On Tyranny

Tyranny is a very unfriendly word, even though it was originally not invested with the same connotations it does today. In this particular blog (consider it an education entry, with some major detours into political theory) I will look at the meaning of tyranny, the origin of tyranny in Greek and Roman society, the moral questions invovled in tyranny and accountability (briefly), and close with a look at the moral obligations of common people with regards to tyranny. It is sad and unacceptable that in this age of such knowledge that many people are woefully unaware of the issues at stake when it comes to governance.

Definitions

According to www.dictionary.com, there are several definitions of tyranny. They are as follows (combining the definitions from The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary and Wordnet):

1)A government in which a single ruler has absolute power and is not limited by constitution, law, or a legitimate forum of opposition.
2)The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an aboslute ruler.
3)Absolute power, especially when exercized unjustly or cruelly.
4)Use of absolute power or a tyrannical act
5)Extreme harshness or severity, rigor.

Synonyms for tyranny include one-man rule, dictatorship, and absolutism, among others. The origin of the word is Greek, where its history properly begins.

It should be noted, however, before going into the early origin of tyranny, that any form of government which does not allow official opposition, is not ruled by a constitution (some comment on this will follow), and is not "legal" is tyrannical, even if that leadership behaves kindly towards those it leads. The lack of accountability to the people is sufficient to judge a particular leader or leadership as tyrannical. This is especially true if those leaders (as is common in modern times) write constitutions and bylaws but do not live by the restrictions on their power within them and where the common people have no ability to enforce the constitution and bylaws against those entrenched in power. Such behavior is ipso facto tyranny. It is also the case that any form of government where people are subject to authority without reciprocal accountability of that leader to them is despotic and tyrannical. Those who have power in any domain cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with God's law and the natural rights of man; there must be enforceable procedures to prevent abuse, and the general trend of society is to increase the prerogatives of governments and administrations to improper levels without sufficent oversight. In any just government, the people are the masters and the leadership serve the best interests of the common people. It is only in wicked governments and administrations where leaders lord it over people and exercise authority over them, as the Bible clearly states (in Matthew 20:25-27, Deuteronomy 17:7-20, etc.).

Origin of Tyranny in Greece and Rome

Originally, the tyrants in Greece and Rome were viewed favorably, especially because of the difficulties the common people had with the proud aristocrats who ruled over them. It is the traditional (and pernicious) longing of an oppressed population of people to seek a strong arm to defend their interests against an entrenched aristocratic elite (which is itself behaving tyrannically by avoiding accountability to the people and attempting to create and defend artificial distinctions between equals--for properly speaking, all people are equals or at least potential equals). In such societies, as were present in both Greece and Rome at pivotal moments in their history, the common people supported leaders against the constututions at the time to put into practice laws to defend the common people against their wicked aristocratic opponents.

At first, all went well. These leaders (whether a Solon or a Lycurgus in Greece or a Cincinnatus in Rome) led temporarily, did not seek power in a dynastic or permanent way, and stepped down at the first opportune moment. Though these people would technically be considered dictators and tyrants (dictator being the official term in Latin for tyrant), they deserve little moral censure for their behavior, though much for their precedent. In all of their cases, their refusal to continue power after the crisis passed which pushed them into leadership demonstrates their good faith that they were acting on behalf of the people rather than seeking to rule unjustly over them. Those who consider, for example, Abraham Lincoln to be a tyrannical leader would do well to look at the historical example and find that he too would fit into this category (as against, say, an FDR). George Washington likewise would fit into this category of leaders who may have exceeded their technical authority but did so only for the duration of a specific crisis. (I should add, in passing, though, that I do not believe Abraham Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority, but merely offer a defense for him against those who would disagree with me on the finer points of constitutional law.)

That said, once the example of despotic rule had been set to deal with social crises, it became increasingly tempting for leaders on any side of a difficult dispute to set up dictators in ever more frequent crises, for ever longer periods. Both in Greece and in Rome republican systems of government eventually crumbled because societies ceased to defend their own liberties and instead relied upon leaders who at length took away their freedoms and became tyrannical kings and emperors. In Greece, the rise of the Macedonian dynasty destroyed the decaying democracies of Thebes and Athens. In Rome, Julius Ceasar the catamite (if the historical record can be believed) in life and death destroyed what remained of a long weakened Roman Republic. For much of human history, except for a few bright spots government has been marked by alternating tyranny and anarchy, both of which are equally wicked.

Moral Questions of Tyranny

There are essentially two moral questions involved in tyranny upon which all others decide. These two questions are, incidentally enough, vital for any serious and honset discussion about government. The first question relates to the abstract question about whether tyrannies are morally wrong by definition. That is, is there a moral dimension to government type (is there a form of government, in other words, that receives greater moral sanction than any other type). This question merits discussion on both a biblical and a philosophical level, because there is much confusion and deception involving this point. The second question is more practical, and follows from the first--namely, how is it that society can be organized so that anarchy is avoided without creating the monster of one-man rule or aristocratic privileges a la the ancien regime. We will examine those two questions briefly in turn.

The natural rights and natural equality of mankind have long spoken against tyranny. Throghout history, those of superior mental ability and education have either been members of the aristocratic elite or have sought to destroy the aristocratic elite. Regardless of which one is the case, if human beings are conceeded to be from one flesh and blood (i.e. we have a common origin), there is no just inequality of position and status that can be defended on logical and moral grounds. While the case would be too lengthy to make in detail, character does not correspond with race, social class, gender, age, etc. so it follows that these superficial distinctions are unjust if they are used to build up unaccountable positions of power in a given organization or society.

The biblical case is equally compelling, if somewhat more obscure. Again, time and space constraints forbid me from laying it out in full detail (I am at work on my own in doing that at length), but the brief result is that God's government is consultative government. The biblical evidence on that count is indisputable, but has been hidden a result of those who wickedly seek to deny God's word. Those who claim, falsely, that God's government is hierarchial and pyrimidal in nature are at best deceived, at worst deliberately and presumptuously sinning against the biblical record. The biblical case on the subject is present in both the OT and the NT. The desire for God to have equals to consult with and fellowship with is a powerful argument for the rationale for the ideal government among men. In the OT, the ideal government is demonstrated in Judges, with temporary leaders to deal with crises and with broad egalitarian government based upon villages and small towns (see Judges and Ruth). Monarchy, with its authoritarian prerogatives, is denigraded for its tyrannical tendances (see Deuteronomy 17 or 1 Samuel). The prophets continually comment against the tendancies of kings, priests, and aristocracies to take advantage of their positions of power (read Hosea, Amos, or even the condemnation of David by my namesake, to say the least of Elijah's prophecies or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel...you get the picture, right?). The NT is also clearly egalitarian in terms of its structure--regular members participated in the Jerusalem Conference (in Acts 15), no one (not even apostles) was exempt from moral censure in the case of sin, and 3 John (to give one example) speaks against the rise of church leaders who sought pre-eminance over congregations and sought to prohibit Christians from fellowshipping with others (to comment on this more would be impolitic).

Moral Obligations of the People

What then, are the obligations of the people with regards to the conduct of their leaders? In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the people to keep their leaders in line (the governors are those who are most difficult, and most necessary, to govern). Therefore, certain moral obligations follow for the people in order to fight and prevent (preventing can be prevented, and fighting what cannot) against the spread of tyranny. The people cannot rely on a strong arm to defend them, but must have a strong arm (and mind) themselves. Therefore, it is necessary for the common people to arm themselves with knowlege--both about their rights and responsibilities, and about the activity of those who perport to serve their best interests. These cannot be outsourced to others. Next, the people must fortify themselves with courage. It is far from an easy thing to speak out against the wicked, especially when those wicked are (as is often the case) in positions of authority. This is especially true because authority figures possess a great deal of resources for defamation and slander, and the "credibility" necessary to harm the reputations of the righteous in the eyes of others. God deals justly, but that justice often takes time, and being accountable only to God, in the practical sense, is not being accountable at all. It may become necessary, despite all the best interests and actions of the people, that serious resistance may be necessary to protect liberty (see Acts 5, 1 Kings 12, Exodus 1, etc.). When such occasions are regretfully necessary (and they should never be sought, only faced with the greatest reluctance) than it is important to remember that obedience to God sometimes demands rebellion against men (and women). Cowards do not deserve to be free, and tyrants (and in this sense I mean those who rule wickedly, not merely without constutionality) do not deserve to live. Sic semper tyrannis.

