In which I can't keep quiet about politics...

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 1

District Only Voting is the most Fair and Equal system available to our county.

Across our nation, states and counties are divided into districts. The premise behind these divisions is that not only should we give equal populations equal representation, but that we should recognize diversity of needs as dictated by different geographical locations, e.g. cities have different needs than do rural areas. Districts allow multiple geographical areas with diverse needs an equal voice in government.

Currently, our county government has been operating under the misguided premise that it is more fair for everyone in the county to vote on every council position, and that every councilperson should represent the entire county, striving to represent all citizens, no matter their district.

The problem with this premise is that not all citizens’ or locations HAVE the same needs or community values. Effective government recognizes this truth and, by creating districts and electing representatives that are residents of each, allows a diversity of community needs and values to be equally addressed by county government.

The creation of districts, and district-only voting ensures fair and equal representation for residents of our county. In recent elections under the county-wide system, residents of some districts were not allowed the privilege of selecting their own representative. Though residents of the district voted overwhelmingly for a candidate, the population outside of their district over-ruled their choice. They were left with a representative that they believed did not speak for their concerns and values.

There’s nothing fair about that.

An example, simply put, would be that residents of Seattle wouldn’t be happy if their government representatives were chosen by the residents of Quincy or Yakima…and vice versa.

Our federal government uses district only voting in each state, and also in our nation. If we follow the logic of the current county-wide voting, our nation should allow every state to vote on every Senator or Congressman. No one would say that is fair, and neither is it fair and equitable in a county situation.

The result of county-wide voting is to disallow fair representation for the diverse communities within the county by giving power to the majority of voters who are more likely to live in urban centers.  

If we want to see fair and equal representation for all citizens of Whatcom County, we will approve Proposition 1, district-only voting.

The ban on shame...

Yesterday I heard Dave Ross say this: "We have to know how he {Tamerlan Tsarnaev} got radicalized because, since this is something anybody could do, we have to figure out how to make sure nobody wants to."

This could be pretty difficult because we live in a society that seems to be committed to making everyone comfortable with their choices. Let's make alternative lifestyles normal. Let's make pot legal. Let's reward the lazy with a free ride. Let's explain away evil as the result of a bad childhood ...and so on and so on...

A lot of effort has been spent making shame shameful. I don't think it's helping.

At the base of this is the rejection of absolutes...If you reject shame, you reject that there are truths that apply to everyone. How can you make something unattractive without imposing shame on the activity? How can you make sure nobody wants to bomb innocents without imposing your truth on them?

It seems that moral relativism is all well and good -- until somebody you love gets hurt. Then come the demands to impose your particular belief system on everyone.

But you can't have it both ways...There ARE absolute truths -- absolute morals, and shame is appropriate when they are flouted.

Certainly, every culture has misapplied shame, and probably always will to some extent, but we are foolish to attempt to make everyone feel good by eliminating the emotion instead of the action.

A little bit of shame could go a long way, in my opinion.

Newtown, Conneticut

Newtown, Connecticut…quite far away from my corner of the world, but my heart is still heavy with the grief of the losses suffered there. Just a few years ago, I was a school secretary and would have been the first line of defense for any threat that tried to enter the front door of the elementary school.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I would have done…and how my heart would have been crushed to fail at such a mission…and how those women in Connecticut gave their all, literally, to save the kids.

And still, not all of them were saved.

So immediately, there is the rush to outrage, and blame, and demands that such tragedies be prevented…

But what if we can’t? What if it is no one’s fault? What if we cannot always stop evil?

Our immaturity causes us to demand new laws that, in reality, cannot produce the desired result. Even worse, we are satisfied with the symbolism of such laws and consider the problem addressed, resolved.

We are content to say, “Someone should stop that!” instead of, “I will not let that happen again.”

Evil is real, and present in our world. Thank God that we are not blasé about the loss of life, the terror and the tragedy…But there are countries in our world where it is an everyday occurrence…where it is never a given that everyone will come home each night. It is good for us to realize that security is not guaranteed, nor can it be. There are madmen out there from whom there is no protection. And we are fools if we think that we can quarantine evil by laws directed at the lawless.

Rather than look for someone else to secure our safety, we need to wisely consider how we will face the madman when that day comes. Perhaps it will be our day to give it all to save some…something that cannot be done unless one is certain of their purpose, and believes that ultimate security is in the hand of God.

In the meantime, perhaps we should be standing against evil by coming alongside the family of the difficult child, the mentally ill, the addicted, the out-of-control rebel. The first defense against evil is not another law, but for each of us to love our neighbor…in deed and in truth…

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”

Favorite Excerpts & Quotes from Atlas Shrugged...

