Pray for The Men and Women in our Armed Forces...and their families

The story behind the picture can be found here.

Please Observe...

Please observe the link to my Corps Blog which now resides in the right hand corner of this blog.

We Put Ourselves Here, Not Congress

The Healthcare plan put forward by the House of Representatives has set off a powder keg that has turned our whole political system inside out and divided the nation in three groups, one furious about what is being done with their tax dollars, one group, led by the President, furious that they are being opposed so vehementently and called liars, and a third group standing between the other two wondering why everyone is so bent out of shape. I'm not here to flame the fires either way, but there are a few things I would like to say.

1. Shouting and threatening violence does not change minds very often. Be courteous and don't interupt when someone is trying to speak. Even if they are completely in the wrong, our Representatives are in our government and thus deserve our respect because they hold a position of power and responsibility.
2. Proclaiming that we need to kick everyone out of congress is not going to help. Even if that were to happen, the beaurocratic fat that has been built around our government would keep things from changing a great deal. There are a lot of good senators and Representatives who are trying to do their job, but cannot get anything done because of the red tape and the opposition. If you want to make a difference research the candidates and campaign for them, even if it is only to tell a few people about them. The Founders based a great deal upon the assumption that the people would hold their representatives accountable. Our current predicament is just as much the fault of Americans who can vote as it is the Representatives who have been voted in.

Professionals and Amateurs

Someone once said that it was amateurs who built the ark, but it was professionals who built the Titanic. It is interesting to note that some of the greatest fantasy authors of recent decades did not attend or study writer's conferences, writer's workshops, etc. J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Christopher Paolini, J.K. Rowling, and to the best of my knowledge Stephenie Meyers, did not spend a great deal of time or money attending such events (Please note, I am not saying I approve of all these writers, I am merely holding them up as examples of people who's writings have done well in the last few years). I am not saying that such conferences are worthless, they just seem to be a tad over rated.

Brief Edit

A quick change, in Chapter 9 of Adventures in Ardenhail, I changed the symbol on Arthen's sword from a winged horse with in a circle to a seven pointed star within a circle. Some things happen in Chapter 11 with the symbol and I didn't want anybody to be confused.

From the Ivory Tower

King Arthur and Lancelot

I have always enjoyed the legends of King Arthur but a source of constant annoyance and frustration has been the depravity of Lancelot and the ruin it brings upon Arthur's kingdom. I can understand the fact that a knight may fall into sin and thus bring ruin upon a kingdom, but what has always annoyed me is the way in which Lancelot has been regarded as a tragic hero and his failing as a terrible, if unavoidable, mistake. This is due in a large part to the misunderstanding of 'true love'. Wonderful words, but they have come to represent a sick concept. It is because of how the Arthurian legends have been used to peddle this idea of love that I have come to dislike most recountings of it.

When Lancelot falls in love with Guenevere, it is often portrayed as some kind of inevitable bond that is beyond their control. Their adultery is often explained away or excused on account of them "being in love". Because they were in love, the argument goes, they couldn't help themselves.

True love does what is best for the object of that love, it does not follow the basis of the lover's selfish actions. Yes, I am looking at you Anakin Skywalker. The theme of True Love excusing any number of harmful actions has only been magnified over the years, and it is seen with special poignancy in Episode II of Starwars. This goes back to what I mentioned in an earlier article on interesting things in the Fantasy Genre. Most of the things I listed were funny, but this one just makes me sick. In the name of true love, a male character can get away with almost anything.

There is actually a word for what Lancelot's version of True Love has become. It is lust. I know, it doesn't sound as good, that's why they say True Love.

J.R.R. Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien has to be one of the most amazing authors in the history of literature. Besides his collosal mountain of work in Middle Earth he wrote a great deal in the field of Northern Mythology. Most recently, Christopher Tolkien has published The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun. I've only just started it, but already Tolkien's mastery of the epic is clear.

Also, I came across this documentary on the web a few days ago and really enjoyed the first 3 parts, but I could have done without all the stuff about the similarities between Frodo's journey and an acid trip. But I really enjoyed all the footage of Tolkien and his thoughts on his work.

The Ethics of Elfland

I just thought this was a particularly interesting post on Martin Cothran's blog, it is "The Ethics of Elflan" from the book "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton.
http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2009/06/greatest-chapter-of-greatest-book-by.html