Turin Medal Count Recap

Okay, while other people (the fine folks at Yahoo Sports have done a good job of this) discuss the human interest stories of Turin, from Scandinavian National Pride in hockey to retiring speedskaters to drunk downhill skiiers to fussy ice skaters, I prefer to look at the cold hard results of the medal count. After all, the Olympics is a competition where there are winners, losers, and results, and I like analyzing results, so here goes.

In order to simplify the task, I will look at some nations that performed well in the Olympics and some nations that did not perform so well. I will also try to make some regional comparisons so that we can look at the Euro-American Winter games, I mean, the Winter Olympics.

Winners:

United States:

Okay, so many people are going to be disappointed with 25 medals, which is 9 fewer than we won in Salt Lake City 4 years ago. But it is good to remember that even without hosting the Olympics and having an unfriendly crowd, we still managed to get our second highest medal total ever, that is, in the entire 80 year history of the Winter Olympics. That is huge. It proves that the US can compete in winter sports (where we are not exactly a global power) against other nations. Hopefully we can build on this in the future. If our skiing team had met expectations we could have won the medal count race with Germany. As it is, we have done better than most would have expected. We dominated the snowboarding medals and even got a bronze in curling. Sweet.

Sweeden:

Sweeden's 14 medals give it a record high amount in its history, and included a gold medal in hockey as well as 7 gold medals over all. Sweeden managed to be successful in cross country, curling, and the biathalon as well. Sweeden managed to do itself proud, and had some head-to-head victories against Norway, a generally much more heralded neighbor.

Finland:

Finland's 9 medals are a huge haul for the small nation, which did not have any gold medals but managed strong performances in hockey and ski jumping (where it got 2 silver medals). To put it in persepctive, Finland got alomst as many medals as China, which is a lot bigger. That's something to be proud of, for the Finns.

Let's Hear It For The Small Nations of Eastern Europe:

Estonia got 3 golds medals (!) in this year's Olympics, all in Cross Country. The Czech Republic got four medals, including a gold and two silver. Croatia ended up with a gold and two silver for three total medals, all in alpine skiing. Poland ended up with a silver and a bronze. The Ukraine got two bronze medals. Belarus got a silver medal, as did Bulgaria and Slovakia. Even little Latvia ended up with a bronze medal. While these nations did not end up with a lot of medals, any medal in these nations is something to celebrate. These nations managed to upstage larger rivals in some events, and even with minimal funding ended up getting solid results. This will hopefully bolster their attempts to compete on a global stage in the future.

Losers:

Non-north American English Speaking Nations:

Other than the US (25 medals) and Canada (24 medals), English speaking nations did not fare well in this Olympics. Australia managed only two medals and Great Britain managed only 1, even losing in curling to the United States in the bronze medal men's game (ouch). While Australia picked up only its second Winter Olympics gold ever, Great Britain's pitiful performance was a major diappointment.

Italy:

Okay, the host nations are expected to threaten for the leadership of the medal count at the Olympics, and Italy only managed 11 medals. Obviously, the home team is disappointed with throwing away their best chance for Olympic dominance. People failed to show up for marquee events, there was a major doping scandal, and no one other than the Poles enjoyed the food. All in all, the Italians did a poor job all around. Shame.

Norway:

Okay, in most nations 19 medals would be a success, but the Norwegians are used to dominating these games, and that did not happen. Norway ended up with only 2 gold medals, fewer than Estonia (see above). That has to hurt. One wonders what Norway did wrong to even fail in those events, like cross country and the biathalon, where it traditionally excels. Something is rotten indeed in the state of Norway.

Regional Comparison in Medal Count:

Europe: 21 nations (Germany, Austria, Russia, Norway, Sweeden, Switzerland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Poland, the Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Slovakia, Latvia), 178 medals (60 gold, 58 silver, 60 bronze). Verdict: Very impressive.
North America: 2 nations (US, Canada), 49 medals (16 gold, 19 silver, 14 bronze). Verdict: Not too shabby.
Asia/Australia: 4 nations (China, South Korea, Australia, Japan), 25 medals (10 gold, 7 silver, 8 bronze). Verdict: Eh.
The rest of the world: Zero, zip, nada.

A Thousand Shades of Gray

Leo Tolstoy, in the famous introduction to War and Peace, stated that every happy family is happy in the same way, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. If you listen to sappy love songs, they all tend to sound the same, with the same cliches and expressions. Happiness is certainly more pleasant than unhappiness, but it is not very deep. We do not think very much, or reflect very much, when we are happy. We just bask in the glow of our happiness, oblivious to anything that could threaten us, and hoping that these joyful moments of bliss could last forever. In my experience, they don't (perhaps you are more fortunate than I am in that regard). As someone who is not particularly happy a lot of the time (it is amazing how few people realize that, I do a lot of reflection, most of it rather unpleasant. I am happy when I am around others, talking and sharing stories. I am not happy alone, where my only comfort is my mind (and that is small comfort--the mind truly is a terrible thing, to spoof the NAACP slogan).

In these bleak days, it has become somewhat evident to me that within my family there is a wide variety of ways that people deal with grief. There are a variety of strategies that different family members use to try to escape/overcome/dull the suffering. Without naming names (except for my own, because I am generally someone who has little to hide, and who is vastly more harsh on myself than I am on others, as difficult as that may be to fathom), I will attempt to discuss the various ways in which my family is attempting to cope.

One way to cope with grief that most of my family is doing in one way or another is keeping busy enough that we don't think about the loss all that much. There's nothing like keeping your body and mind occupied through various means (some of them, like work and writing, productive, other ones (like playing computer games) are more escapist in nature). But this is one area in which most of my family has kept themselves from too much time to think. That is not to say that profound meditation/prayer has not occurred, it's just that it has tended to be uniformly sad, and quite frankly, not the most pleasant sort of thing. Even writing blog entries like this is difficult to me, because it means I have to think about what words to say about what the loss of my father means to myself and others, and that means I have to reflect upon the loss itself (which, although it may be helpful, is certainly depressing). It is much easier to escape, to busy the mind and shut off the suffering, and make one's heart a stone as much as possible.

Medication of the grief is another way in which my family is dealing with the loss. However, this is a much rarer solution, largely because many of us (myself included) do not drink all that often, although the use of antidepressants (not by me, though) also applies to some extent as medicating the grief. Here, sadly, fits a tragic tale that occurred when my grandfather Albright died. My uncle David never recovered from the death of my grandfather (to lung cancer, as he was a smoker) and drank often to medicate his grief. Four years later, depressed and despondent, he shot himself in the head, commiting suicide. Needless to say, I have taken the example to heart and have sought to avoid any substance which would treat only the symptoms of grief while exaggerting the despondency.

Another way in which I have (and perhaps others of my family have as well) sought to deal with the grief is by getting out of the house and trying to find company with others. I have not been so successful with the second goal as with the first, but when I am frustrated and annoyed, I don't like to be at home. I don't find much comfort for my difficulties there. I have some friends around, but not all that many (and very few my age, and even fewer who are my age that would be able to relate). Nonetheless, talking to others (even though the words they say--and the words I say for that matter--are not terribly helpful) is a good way to try to express the rather ambivalent feelings I have (then again, my feelings about just about everything are ambivalent, which is one reason I tend to avoid talking about feelings).