Words from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

"So you think money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the priniciple that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is that what you consider evil?"

"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter or in spirit."

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

"A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in of his own will, and that he build the furnace besides."

"I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them, nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage..."

"...the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is a proper function of government."

"There was an air of luxury about the room, but it was the luxury of expert simplicity...This was Mullingan's concept of wealth, she thought -- the wealth of selection, not of accumulation."

"Mr. Rearden," said Francisco, his voice solemnly calm, "if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling, but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort, the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders -- what would you tell him to do?
          "I...don't know. What...could he do? What would you tell him?"
"To shrug."

Part II: The Sanction of the Victim

The second theme from Atlas Shrugged that has occupied my thoughts is the concept of “the sanction of the victim”.

There are many pages of dialogue explaining to the wealthy steel magnate,  character Henry Reardon, that his indifference to the increasing taxation and intrusion of his business by the government had made him complicit in the final takeover of his company. In effect, his passivity was a sanction to those who were abusing his rights.

Reardon’s friend admonishes: “By their {the government} own statement, it is they who need you and have nothing to offer you in return. By their own statement, you must support them because they cannot survive without you. Consider the obscenity of offering their impotence and their need – their need of you – as a justification for your torture. Are you willing to accept it? Do you care to purchase – at the price of your great endurance, at the price of your agony – the satisfaction of the needs of your destroyers?”

Wow! I had to ruminate over this. The inevitable question is: How am I sanctioning my own victimization? What should I be doing to avoid giving sanction to the government when they diminish my rights?

I have to admit that after all these months of consideration, I don’t have many good answers. But – I do see many regulations and government requirements in a new light, and take time to examine my response to them. I do not want to be giving the sanction of the victim. I believe, as God says, that I am subject to the governing authorities, and respect that God has put them there. However, I will not be passive or silent any more in my response to any attempt to diminish my rights as a citizen.

And that conviction to action does scare me, but I feel it very strongly, and even more so after the revelations of the 2012 election.

I think this is the most valuable concept I learned from Atlas Shrugged, though there are many more that have become part of my thinking as well. It’s a very good book, worth the many pages of reading, and the discipline of thinking through the principles therein. My only wish is that it was written with a underpinning of belief in God. Ayn Rand, the author, was an atheist, and so it makes for some curious reading when she writes of “motive power” as your moral code. A moral code based on what? Character John Galt describes that moral code “which holds that man is an end in himself and not a means to any end of others”.

I couldn’t disagree more…and I think how much greater this story would be with the inclusion of grace and redemption. Ayn Rand missed out on the beauty of that – but nonetheless, it is a book that has informed my beliefs and convictions, and has made me a better thinker.

It has also given me a vision of where our country may be going, that is, the consequences that may be ahead. While the possibilities frighten me, again I take inspiration from the Tramp’s words: “…I think it’s a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it.”

Or to let your country go…I’m more determined than ever to protect our right to freedom, and the country that is the freest in the world.

BOOK REPORT: Atlas Shrugged

It took me three months to read through Atlas Shrugged -- so many pages, so much to think through. When I got to John Galt’s 60 page monologue I almost gave up…but it was too close to the end. I couldn’t quit then!

I am glad that I persevered as I learned so much, and continue to think about it often. Every week, I see something in the news that reminds me of the world of Atlas Shrugged. We are on our way there, and the election confirmed that.

I wanted to write a book report back in June when I finished the book but couldn’t face the multitude of ideas and philosophies that I would have to describe, and the multitude of words it would take. I just felt I would need to tell it all, and how do you do that?

There is so much good in the book, but as time has passed, the message of Atlas Shrugged has distilled down to two things for me.

1) Beware the philosophy of “fairness”.

In the world of Atlas Shrugged, fairness came to mean that all would work to their ability, but would be rewarded according to their need.

The first application of this belief was higher taxation of the rich, to supply the needs of the government, who supplied the needs of the poor. Then it moved to the government trying to redistribute the resources and productions of larger corporations to smaller struggling ones, to make it “fair”. Finally, it moved to businesses themselves where “work according to ability; paid according to need” resulted in workers competing to be the least productive. Why should any one work harder than the next guy? They would all be paid the same –unless you were needy. The needy were expensive, and as productivity declined, the fulfillment of needs reduced the amount of pay available for those without needs. Babies were resented; sickly old women died the night before expensive treatment. Workers could not take the despair of this system and just disappeared.

On a larger scale, factories and businesses could not produce enough goods to stay in business, and closed. In time, people had cars but no fuel to run them. Trains ran fewer and fewer routes per day. The economy was slowly dying and the staples of living became scarce, and difficult to procure.