Funny Things About the Fantasy Genre

1. The #1 most time consuming meal in most Fantasy world is stew because it takes so long to cook. This makes it a bad choice for a meal when you are trying to get quickly from one place to another for obvious reasons. What is the #2 most common meal that fantasy characters eat when they are trying to get from place to place? Stew.
2. It is a fact that beer is made from barley, which takes time to grow in temperate regions. So would someone please tell me why the infinite number of blond barbarians, who populate the modern excuses for fantasy literature like chiggers on a Texas riverbank, and who continually roam the frigid North that is covered in ice and snow much of the time, why why why do they drink more beer in one evening than I drink water in one day?
3. Why do all-powerful dictators who rule their people with an iron hand, and who feel perfectly fine killing innumerable peasants for little reason, all of a sudden feel the need to engage in careful secrecy about the murder of the orphaned farm boy who happens to be the hero?
4. Why do the bad guys always outnumber the good guys by about a billion to one?
5. I have to admit this is NOT funny, but weired, the parents of heroes have a 98.9% casualty rate in Fantasy stories. The parents of Heroines have a slightly better casualty rate, only 87.6%. What makes this worse is the fact that most of these stories are written by parents, not teenagers.
6. After considering #5 for a moment, I have discovered why most Fantasy worlds are stuck with middle ages type technology for thousands of years. Parents pass on their knowledge to their children, right? Well, in these fantasy worlds, about once every hundred years or so, a massive war erupts through the most advanced kingdoms. This of course requires heroes since the bad guys out number the good guys by some outrageous number. The heroes are all either orphans who are separated from their mentors/foster parents/ guardians around the age of sixteen or they are teenagers who's parents just got killed. In other words, everytime a civilization gets near deveopling something like gunpowder for instance, all the smart people get killed off and their libraries get burned and power gets handed to the people who have Zero life experiance, so after the war is over, scientific knowledge is back a square one, and the writer has another hundred years or so to drum up another war so he can keep writing fantasy novels instead of sci-fi novels.
7. Why are 90% of heroes teenagers? I mean, I know teenagers can be good soldiers, but when you put together a whole bunch of them and kill off Brom, Ormis, Dumbldore, or whoever else you have directing them, they shouldn't become suddenly smarter than their former guardians. Check out history, how many teenagers saved their city, let alone their nation vs. how many non teenagers did the same thing.
8. Why is it that the female character in most fantasy stories with a romantic plot thread have to be the one with selfcontrol, the one who says "no we can't get married right now"? Probably has something to do with the teenaged hero and the fact that his love is a hundred billion years old or something.
9. Why do some Christian have to hate Fantasy so much?
10. Why does the heroe vs. Villian duel alway happen in a vaccum? I mean there's got to be some observant bowman or swords man who would notice "Hey! there's the person who got us all into this mess" Then twang or eee* and Bingo! End of fight. (for those of you who did not grow up with little brothers, "eee" is the sound made when you stab someone).

Taking Chance

Last night I watched "Taking Chance", a film that follows Marine Corps Officer Mike Strobl as he escorts the body of Private First Class Chance Phelps back to his parents. In the film, officer Strobl meets several people with very different outlooks on life, from a carefree college girl to another Marine officer who is escorting his brother's body home, and it is very thought provoking to see their different reactions to Strobl and the duty he is carrying out. It is good, in the midst of our political battles, to take a step back to remember the men and women who have put themselves in harms way so that we can be free. Thank you, all of you in the Military for waht you do. God bless America, and God bless her Armed Forces.

Foreign Invasion

Recently Justice Ginsberg on the U.S. Supreme court has spoken a great deal about using citing foreign law in U.S. Courts. This has upset many people, and rightly so. There are two major problems with using foreign laws to strike down U.S. Laws. The first is the fact that foreign law is incredibly diverse; who decides what foreign laws we are going to use? The second is that given the diversity of foreign law, almost any american law can be view as 'out of step with the rest of the world'.
When Justice Ginsberg expresses her belief that we should look abroad and 'listen' more to what other courts have to say, does she mean to concider all courts equaly? Is she as open to the various branches of Muslim law which strip women of many rights Ginsber herself worked hard to promote as she is to the more liberal European laws? I certainly hope not, and I seriously doubt that she does. But if she does not, then how does she or anyone else determine which foreign laws should be used as precident and which ones should not?
The answer, sadly, is that judges like Justice Ginsberg pick and choose what laws they like and which ones they do not like. But why? If judges are there to uphold the constitution and to serve as a brake on progress as the Founders clearly intended, why do judges on many of the nation's courts feel the need to reference foreign law? It may be because Justice Ginsberg and other judges like her (such as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) want to refasion the American legal structure in a manner more pleasing to themselves, and they are too impatient to wait for the political process to grant them the results they desire.
If foreign law becomes a dominant source for precedent in the U.S. Judges who wish to legislate from the bench will have almost unlimited power; for any decision they wish to hand down they can find some foreign law that will lend some shadow of credence to what they want.

A Case of Mistaken Identity

If you listen to most scientists, the war between Science and Religion has been long and bitter, though Science seems to be gaining the upper hand. Even many christians speak of the war between Science and Religion and its effect upon our lives. As Judge Benton Eskew once told me, 'I can win any argument if you let me define the terms'. In talking about Science vs. Religion we have allowed Humanists to define the terms. We can argue all day whether science and Religion are opposed (they are not), but the war between Science and Religion should be called the war between Humanism and Theism.
When an atheist speak of Science vs. Religion, what he is saying and what people are hearing is 'Rational Analysis' vs. 'Irrational Faith'. That's kind of like labeling the sides in a criminal trial the Guilty and the Innocent, you cede the debate before you begin.
Evolution did not arise from someone looking at the evidence and saying 'Wow, this must have come about by chance'. Evolution arrose when Darwin attempted to explain everything without god....which is the first point in The Humanist Manifesto III:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Evolution and naturalism are subsets of Humanism, just as Creation and Supernaturalism are subsets of Christianity.
Humanism is not somehow more rational, more tolerant, more helpful than Theism. It begins with the assumption that there is nothing in the world besides matter and then proceeds to prove that by using purely material proofs. It is like the man who steps into the room and proclaims “There is nothing in here that I cannot see!” and then proceeds to prove it by looking around the room.
If Christians want to have a prayer of winning the war between Theism and Humanism, we must define the terms correctly or we risk being counted out before we get into the ring.