At any rate, there are many ways in which people deal with sorrow, some of these more helpful than others. Did I say that I tend to be even more crabby, cranky, and irritable when I am sad than normal (and I'm a rather crabby person most of the time anyway, but that's another story for another time)? Perhaps that is a bit obvious (though, again, people do not seem to understand or relate to me very well, especially when things are going poorly). Again, many members of my family have a good brave face (myself included), but that doesn't mean we do not suffer. It just means that the suffering is a bit beneath the surface. After all, some of us (again, myself included) do not trust other people very easily. We have reason not to, and that makes it difficult to let the barriers down, especially when we are not feeling our best. That may not be right, but that's the way it is, and we must deal with what is, not what we would wish to be.

In The House Of Mourning

When a loved one dies, as my father died last Wednesday at the age of 59, one often wonders what one could have done differently had one known how little time was left. Especially as was the case with my father, where neither my brother or I had the chance to say goodbye, there is a lot of unfinished business remaining for the living when someone has died. While I am in no shape at this particular time to detail many of the stories that could be said of him, I thought it would be useful, even at this time, to take some looks at what life is like of one who, like myself, is in the house of mourning. There are many others right now who are grieving the loss of loved ones as well, including a few friends of mine. Grief is an intensely personal matter, and it is difficult to determine if my experiences are like theirs. At the very least, though, talking about something means that it is no longer festering inside.

Reconciliation

My brother moved from Pennsylvania in the summer of 2001 after graduating from high school and never reconciled with our father. He had a difficult relationship with my father, and always thought (as we all did) that there would be plenty of time to make up, when it hurt a little less, when the wounds had healed. And often, in those intervening years, my father sought to reconcile with my brother. But time ran out, and it never came to pass. Instead, my brother and I cried while sitting in the funeral home swapping stories about our father with the open casket nearby and fellow mourners all around. As guilty as both my brother and I feel, my brother feels it worse. My father and I kept in close contact for many years, almost every week, and I visited on occasion (if not enough--there is never enough time). However, those five years my brother and father were estranged were the last five years of life my father had. That is a lot to live with.

Unfinished Business

Humans are creatures of drama. I do not mean this in the hissy fit or manipulative sort of way (though that can be the case as well), but in the sense that we like closure, and dislike when something ends without a farewell, without a fitting closing. After my father's stroke, I was able to communicate with him through my grandmother, who would relay messages back and forth, telling me my father's condition (gradually improving until the end) and telling my father what was going on with me. Still, even though I was aware my father was in rather poor health, he was gradually improving, so there was no goodbye. I said farewell to my father only after he had already gone, with my hand on his coffin, eyes closed, saying farewell. There was nothing more, at that point, I could do. Anything I could have done was in the past, and was closed off irrevocably.

Stories of the End

Of course, when a loved one has died, especially when one is not able to be at the bedside in the final days and hours, it is important to be able to visualize the scene, in order to give one some sort of peace. While at the funeral home, stories were told about how my father dealt with the nurses who cared for him around the clock. Since one nurse had cold hands, my father nicknamed her Frosty. Another nurse was hot, so my father called her Jalapeño. It was like my father to name things. My family is always naming things. He did his physical therapy willingly, seeking to recover as much function as he could after the stroke. He never wanted to be an invalid, and he couldn't stand anyone else taking care of him. He was always the one who had to take care of everyone else, do what needed to be done, no matter the cost. Such a cruel end inactivity and paralysis is to one whose greatest gifts were activity and physical strength.

What Remains For the Living

Only my grandmother remains in the old family farm, which for over 200 years has been farmed by my family line. Those days, to me at least, seem at an end. My uncle (by marriage) and my cousin (both of whom work full time at the state prison) still live in the area but are unable to devote full time to farming. Farming is a bad business anyway, with high costs for equipment and feed and low prices for farm commodities, be they milk, grain, alfalfa sprouts (a favorite item in the diets of deer and my own salads), or beef. My grandmother, at almost 83, is far too old to take care of a farm on her own. It looks like that part of my family history is rapidly closing as well, without seeming remedy. Whatever I may be, I am no farmer, and so it appears likely that the beautiful hills and creeks on what I affectionately call Miller's Crossroads (after my family) will soon be home to half a million dollar homes inhabited by suburbanites who care little for the history behind the farm. Nor would they care that I would walk down Nathan's creek (yes, it was named after me) and sit on hillsides by an old coal mine shaft and write nature poetry. Nor would they care that my family has been farming these hills since before the United States was independent from Britain. All of that history will be paved under driveways with perfectly manicured lawns inhabited by people with no sense of history and oppressive mortgages that keep them from buying furniture.

Closing Thoughts

I will probably be reflecting often in the coming weeks and months, and years, about the life of my father. Such reflection is natural and proper, even if it does make me very sad. My father always said that he would die young, and always careful to remind us about his life insurance policy. I know I never wanted to hear it. But he was right, a painful truth that is true for many members of my family (including myself). We specialize in speaking of bitter truths that no one wants to hear. My father died young, like all of his siblings. Those who have little time on this earth must accomplish what they wish without the ability to rely upon seniority or those other ways in which the mediocre rise through out-surviving the great. No, those who are set on this earth with but a little time to do their deeds must do what needs to be done at all times, because one never knows how much time is left to accomplish one's life work. And that is something I feel no less strongly than my father did.

Hunting....

It's been a bad week to be a hunter. According to the Ludington Daily News, some small newspaper in Michigan, a 64 year old hunger was shot when his hunting buddy mistaked an elbow for a squirrel. This sort of accident reminds us that old people should not be allowed to shoot guns if they are too senile to shoot them correctly. (The same would apply to old people driving slowly and doing anything else that requires acute mental power and quickness). Apparently the old man was treated and released, as the friend was using only a .17 caliber rifle. How a camofloged elbow could be mistaken for a squirrel is beyond me. Maybe the friend just needed his eyeglass prescription updated. The police are investigating, as they should.

Then, of course, there is the famous, or infamous, case of Chaney's trigger finger. While hunting with some acquiantances, the hunting party flushed out a covey of quails, apparently (according to the Yahoo! News article). While one of the party was walking to collect the quails (and without waving his hand to show everyone where he was), Chaney flushed another covey of quails and sprayed shotgun shells in the direction of his hunting buddy, hitting him in the face, neck, and chest. Ouch. Remind me never to go hunting with the Vice President. It's not like I'd ever get invited to, anyway. Chaney forgot the number one rule of hunting, which even someone like myself (I'm no hunter) knows: always know what you're shooting at. It's a good rule in other areas besides hunting, though it is harder to apply there.

When I went to Pennsylania this past weekend for my father's funeral, I was reminded that my family farm has a "No Hunting" sign on it. My father was not a fan of hunters. It was not that he was squeamish about death--as a farmer it was not uncommon for cattle to be slaughtered--but it was that he saw the nobility of the deer and the lack of nobility of the hunters and their tactics. I remember once, as a teenager visiting my father in the summer, that as we were returning in the evening from an outing (watching a movie, probably), we saw a hunter in our farm, trespassing, and hunting out of season. The hunter was using a spotter to try to freeze the deer in place to make them an easy shot. The practice is illegal, but common.

My father (and I agree with him on this point) did not consider this to be in fair sport. A hunter using wicked means to get an easy kill (and then, no doubt, brag about his prowess to his friends and talk himself up as a great and brave hunter) struck my father, and I (even at that age) as quite unjust. This is not to say that all hunters behave thusly (for those hunters who wait for hours and hours freezing in tree stands in forests, rather than farms, waiting for a deer to come within range, I respect the dedication, though it would be quite boring to me personally, not being able to keep silent or still for very long without extreme difficulty), but that my conception of hunting was formed by experience in hunters behaving poorly. My conception of many things was formed in that way--which is unfortunate but nonetheless my experience.