Of course, this anecdote is from a novel – but take a minute to think about how much “fairness” is talked about in our society. “It’s not fair that corporations make so much money. They should be forced to pay more taxes.” “The rich don’t deserve what they have.” “We should all have our medical expenses taken care of. It’s not fair that anyone should suffer from unexpected needs.” “It’s only fair that a business pay its employees at least a minimum wage.”

We are already a ways down the road of Atlas Shrugged; and the election results seem to make it clear that many Americans want to go there.

I think what the Tramp (in the novel) said to character Dagny Taggart is exactly true: “There wasn’t a man voting for {The Plan to work to ability, paid as to need} who didn’t think that under a set-up of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that they didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his betters wealth and brains. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits too.”

The needy can point to the greed of the rich, but often, their desire is based just as much on the greed they say they despise.

We need to be cautious about fairness, and examine more deeply and thoroughly where a call for fairness will lead. True fairness is rooted in my right to freely possess myself and my efforts. It should be based on equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If I work harder than the next guy, is it not fair that I am rewarded more than he is?

The people of our nation are embracing, as character Danneskjold says “...the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights; that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does...” “…practicing charity with wealth that {we do not} own, by giving away goods which {we} have not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of {our} pity.”

Tomorrow: Part II

More than sick at heart...

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

Thank God for the insubordination of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Because they did NOT obey the orders to "stand down", lives were saved...though it cost them their own.

At best, our leaders' reaction to this tragic incident is shamefully incompetent...shamefully!

But there is more evidence that it could be something worse than shameful incompetence. I'll not put a title on it, but I am angry that after the attack and the deaths, and the obvious knowledge of it that our leaders had as it happened, and now, the knowledge that help was denied -- I am angry that for weeks, our leaders kept telling the story of a spontaneous attack that resulted from a video made by an American.

What? WHAT?! WHY?!

There is no way that the actions of our President, his administration and our Secretary of State can be seen as anything but self-protective...

Simply put, they care more about themselves than others. Let the others pay the price. Obfuscate the facts that reveal deficiencies.

More than any other event in the course of President Obama's term, this shows us what is most important, most valued in his life...

And it's not our country, or his obligation to the people of this great country.

And 4 people may have died because of this.

I continue to be sick at heart -- and now I am angry too.

Sick at heart...

I am sick at heart over the violence, and the lives that have been lost, in the countries supposedly liberated in the Arab Spring.

I was disbelieving that our Ambassador to Libya was killed, along with three of his colleagues. Is it not a long-standing tradition that an Ambassador is untouchable? He is the representative of peaceful cooperation between countries. He speaks for his country, and communicates to his country the requests, requirements of the country for which he is a liaison.

It is the ultimate in disrespect for Libyans to take the Ambassador’s life. It is the ultimate disrespect to the country that he served.

I agree with Donald Rumsfeld that these things are happening as “a result of perceived American weakness”.

I believe that the response of the Obama Administration was weak, and slow, and completely inadequate.

But it is nothing new.

I am weary of an administration that seems to gauge or change its response by putting a finger in the air to check which way the wind is blowing. I think we saw their true convictions in their immediate response – which in this event, seemed to be apologetic – but when this response didn’t get the ratings desired, they changed things up, so as not to lose their audience.

Bill Clinton did this all the time too, except there wasn’t Twitter, et al, for the immediate consequences. He had to wait for the polls.

Establishment Republicans are pro-active in their directional determinations, and refuse to risk alienating, not so much their base, but the fence-sitters they think they can’t live without.

I’m tired of it all.

Whatever happened to convictions and men who would act and “damn the torpedoes”! If President Obama’s true convictions are that the US has something to apologize for, I wish he would live by it, wrong as it may be.  If Mitt Romney believes that the President responded completely inadequately, I hope that he will stand by his statement, and not soften it to make himself look more kind and acceptable to the independents/undecideds.

We need leadership. Our country will soon fail without it, and it has become very scarce. We need to reject those men who pose as leaders, but in reality their greatest conviction is that they must succeed at their personal endeavors. These posers have no regard for the common good. All their efforts are self-serving, despite their talking points that we can’t get through life without a “village”.

They are everywhere, not just in our highest offices. We need to be more discerning, and keep short accounts with our leaders. They need to know that we want truth, conviction and action…not just having our ears tickled with pleasant promises and fake hope.

Of course, that means we must be people of conviction, willing to risk confrontation…and there is the rub. But if we truly love our country, and the amazing opportunities it affords us, we must.

As Plato said: “The penalty good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves.”

I am weary, but I’m not going to give up. God help me find ways to live as a patriot.

So being a stay at home mom isn't work, huh...

I respond with a quote from G.K. Chesterton:

"To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can one be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute."

Hear, hear!