, the broad reaching ideals and agendas of the UN saturate this document. (What is good, evil, and otherwise intrinsic in the UN are fodder for another debate.) Specifically here, we will concern ourselves with a specific product - the collective thought and action taken together to form a treaty whereby sovereign states will purport to agree on the definition and application of the rights of children citizens.
As stated on the UNICEF web site: "This compilation and clarification of children’s human rights sets out the necessary environment and means to enable every human being to develop to their full potential."
Honestly, this sounds great.
For some countries, acceptance of this treaty is a HUGE step forward. How can it be seen otherwise? For any country to move toward the idyllic as specified in this treaty from abusive child labor, slavery, and utter perversion would be a spectacular reward for the labor that went into the creation of such a document. The atrocities present and unspeakable in so many dark corners of the world must be confronted systemically. Without doubt the acceptance of the CRC in the parliaments of those dark corners can only bode well for the victims in the shadows.
One must admit though, that for some countries this is simply a feather in their cap with no meaningful action taking place. The stories are easily found where countries, in spite of ratification, have taken action in direct contradiction to the treaty. Shame on them - on many levels. Yet that failure does not prove inefficacy, shortsightedness, or inherent corruption within the CRC. What is proven, however, is the corrupt nature of humankind. This alone is the problem.
For some countries the CRC is, frankly, unnecessary and superfluous. Should those countries then balk at signing this treaty simply because it is superfluous? Well, obviously, all but two have not resisted. Somalia simply lacks a stable enough government to ratify the treaty, which means that for all practical purposes, the United States stands alone in the failure to ratify. It even seems to make sense for those countries that have established a moral upper hand in such issues to promote and encourage ratification in countries less morally inclined. Yet here sits the greatest nation in history pivoting on a decision that teeters on basically this point:
Is this treaty morally dangerous, absolutely essential, or simply an unnecessary waste of time and resources?
I can't say that I reject the treaty out of hand, nor can I say that I trust carte blanc anything that emerges from the halls of the United Nations. What most interests me is the swell of opposition that has forced the attentive to take note. Our purpose here is to help add to the ranks of the attentive.
As we discuss this further, it will become clear why it is so important for American families to care about the ramifications of this long simmering debate. What has been simmering since November 20, 1989 may be coming to a boil in this session of congress.
In the next post we get into the reasons why we perhaps should care - or in the vernacular - So What?
Link to Part 2
I've been listening to and reading arguments from both sides and each presents a plausible set of arguments against the other. For any uninterested person reading but one side of the argument, sway toward that opinion would be relatively simple. UNICEF's web pages for this particular convention are splendid and articulate. Likewise, the Parental Rights web site is overtly ominous in their portrayal of the treaty's impact on our families.
What is one supposed to believe - no less do? Well, we could continue with current protocol and do nothing but talk. However, it seems that recently talk is escalating and trending toward action.
So basically what is the UNCRC Treaty?
The UNCRC is an international treaty created and brokered by the United Nations. This treaty is not with the United Nations, as the UN is not a sovereign state. However, the broad reaching ideals and agendas of the UN saturate this document. (What is good, evil, and otherwise intrinsic in the UN are fodder for another debate.) Specifically here, we will concern ourselves with a specific product - the collective thought and action taken together to form a treaty whereby sovereign states will purport to agree on the definition and application of the rights of children citizens.
As stated on the UNICEF web site: "This compilation and clarification of children’s human rights sets out the necessary environment and means to enable every human being to develop to their full potential."
Honestly, this sounds great.
For some countries, acceptance of this treaty is a HUGE step forward. How can it be seen otherwise? For any country to move toward the idyllic as specified in this treaty from abusive child labor, slavery, and utter perversion would be a spectacular reward for the labor that went into the creation of such a document. The atrocities present and unspeakable in so many dark corners of the world must be confronted systemically. Without doubt the acceptance of the CRC in the parliaments of those dark corners can only bode well for the victims in the shadows.
One must admit though, that for some countries this is simply a feather in their cap with no meaningful action taking place. The stories are easily found where countries, in spite of ratification, have taken action in direct contradiction to the treaty. Shame on them - on many levels. Yet that failure does not prove inefficacy, shortsightedness, or inherent corruption within the CRC. What is proven, however, is the corrupt nature of humankind. This alone is the problem.
For some countries the CRC is, frankly, unnecessary and superfluous. Should those countries then balk at signing this treaty simply because it is superfluous? Well, obviously, all but two have not resisted. Somalia simply lacks a stable enough government to ratify the treaty, which means that for all practical purposes, the United States stands alone in the failure to ratify. It even seems to make sense for those countries that have established a moral upper hand in such issues to promote and encourage ratification in countries less morally inclined. Yet here sits the greatest nation in history pivoting on a decision that teeters on basically this point:
Is this treaty morally dangerous, absolutely essential, or simply an unnecessary waste of time and resources?