I am glad that my father insisted our 130 farm was a refuge for animals (except for groundhogs--whose holes destroyed farm equipment with alarming regularity), with special care taken to dogs, cats, cows, horses, hawks, and deer. I am also glad that he chased off the hunter from our land, even though the hunter was much more heavily armed than we were. If people do not stand up themselves for what is right, then they will see nothing but wrong committed against them. This is especially the case where people are careless and wicked with deadly weapons.

Better Lucky Than Good

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. The Super Bowl last night is a good example of such an occurrence. I have been a lifelong Pittsburgh Steelers fan (and there is little chance of that changing anytime soon), but to be honest, neither team played very well last night. This game could have been an absolute rout if either team had played well, and would have been a high-scoring thriller if both teams had played well. As it was, both teams played poorly overall, but Pittsburgh just had more big plays and fewer mistakes. And in the end, that is what won it. So, in this particular space I would like to comment on my observations of the game.

Hands Made Of Putty:

While neither quarterback was perfect, both quarterbacks did a decent job. Ben Roethlisberger passed a lot better than a hideous 22.9 rating would suggest. Both quarterbacks passed on the mark except for a couple of errant tosses. However, the receivers on both teams were dropping passes left and right, up and down, sideways and diagonal. It didn't matter if the passes were screen passes, first down passes, or would-be touchdown passes, but neither set of receivers could get a glove on the passes on a consistent basis. Hines Ward was a deserving MVP, but that is because he was simply able to get his gloves on two deep passes. That's all it took to be an MVP in this game. Jerramy Stevens, the trash-talking Seattle TE, caught a touchdown pass (on a somewhat questionable pick pattern) but dropped at least 3 other gift-wrapped passes. It's not like either secondary was doing well, the receivers on both teams just couldn't hang on to the ball.

Trick Plays:

Pittsburgh's offensive output was greatly enhanced by a couple of trick plays that really caught Seattle off guard. The Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward flea flicker pass had been done earlier in the year (against Cleveland) for a TD, but apparently some Seattle DB's didn't study their tape well enough, because it worked for a TD again in the Super Bowl. Roethlisberger's canny scrambles (including the TD run that gave Pittsburgh a surprising halftime lead) and his long 3rd down pass to Ward that set up the touchdown run kept Pittsburgh's offense on the field and were critical in victory. That Cowher had enough faith in his players to use such trickery in the Super Bowl speaks highly of his credentials.

You're Killing Me Smalls:

On the other hand, Seattle just killed themselves with mistakes: a push-off for offensive pass interference that negates a touchdown pass, a holding penalty that negates a 1st and goal, a (questionable) clipping penalty that adds 15 yards to an interception return, and poor clock management and field awareness that ruined any chance at a last-second comeback. These sort of mistakes will come back to haunt Seattle as they replay the game over and over in their minds. This is not to say that Pittsburgh didn't make mistakes. The underthrown pass that led to the longest INT return in Super Bowl history comes to mind, as does two false start penalties on the opening drive, probably due to jitters. But Pittsburgh made fewer mistakes than Seattle, and on this day, it was enough.

Not So Special Teams Play:

Neither team had great special teams, but Pittsburgh's special teams were average and not poor, and that made a lot of difference. In 3 straight punts where Seattle could have pinned Pittsburgh deep in their own territory, Seattle punter Todd Rouen kicked touchbacks. While Chris Gardocki had one touchback himself, he did manage to down a punt on the two yard line, which was the best special teams play of the whole game. Seattle kicker Josh Brown was 1 for 3, and though two of the field goals were really long (50 and 54 yards--both missed), his team was depending on his long leg to cover for their penalties, and not finishing those drives was critical. So while we should give him a pass, those misses did change the complexion of the game considerably.

We're Going to Disney World Baby:

In the final analysis, though, the Steelers did what they had to do to win (without playing dirty and chippy like the Seahawks did). Bettis (aka "The Bus") will retire a Super Bowl champion, and looks strong as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Cowher has now shed his label as a "can't win the big one" coach (here's hoping Tony Dungy wins one as well someday), and has to enter consideration in the Hall of Fame as one of the winningest coaches of all time. Roethlisberger has become the youngest QB to ever win the Super Bowl, even though he probably feels pretty rotten about his game. Willie Parker has outran his North Carolina ghosts with the longest run in Super Bowl history (76 yards and the game-winning TD). Dan Rooney and all of us who are Pittsburgh fans get one for the thumb. So, even if the game was less than beautiful and both teams were rather shaky, a lucky win is still a win, and it feels a lot better winning than it does losing. So, cheers to Pittsburgh.

A Notice To My Readers

It has come to my attention that people have taken offense about some of my posts. Given the fact that there are vew few comments to my blog (and by comments, I mean very few people who send me their comments themselves, and not the comments that people make to others about what I write, which is more properly called gossip or slander), it is difficult for me to determine the precise nature of my audience. I only know my audience when they speak to me directly in some fashion. During the time I have written this blog I have had to deal with a few issues, and have generally been successful at doing so once I was able to explain myself and once those who were troubled or bothered by what I said were able to explain themselves.

I am a person of rather strong and public opinions, and there are times where the fierceness of my words can lead to a different perception than is intended. Despite the fact that I am a busy person, though, I am generally quick to respond to requests for explanation or clarification. I cannot answer your objections, though, if you do not come to me personally and privately about them. If you have comments to make (or even corrections, if you think I have made a mistake on a point of fact), there is a comment option at the bottom of the entry. All comments go to my personal e-mail inbox, and as long as you are not a spambot, and I'm sure most of those with objections would not be spambots (because most spambots always have nice things to say about entries and want you to help them advertise real estate, or Nigerian bank accounts, or something else that is equally bogus). And assuming you have something real to say, I will allow the comment, reply to it, and life goes on.

I would like to close this particular message by quoting what is on the top of my blog whenever it is read: "This blog, hopefully, will contain brief and humorous bits from my day-to-day life, with a minimum of philosophizing (though probably a lot of dry and ironic humor)." While I am a mostly serious person, this blog is intended to have at least a slight amount of humor about various matters. For example, 18 year old mayors, the blogging habits of pigeons (see previous entry), and so forth. What is stated here usually has at least some sort of an ironic bend to it (not always, however, funny).

I respect my (wide) audience well enough to open up about various subjects, even though I don't know all of the readers here personally (and some of those I know personally, I do not know very well). I enjoy giving my opinion (sometimes, perhaps a bit too much), and I enjoy hearing the thoughts and opinions of others. If you wish to express something about me, please give me the respect I give to you and discuss those thoughts and opinions directly to me. I don't bite, I promise.

What do pigeon bloggers rant about?

http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=201063

Yes, California is now having pigeon bloggers with cell phones on their back texting (automatically, we hope) the air quality in various cities. You know the world has gone to pot when pigeons have blogs. I mean, if a pigeon can have a blog, just about anyone can. I heard about the story first on my drive to work this morning. Thinking about the story further made me wonder what pigeon bloggers rant about.

I mean, I know what I like to rant about (and, apparently, everyone else does too--when I went on the UCG Young Adult Cruise this weekend a random minister I had never met, and some people I didn't know from here in Florida had read my blog, and commented on it). But what do pigeon bloggers rant about? Do they crow about the high quality of cars in a given interchange, discuss their favorite statues, give each other tips on which parks to visit where the bread crumbs are the tastiest? What sort of things make pigeons unhappy? Do they stress out over runins with glass windows, or complain about that one time they got hit by lightning, or talk about their friends and relatives long gone?

I am, of course, being somewhat facetious (that is, jocular, or mocking). Still, for those who wish to hear the opinions and judgments of a rather dirty bird, you can go to http://www.parasitelab.net/netlab.php. This site will (soon, we hope) have the bird blog uploaded. I can't wait to hear what those birds have to say. For those who want to hear what I have to say, you know where to find me, but of course, you already knew that.

If a brother sins against you...

Occasionally I use this blog as a platform for ranting about my own shortcomings and those of others. Usually, of course, I am vastly harsher on myself than on others, but often it is necessary to point out less than flattering qualities in other people for their own good (and I am sure that those who point out my less than flattering qualities agree as well).

Matthew 18:15-17 states: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or tax collector."

Now, it is fairly clear and obvious what these verses mean. While putting them into practice is somewhat difficult (for me, as well as for you, no doubt), what they say is quite direct and straightforward. If someone says or does something that offends you, you have the responsibility to go to them. Some of us, like myself, are not very difficult to find. I generally am quick to answer my e-mails (perhaps too quick on occasion), and I even answer the phone. You can even, if you really want to, speak to me in person. I am generally accommodating to requests for explanation and clarification, when those are necessary. In other words, I am not a difficult person to go to if you have a problem (though I tend to be a bit prickly when it comes to criticism, a quality I am sure I am not alone in). I am a bit annoyed, to be honest, when people tell me unflattering things to my face. That said, though, I am vastly more annoyed when people do it behind my back. The Bible condemns that sort of behavior most strenously, and states that those who practice such behavior will not enter the Kingdom of God. Do you want to enter the Kingdom of God? I know I do.

Now, if you do not get a satisfactory answer from me (or anyone else) concerning your complaints, your next responsibility is to find a couple of brethren who are moderate and somewhat patient and then go to the person again, with impartial witnesses to determine the attitude of the brother or sister who offended you. This is not the opportunity to go find some friends and gang up on someone, but rather a request for honest mediation of a problem. I don't know of very many people who have done this in their complaints with me (there are few who do the first step, and few times in my life where some conversation has not resolved the basic issues to at least an agree to disagree level), but perhaps they should if they do not receive satisfaction in personal conversation. I am someone who speaks many works, and must be occasionally reminded that not everyone shares my bluntness and candor, or my oftentimes extreme views stated rather matter-of-factly as if they were obvious truths (at least they are obvious to me)...

It is only after personal conversation has failed and the person is unwilling to accept mediation with impartial mediators that someone should go to the church about an issue. Most people (you know who you are), however, take this as the first step, and never even bother to go to their brother at all. The Church at Corinth did it, and was upbraided (that is, corrected) for it. Now, I am sure I am not the person best suited to give such rather correctional messages (I try to avoid them, because I am all too aware of how often I fall short of the standards of perfection, and wish to avoid both the appearance and the reality of hypocrisy), but someone ought to.

Let me be blunt, much of the time I rant about people who are already dead and cannot defend themselves. People tell me all sorts of nasty things about Abraham Lincoln, who happens to be my favorite president and a personal role model of mine (though I am certainly willing to see his flaws and faults), all because they are pro-Southern and have very harsh views as to the president that lawfully and properly removed them of their illegetimate property. However, they consider it no small thing to insult someone who was a president of the United States. Likewise, people around me are often saying the most savage things about former president Clinton and his wife, commenting on their sexual lives (in sometimes unseemly detail and content) and considering them people of no moral principles whatsoever (and, to be honest, I do not view them very highly either, though some do based on political ideology). Again, these were people who God placed (for whatever reason, these matters are mysterious to me) in authority over us, and people feel no compunction about speaking wickedly about them.

However, many of these same people express the most wondrous stock and horror over fond leaders of their own being questioned. None of us are above questioning (again, I know I'm not, and I don't assume that others have much less that needs correction than I do), whether dead or alive. Those whose legacy extends far beyond their own lives merit the most questioning. That is because the legacy of their deeds lives on after they are gone, and that legacy itself may be the sources of many problems, besides many blessings. If we cannot see fault where fault lies in others, we are not judging as we ought. God is merciful, though, and for that we must all be thankful. If God was not forgiving, none of us would have a chance to enter His family. I truly wish that God has or will forgive those whom I criticize, for I know how strongly I ask for God's forgiveness for my own sins, which are legion. That said, before we can be forgiven, we must realize what we need to be forgiven of. It is for this reason that criticism can be a moral course of behavior, because people are often blind to their own sins, and often justify them. I only say this because I know myself well enough. We need to face up to what we are before we can become what God wants us to be. None of us are there yet, and we all have much work to do. That work, though, should be done in a way that is candid, open, and honest. And trust me, if I have a personal problem with you, I will not hesitate to bring it up to you myself. Don't say you weren't warned.

A Salute To Brave Bloggers

Now, this particular blog (which has an alarmingly large reading audience, from what I could gather last weekend while I was on a Caribbean cruise) normally has a bit of a biting edge. However, I would like to use today's entry to show some appreciation to bloggers for freedom in totalitarian societies. Those of us who, like myself, grew up in free societies may often take for granted that we have the right in this country to spout off about just about anything we want to without fear of official persecution. People may not like what we have to say, but beyond harassment and verbal abuse, and the occasional lawsuit (none of those yet, *crosses fingers*) there is little they can do about it thanks to the First Amendment.

Most societies around the world, including those who have the most to hide (more on that later) are not so free. While there are many people who wish to take their leaders to task and hold them accountable for their actions (a noble, God-ordained task), some people must suffer more for their bravery and pluck than others. Some people risk death, torture, exile, and imprisonment and impovershment in order to speak the truth. These brave bloggers can be found in such corrupt societies as China, Iran, and Syria, among others. These people deserve our most profound thanks, as they live up to the high standards of morality for a free people without themselves being free. They shine a candle in the darkness in defiance against tyranny, and are worthy of our support for their attempts to bring the dark deeds of their wicked rulers into the harsh light of day. We who live in much more just socities often forget that the reason we have freedoms is for moral ends--even if those who are the most stringent in defending those freedoms are often themselves highly immoral and have rather ulterior motives for thier stands.

Technology is neither good nor evil. The same advances that allow these brave activists for democracy in benighted areas of the globe to reach a world audience (this would be termed a moral use of technology) also allow for greater immorality, such as the recent actions by google in allowing the Chinese government to block sites considered unfriendly to their wicked government, and in their allowing for US federal serveilence over certain web searches, a major breach of the privacy rights of American citizens. We must be ever vigilent on guard against the siren call of paternalistic and over-intrusive government seeking to make slaves of the people. After all, the people are supposed to be the masters of their leaders, not the other way around, according to the clear Word of God (see Matthew 20:26-28, Deuteronomy 17:6-14, Ezekiel 31, among other places).

Indeed, those societies (whether they be organizational or governmental or what) which seek to most stringently restrict the freedom of speech have the most to hide themselves. Those whose works are corrupt do not wish to have their works open to the scrutiny of other people. Those who have nothing to hide have no fear of their words and actions being open to the eyes of a candid world. Therefore, even without evidence, a heavy presumption of guilt of some kind must go to those who wish to avoid accountability. After all, if people are discharging their leadership duties effectively and in accordance with the laws of God and man, then they should welcome the investigation of others, because it would vindicate their good deeds. It is only those whose actions are corrupt and evil that would wish to prevent others from making a full discovery and disclosure of those deeds. We are all sinners, to be sure, so any investigation of our deeds will uncover some matters we would rather not admit. However, those who are righteous will admit their faults candidly. Those administrations which close off records of their deeds are the worst of hypocrites, being aware of their sin but refusing to admit it or repent of it.