I can't say that I reject the treaty out of hand, nor can I say that I trust carte blanc anything that emerges from the halls of the United Nations. What most interests me is the swell of opposition that has forced the attentive to take note. Our purpose here is to help add to the ranks of the attentive.
As we discuss this further, it will become clear why it is so important for American families to care about the ramifications of this long simmering debate. What has been simmering since November 20, 1989 may be coming to a boil in this session of congress.
In the next post we get into the reasons why we perhaps should care - or in the vernacular - So What?
Link to Part 2
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Dumas - The Three Musketeers
Hang on as Alexandre Dumas pins the reader to the coat tails of 4 diverse swashbucklers and assails the evils present in 17th century France. The Three Musketeers proved to be fascinating, exciting, insightful, and strikingly colorful.
I found record of no less than 3 notable translations of this book from the original French, and was not able to clearly track exactly which translation I had. It is sufficient then that it was translated. I can recognize approx. 5 words in French and those include at least 3 city names with cycling events starting or ending therein. In spite of my language deficiency, I at no point found the story ambiguous or strange, as one might expect in a translation from the amouric French to the spectacularly practical English. Much of the French language was present in the text - similar to the remnants of French and Russian remaining in the translated text of War and Peace. Whether the select phrases were common to the English ear at the time of translation, or whether a suitable translated equivalent fails to carry the weight of the authors intention, I don't know. No matter, it succeeds in drawing the English reader deeper into a fantastic realm where no cultural equivalent exists today and supplanting any attempt to drop an anchor into the shallows of reality.
This story is both well known and greatly distorted. I watched a movie some years ago which presented the story of d'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. At no point in the movie did it occur to me that the story was really about the young man d'Artagnan and his entrance into manhood, the Musketeers, and the royal court of France. True to the name of the book, the movie held the 3 original Musketeers up as the focus, while distorting the true intent of the story as drafted by Dumas. I'll just get it over with and say "The book was better than the movie." There I said it.
I have no intention of writing a book report on this classic novel, and will thus spare you from another time worn phrase, "You'll have to read the rest of the book to find out what happens." In fact, you're going to have to read the whole book to find out what happens, because I don't have time or patience to summarize this dynamic and engaging plot.
Curious to me are the political and moral purposes of Dumas' novel which are at best dubious, as ends found in each of those arenas are found to be justified by diverse and contrary means. That is to say, he portrays an element as good in one light while later changing the light and finding fault in the same or vice versa. What's good for the protagonist, we might find to be shameful for the antagonist. Or, evil is spontaneously pardoned and declared good.
For instance, infidelity is commonplace in this novel and thus viewed with cultural acceptance and little reproach. The mistresses of each Musketeer and their daring friend are valuable to the success of the plot and adventures of the 4. However, on the dark side, one of the greatest evils of Milady De Winter is her chain seduction of those unfortunate gentlemen seen by her as obstacles or opportunities. On one hand the distortion of marriage is justified by the needs of the protagonists and the shortcomings of the mistress's real husbands, while on the other hand Milady is despised and ultimately punished for her seductions which leave no less distortion to the function of the sacred institution.
Similarly, politically one is left baffled by the author's handling of Cardinal Richelieu. Throughout the saga we are led to hold the Cardinalists, Catholics, and certainly the Cardinal himself in less esteem than the King and the poor Protestants held in the siege of La Rochelle. Though English, we are likewise enticed to hold the Lord Buckingham in high regard though he finds a mistress in the very Queen of France to the chagrin of Louis XIII and the fury of Richelieu. Though never fully exposed, this intrigue plays a central role in the plot. How is it then that Lord Buckingham is assassinated, the king is made a fool, and the Cardinal survives to not only pardon d'Artagnan, but elevate him among the Musketeers? Granted, it is not in Dumas' power to rewrite history. The Cardinal lives on, and Lord Buckingham was indeed stabbed to death by the very man named in the novel. Yet the abrupt transformation within the final chapters, must at least be regarded with curiosity.
I must leave it to the historians to establish why Dumas may have shed the particular shade and angle of light on this period of time which he did. Yet it was thought provoking to be led as spectator, mute and impotent, through the frontiers of France looking behind every rock and bush for one of the Cardinal's men, and then in a precocious instant to be allied with the man himself within the book's final chapter.
For the mature and discerning reader I recommend the book. Though by no means a history book, the novel gives a window from the 21st century out onto an exciting historical landscape from the perspective of one far less removed from the events than we ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)