So, for these reasons we must salute those who expose the wicked deeds of leaders who deny the truth and live a lie. We must have no corrupt communication in our behavior, realizing that the truth sets us free from the shakles of slavery to personalities and sin. It is selom popular to speak the truth, but in some countries it is extremely dangerous. So, for those who face official persecution for their truthtelling deeds, I offer my sincere praise and any support such that my words and deeds can provide to those who struggle valiently against the darkness.

Reflections on the Death of an Old Tyrant, 20 Years Later

In my play "None Dare Call It Treason," the action begins with the death of the "Old Man," a tyrant whose death ushers a great deal of chaos and misrule into the land of Cog. In real life, this particular man, by the name of Herbert W. Armstrong, died on January 16, 1986, when I was (to the day) four and a half years of age. As such, at the outset I must say that I did not know the man myself at all, but rather my view of him reflects a second hand understanding of those virtues of his that many vociferously claim as well as those faults of his that others just as loudly proclaim.

Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).

The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).

There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.

It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.

HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.

Our Nation's Favorite Plagiarist Day

This is the first of two rants of the day. Consider it a 2 for 1 special. Today is MLK, a day in honor of a man whose work was nearly completely fraudulent, whose personal life was an insult to Christian morals, whose political behavior was (to put it mildly) highly shady, and who nonetheless commands a ridiculous degree of near-total adulation. In my role as the unpleasant truth teller (not because I am unpleasant, but because I deal in unpleasant truths), it is my responsibility to, in a small way at least, look at some of the reasons why MLK should not be the celebrated person he is, even for those of us who (like myself) are against the evils of racism in whatever form they appear. After that we will discuss some personal views of mine about MLK and how he has appeared in my own personal literature.

Thou Shalt Not Steal

MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).

But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.

Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.

No Reverend At All

MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.

What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.

Political Machinations

MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.

The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.

Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.

MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright

I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.

A Case of Mistaken Identity

As I rest this Sabbath day, I am pondering two cases of mistaken identity. In order to protect the innocent (or guilty) I will only use first and last initials. These stories have been relatively amusing, but are quite intriguing and both relate to spiritual issues, and people in the United Church of God, ironically enough (both of them, as well as myself, have ABC connections, to make things even more coincidental). So, without any (further) ado, here are the cases of humorous and occasionally frustrating mistaken identity.

Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother

A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.

Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy

Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And with that, I bid adieu.

We Are The Normal

I don't know how many people are enthusiastic about the New Horizons mission, which is supposed to arrive at Pluto in about nine years to begin exploring the Kuiper belt, where Pluto resides. Of the nine major planets (and scientists differ strongly whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not, though I firmly support its status), Pluto is the only one that has not been explored yet.

Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.

Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.

Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.

So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.

Some Guys Have All The Luck

As bad as my end of 2005 was (for reasons of family health problems), I cannot imagine someone who ended 2005 and began 2006 with as many self-inflicted problems as a certain Marcus Vick, former quarterback for the Virginia Tech Hokies, and younger brother of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. How bad has the last month gone? Let's see:

December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm

Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.

So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.

Tastes Like Lappy

A foolish bet from a national sportswriter named Charles Robinson has spurred on a whole new phrase to describe something almost entirely inconceiveable. For those who are not aware, he made a preseason bet that if the Chicago Bears won the NFC North, he would eat his laptop. I find great amusement in such bets as these. "Pride comes before a fall" comes to mind as a suitable scripture for these situations. Needless to say, the Bears won the NFC North, and indigesetion awaits. When one makes a bet such as this, one had better be willing to pay up, or in this case, eat up.

Other people have, unsurprisingly, picked up on this expression. Doing a google search on the topic (as I am wont to do) uncovered the expression used in such varying ways as a taunt ("if your cartoon is anything more than stick figures I will eat my laptop") to pride about a musical being developed ("if this musical doesn't make it on Broadway in the next few years I will eat my laptop"). Besides these uses for it, one can imagine a suitable taunt for enthusiasts of end-time prophecy ("If the tribulation doesn't begin in five years I will eat my laptop" springs to mind, for example). Such a useful boast could even be useful for solving parent-child problems ("If I don't improve my grades next semester I will eat my laptop").

Of course, if one makes such foolish and rash predications that would involve invoking the laptop bet, one had better be willing to suffer some heartburn. Laptop's don't taste good. They're mostly made up of plastic, with some silicon chips thrown in for seasoning. The power cords are a bit of a problem too. My laptop, for example, has a tendancy towards the "fried laptop," with its long-standing power-cord problems, which have caused flames to spurt from the back of the machine before (and nearly electrocuted me in the process). Not all laptops, however, are as spicy as mine. Nonetheless, to put it rather mildly, eating a laptop is far from a welcome task.

Life would be so much easier if people meant what they said and didn't have to come up with such extravagent language (as eating laptops is, you must admit) in order to demonstrate that they are really serious about something. I mean, people should be able to take what one says at least somewhat seriously (although, sometimes people take what one says a bit too seriously--without an understanding of dry and deadpan humor, or sarcasm, or even the occasionally witty barb). If our yes was yes and our no was no, it would not be necessary to swear on one's digestive health (laptops are murder on the intestines) in order to make a point. It would also be less, um, unpleasant if what one said did not come to pass. It is one thing to look like a fool (because when one is in the prediction making business, one is going to be wrong a lot) when false predictions fail to come to pass (whether it is in the realm of sports, politics, or the occasional prediction of the return of Jesus Christ), but it is entirely another thing to break one's word. In short, if you are going to be foolish enough to make a ridiculous bet, you'd better be willing to pay the price. I wonder how humble pie tastes like. It probably tastes like lappy.

On Leadership

In a recent World News and Prophecy article entitled "Leadership Under Seige Around The World," John Ross Schroeder comments on the lack of faith people have in their leaders and in their lack of trust in institutions of any kind. Surely, this is obvious to all. A large majority of people have no trust in any insitutions whatsoever, be they churches, political parties, companies, not-for-profits, international organizations, nations, local governments. In addition, the author correctly notes that people long for trustworthy leaders, and just may grant such leaders improper and unaccountable power. I happen to agree with the analysis of this person in this case (though he fails to apply it to, say, religious organizations, or see the validity of the mistrust, as well as the fact that no human is fit to hold power unaccountable to those they serve). Lest I bite off more than I can chew, however, I would like to comment on the phenomenon of the mistrust, its cyclical nature, its origins, and its cure.

All over the world, leaders are facing rather dissatisfied people. Schroeder refers to the lack of trust and institutional corruption in such organizations as the UN, horrific public approval letters of political parties, presidents, prime ministers, and so forth. Indeed, there are large amount of people in any given nation or organization who act with extreme distrust towards their leaders, with good reason (as I will get to later on). It would be a lie to say I did not share this particular tendency myself, though I am far from extreme in it. Then again, one always knows people further along a certain path for either favorable or unfavorable comparison.

The reasons for the pervasive mistrust in leaders is both natural and entirely proper. According to generational theorists Howe and Strauss, we are in what is called the Fourth Turning, an age of anarchy, where there is little desire for unity, or little unity. In any way, shape, and form, these represent our times. They are times when people spend their effort on personal persuits rather than working towards the common benefit (this is certainly true). Leaders themselves of all stripes have utilized their power for personal benefit. I could give many examples of this, but it would be impolite to do so, as certain groups of people would feel somewhat put upon. There are no types of leaders exempt from this particular, and just, criticism, though. With leaders focused on making service pay for them, it is no wonder that they are not trusted. They simply are not trustworthy. Even if individual leaders may not be corrupt (as difficult as it is to tell that with any degree of certainty), the entire system of leadership all over the place is corrupt. By rewarding seniority rather than talent, by rewarding appearance over reality, and by rewarding pleasant and polite fiction rather than bitter and ugly truth, organizations and nations have gotten the leadership they deserve. This is not a good thing.

Such epochs of mistrust are cyclical, which is itself a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Whether the cycle ends up being good or bad depends on how societies and organizations react to the defining "crisis" that ends the mistrust and forces people to once again work together to solve some pressing, urgent, and calamitous problem. History is full of good and bad leaders in such dark times (good: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill; not so good: FDR, Jefferson Davis, Louis XVI; really bad: Hitler, Tojo). The result of the crisis depends on the moral fiber of the people more than that of their leader. The South, for example, failed badly in dealing with the crisis of slavery, and thus merited its fall in the Civil War to the more advanced (and more righteous) North. Germany's people before WWII failed also in choosing a demagogue who offered simplistic solutions to difficult problems (such people are a must to avoid in positions of any resopnsible authority), and merited their fall in WWII. While FDR himself was nothing special as a leader (and his policies were downright idiotic), the American people themselves had not been completely corrupted at that time, and so America was more robust. England, more decadent, fared less well, and France, even more decadent than England, fared worse still.

Thus, the cure for the current climate of malaise when it comes to leadership is a sense of iminent and serious crisis that forces people to work together because they cannot make it on their own. The types of leaders that people in such situations choose are one of two kinds. Both leaders are leaders of profound vision. Good leaders are those who share in the sacrifices of their people, and are able to bring good meaning to suffering, avoid (permanent) increases of central government power (for temporary increases, as those of the Civil War, seem inevitable), and explain conflicts in their genuine moral terms. Leaders who are less able fail in one of these aspects, either using crises to seek permanent increases in power, seek to avoid sharing the dangers of the crisis (and are thus cowardly), provide false meaning and vicious (rather than virtuous) moral meaning to problems (usually this involves making a group of people a scapegoat for the crisis). In short, people who wish for an end of the carping attitude towards leadership and long for inspiring leaders and a sense of purpose had better be careful what they wish for. In the end, we get the leaders we deserve. Whether that speaks will or ill depends on ourselves.

Blow the Trumpet

Finally, a blog with entries longer than mine, from some people I know in the Church of God who are very concerned with biblical prophecy and end time events (obviously).

http://blowthetrumpet.blogspot.com/

Okay, plug over. Carry on.

Frequency

Today, while on an errand at work to get a semi-retired engineer to seal some plans, I had the opportunity to watch a rippling pond and I wondered about sinosidal waves (that's because I'm an engineer, probably). It made me ponder that certain frequencies that are very calming to me. Considering the brief time I have available this night to comment on them, I will look at them and ponder the oddities of their patterns.

Music:

As I am a (somewhat) irritable person, I need things to calm me down and relax me, as I can be somewhat high-strung. It is fortunate that I like to listen to melodic music, as well as sing and play the viola. Music has a calming effect on me, soothing the wild beast, if you will. It is noteworthy that I am attracted to certain types of music, though, that demonstrate certain patterns. Pop music, with its very narrow constraints involving chords, or baroque and classical music, with their patterns of harmonies and rhythms, meet the bill. Rap music, sadly, does not.

Water:

Bodies of water are very relaxing to me, even from childhood. I can sit for hours (this is a hard task, you ever tried to get me to sit still?) watching the ocean, or a lake, or a stream. There is something in the pattern of the waves and ripples that is relaxing and soothing. The same is true even of watching a rainstorm, which is quite soothing as well. It was a favorite pasttime of mine when I was a child (well, rather, playing in the rain at least). Watching waves is one of the most enjoyable things to do at the beach of course, at least if I want to relax. Relaxation is a rare thing for me, so at least it's good to know some places to go.

Rolling Country/Rollercoasters:

My father's family lives in the gently rolling hill country of Eastern Pennsylvania. I find great contentment in riding in cars along such country (less enjoyment, as can be imagined, hiking the country, unless it is with good friends as I did in northern England once). Incidentally enough, I like rollercoasters for the same reason. I'm not a big fan of the loops, but I love the ups and downs of a rollercoaster, especially the wooden ones, which have an organic feel to them, instead of the jerky and abrupt steel roller coasters (though I still like those).

Conclusions:

Is there a reason for this odd sort of attraction to sine and cosine waves? I don't know, but it sure is interesting to think about (at least for me). I wonder if anyone else has the same sort of odd contentment in such cyclical patterns as I do...

Lay Off The Booze...

I don't know if it's just me, or some sort of macabre interest I have in attempting to notice patterns, but it seems to me there has been an awful lot of interest in the press in the drinking habits of celebrities these days.

It was not even a month ago that Kurt Busch, who won NASCAR last year, was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion of drunk driving. He was suspended from the last two races of the NASCAR season and forbodden from turning over the championship banner at the last race of the season, the accustomed action of outgoing champions in that racing circuit. While a preliminary field sobriety test had him passing, his rather argumentative manner had him being arrested and held for a couple of hours in jail. That's not a pleasant place to be, from what I hear anyway (note: I have never been arrested myself, something I'd rather like to continue).

Around the same time, there was a rather infamous accident involving the car of Paris Hilton, being driven by her Greek boy-toy (who was probably had a little too much Uozo to drink--yuck). Despite three of the four passengers of the car being rather visibly drunk (at least according to video), the four were given rather kid-glove treatment by the LAPD. Look, the LAPD are apparently nice to celebrities, as scary as they may appear to the common folk of Los Angeles (they were quite in force in the area of Los Angeles I lived in, but then again, I lived in South Central). Nonetheless, despite visible drunkness, they managed to avoid any legal sanction. Lucky them.

Then, yesterday, Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn (does the word rebound mean anything to any of you?) were stopped on suspicion of drinking and driving while together, and they got a friend to pick them up for the night. I find that sort of thing rather entertaining. At least the machine worked for them (unlike for Busch). Is it just me, or are the deputies in Arizona quite dilligent when it comes to making DUI arrests on the stars? At any rate, they ended up alright, and no worse for the wear, if a bit embarassed perhaps (no worse than, say Nick Nolte when he provided one of the worst mug shots of all time when he was arrested for DUI in Florida some years ago).

Finally, two minor actresses on the series lost were almost simultaneously stopped for DUI, and both failed ye olde breathalizer test (honestly, these famous people had better lay off the booze). Hawaii has an interesting law when it comes to DUI--the driver's license is automatically, upon a court hearing, revoked. A temporary license is given for work, but with numerous restrictions. Now, those actors and actresses of Lost are a little too busy working to be drinking, right? I mean, at least they should have the sense not to drink and drive. The nerve of them.

Such are my random thoughts as my brother enjoys a college visit with friends in North Carolina (Duke and UNC are on his list of colleges to visit). I hope he's doing alright, and I'm pretty sure he's not driving...

Shadow And Light

Chiaroscuro is the art of painting using shadow and light, different shades of the same color for dramatic contrast. As a very prolific writer, I'd like to amuse myself with the thought that I do the same thing with words, painting in different shades of black and gray to paint a dramatic picture of my life as I experience it and as the lives of others are told to me by others. Indeed, it could be said that my entire writing (and possibly, my entire life) is a rather delicate dance of shadow and light. That's far too much to digest for one modest blog entry, but it is nonetheless a fitting comment.

A lot of people (and you know who you are) either complain personally to me, or to others, about the rather dark subjects I write about. Such dark subjects are not merely those I struggle with myself, but are also those topics that I am forced to deal with because of holding awkward confidences about other people that I have a difficult time dealing with. Without betraying any of those confidences, it can be safely said that those particularly unpleasant aspects of many of my writings are not based on what I have done, but are mostly based on what I know others to have done. Sometimes, though, to be fair, they are not always about what the people who are being written about themselves have done, if that makes any sense.

My fictional writing (and most of my nonfictional writing, to be blunt), with rare exceptions, is informed by the world I live in. For the most part, that is not a particularly pleasant world. The few plays I have that are not burdened by the real world share two notable characteristics in common--for one, they are often explicitly biblical in their writing (this would include just about all the plays of mine that can be said to be uniformly pleasureable, from "Ruth the Moabitess" to "The Biblical Reenactment Society" and "Keys of the Kingdom," the only play of mine to be set in some future time, namely the Kingdom of God). There is something to this. After all, it seems that I, as a writer, am only able to move above the rather grim nature of life in this current society (or past corrupt societies) when I am looking toward the world to come. There is a good lesson, or two, in this.

It is noteworthy to ponder how my nonfiction is quite similar. After all, much of my nonfiction also focuses on this world, and those works are often full of unfriendly commentary about class systems ("Servant Leadership and the Class System of the Church," "Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes"), generations ("Virtue and Value Are Not The Same," "Generations Study"), and so forth. In fact, it could be truly said that my writing springs from a desire to be true to life, to capture verisimilitude, at least how it appears to me (it should be noted that this may not be how others see the very same things, which can be the source of a lot of difficulty). There are also plenty of unintentional resemblances between my writing and the true character of the people who are being written about (though these are far too painful to mention in any greater detail).

So, how should my writings be viewed then? A large portion of how people view my writings depends on who they are. After all, some of my commentary about people in retrospect may seem rather ironic, when it was meant at first to be straightforward. Sometimes what appears to be an end is merely a new beginning, and sometimes what looks like a fresh chance is merely a dead end. The fact that my writing is part of a giant epic framework only complicates the matter further. There are, after all, family curses that extend over many generations, afflicting each in turn, events that occur that lead to other events over a century later (witness the unfortunate relation between "My First Mistress" and "Come Away With Me"). In other words, what I write is obscenely complicated (both words, of course, being worthy of far greater discussion than can occur here). In the various comings and goings of my characters doings, there is a sense of design, a purpose for all of the rather strange and sometimes unsettling occurrences. However, being true to life (or true to perception of life, which amounts to, in fiction, the same thing) often leads us to very unpleasant places. Those few characters of mine that are able to (largely) escape from the curse of Adam do so because of the grace of God, not because of any native goodness or cleverness on their own. And this is true for all of us in the real world--we are saved by the grace of God, not through our own efforts (and it is salutory to remember that).

It is my hope that someday a reasonably sympathetic (though honest) and erudite person will attempt to sort out (hopefully, after I am gone and my works are at an end) the rather convoluted nature of what I write. In doing so, there will have to be a lot of parsing out of various deeds. After all, not all of what goes in my writings is about me (I am not nearly that self-centered of a person). Indeed, the larger part of what I write is not about me, per se, at all, but rather about the world in which I live, a world which may bear only passing resemblance to the world in which other people live. And yet what I write so voluminously (few people have the patience to read more than a little of it), nay, even with a sense of logorrhea at times, is at the very basic level an attempt to communicate what is certainly a very odd world to other people that are perhaps less odd. It is also true that in much words there cannot be but at least a little folly. Perhaps the biggest folly of all is that I feel the need to say what is on my mind and what burdens me (which is far more than that which I have myself done), for rather we would all be better off if I did not have that compulsive need to chronicle life and those whose lives are proximate to my own. But, such is the subject of a rant for another day, perhaps.

The Trouble With Antinomians

According to antinomians, those who believe in the literal and inerrant truth of the Bible suffer from an inability to appreciate the literary excellence and fine figures of speech of the Bible and instead are cultural philistines whose very seriously held beliefs about the importance of obedience to God are nothing more than the prejudices of narrow-minded and unintelligent bigots. Obviously, being someone who takes the Bible quite seriously and quite literally, as well as being someone who has a great appreciation of literature (both as the writer of copious amounts of literature and the reader of a fair amount as well), I would appear to be at least somewhat suited to combat the false claims of the antinomians. So here goes.

It is beyond dispute that the Bible is a finely crafted work of literature. The Bible contains, for instance, a rich poetic language, some of it similar to Egyptian, Canaanite, Persian, and Babylonian literature (though far superior with regards to moral law). Certain customs in the Bible appear in the Nuzi tablets, or in the practice of Akkadian leaders, for example. The Bible's books include a hymnbook (which we call Psalms), numerous prophetic books (which could be said to be similar to oracular literature in other traditions, if one chooses to go that route), genealogies (of great interest to me, as I have been a student of family histories for many years), creation literature, historical chronicles, decrees, letters, apocalyptic literature, biographies, sermons, and so forth. All of this is a large amount of rather disparate literature in one book. The fact that it all shares a commonality of purpose and the divine dispensation of preservation is another matter entirely. It is important to realize, though, that a fine appreciation for the literary excellence of the Bible is not sufficient. Unlike other mere works of literature, the Bible was not written merely to entertain, but to instruct, and to serve as the blueprint for a moral life. This means we cannot view it merely with the eyes of literature appreciation, but must take its words and laws with the utmost of seriousness. Those of us who fail to do so, no matter how cultured they may think themselves, are behaving with a failure of respect and honor towards the divine ordinances of our Creator God.

It is strange that those who criticize law-abiding believers for being so foolishly literal minded are so foolishly literal minded about certain phrases that, when taken out of context, would seem to indicate that the law is done away with. For example, there is the pernicious expression translated in English as "under law." Whenever an antinomian sees the expression "under law," they behave as Pavlov's dog's do to the sound of a bell, and salivate at the mouth, spawning off vile insults at those who would point to a requirement for obedience among Christians today, especially when it comes to such issues as the Sabbath and Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, gender roles, laws of sexual morality, and so forth. However, in the context of Galatians, Romans, and so on, "under law" seems not to refer to the laws themselves, but but the administration of punishment without mercy for sin. It is only through the divine dispensation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we can hope to be redeemed of our sinful nature. But, as Paul clearly said on numerous occasions (as there were antinomians in his time), and as John and Peter said as well in their own various ways in their epistles, our respentance at baptism frees us from sin, not to sin, and we cannot know sin apart from the law. If we, in other words, are baptised, we will live in ways in accordance with God's law, not merely to be rewarded, or because we are under the "Old Covenant," but rather because we love God and wish to gain His righteous character, which is done through obeying and internalizing His laws in our lives, and applying them in spiritual ways, which do not contradict (nay, they expand) the previous physical applications.

One might then speculate (and I am unkind enough to do so), that it is not those who take the Bible seriously and seek to obey it that have the problem. It is rather that those who refuse to take the Bible seriously (a rather large population in this wicked world, I must admit) who have the inability to appreciate the seriousness of God writing the Decalogue with his hand in a cave high on Jabul Al-Musa, Mt. Horeb, Mt. Sinai, or the equally serious prohibitions on the habitually immoral in Romans, Corinthians, and Revelation, and elsewhere, from entering the Kingdom of God. For too long believers in the Bible have been made to feel as barbarians, uncivilized and hopelessly outdated, when in fact those who would disregard the Bible are as the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Gibeon in Judges, hastening towards their own fall.

It should be remembered, and is often forgotten, that the truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and error is error even if everyone believes it. What is right and wrong is not up for a popular vote, but simply is. Once the absolute nature of truth becomes under attack from moral philistines (look up Judges and 1 Samuel for that reference), then civilization as such becomes impossible. Civilization, after all, depends on a certain moral superiority to barbarism, which properly defined is any system whose legitimacy has no moral bearing and is dependent on force or fraud, rather than any reasonable and just bearing. The trouble with antinomians is that they mistake rebarbarism (the dog returning to his own vomit, as Hebrews says) for the peak of civilization, and confuse those who would arrest civilization's fall with uneducated barbarians. Though it is a popular mistake, it is a mistake the same, and one that needs to be brought home with a bit more fire and frequency. After all, we are engaged in a war for the survival of decency--we cannot throw down our arms merely because the fight is unpopular.