Cliff Hanging Is Bad for Joints

A lot of stuff I have read on writing fiction stresses the need to keep the reader in suspense; one book I read went so far as to say that every chapter should end with a cliff hanger. Talk about a stressful read. But seriously, is there that much need to keep readers in that much suspense? Don't get me wrong, cliff hangers have their place, but to have a calamity befall every five pages does seem a bit overdone.
In my experience, most books that are written this way are lacking in quality and make up for lack of substance with an abundance of suspense. This tendency is seen with glaring clearness in books that form a series. An author addicted to tension and cliff hangers tends to have one unresolved tragedy every chapter, and ends the book with the most colossal and demanding cliff hanger of the book...so you will come back and buy his next novel. In the Jane Austen novels, every chapter does not end with one of her characters in an unresolved situation that threatens dire consequences, the main theme of the books carries you along, it is concern with the over all point of the plot that holds your interest, even if you have read the book or know the story by heart. If you look at the Harry Potter books (I'm not promoting J.K. Rowling's books here or trying to start a big discussion about them...maybe in another post. I am just trying to make a point about the way they are plotted.) the problem of the entire series is Voldemort and how to get rid of him. Each book ended with another of Voldemort's plots foiled or stalled (at increased cost to Harry as the series progressed) and most of the threads tied up. We did not put the book down wondering if Harry or a close friend was going to die within the next five minutes, though we knew that danger was there and the main problem was unresolved, but there was no pressing problem that demanded immediate attention.
So for those of you who are writers: don't leave us hanging over cliffs all the time...It is very discomfiting.

Evolution Is On Hold

Apparently today's horses are not evolving as they should, at least according to this article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518641,00.html . Despite the collosal ammount of money spent on breeding faster horses isn't helping a whole lot.

"Evidence from the Triple Crown races suggests that the process of
selective breeding of thoroughbreds (as practiced in the U.S.) is incapable of
producing a substantially faster horse," Denny writes. "Despite the efforts of
the breeders, speeds are not increasing, and current attempts to breed
faster horses may instead be producing horses that are more fragile."

Despite all the talk about how evolution is a fact and not a theory, this might suggest otherwise, and I wonder how many other studies or facts like this are known?
This flies squarely in the face of evolution, which claims that Selection, Natural or otherwise, can lead from organism B to organism A+.

Why Young Earth

In recent years, as naturalism has continued its march into every crevasse of life, the crazy idiots who believe in a literal six day creation have become nearly extinct. Yet some still claim that the Young Earth model of creation is not only probable, but is the only view that is consistent with Christianity and Science. Why? What is the big deal? And what does it matter?
It might be profitable to look back at history, why did mainstream Christians change from a Young Earth model to the Old Earth model. Until Darwin popularized the theory of evolution (and yes, it is and remains a theory, not a scientific fact) very few scientist or theologians held that the earth was more than several thousand years old. Most Christians accepted that the earth was between ten and six thousand years old; there was no reason to suspect or postulate otherwise, six thousand years was approximately the figure arrived at by adding up the genealogies in the Bible and matching them with when certain events occurred. Evolution however, required many, many years. First they claimed they needed a few million.
Then they learned that the cell was more complex than they thought, and they simultaneously discovered that the earth was a few million years older than they had thought. And so the process continued until today with some naturalist claiming the earth is many billions of years old. They then turned to Christians and claimed that they were 'superstitious' because they did not accept that the earth is millions or billions of years old (This depends upon what dating method you use. If you age a sample with four different methods you often end up with four radically different ages). Their reasoning looks something like this:
Evolution is true
Evolution requires that the Earth is millions of years old
Therefore, the earth is millions of years old.

Christianity and other religions claim the years is not millions of years old
We know that the earth is millions of years old,
Therefore, we know Christianity and other religions are not true
If Christianity and all other religions are not true
Then they cannot challenge Evolution
If Evolution cannot be challenged
Then Evolution is True.
Just a hint for those of you who have not taken Logic 101, when your conclusion and your first proposition are one and the same you have what is called a circular argument, i.e. one that is false.
Christians employed three strategies in response to the charge that a literal creation is absurd because naturalists say so. The first stratagem is to simply accept what science is saying and reject Christianity. The second stratagem is to believe that the scientists have got it wrong (something not unheard of), and the bible has it right when it says day. The second stratagem is to try and fit the millions or billions of years into Genesis, and the most common way of doing that is to say that each 'day' in Genesis represents an age.
There are, however, many problems with doing this. The first is that the Hebrew word Yom used in Genesis means 24 hour day. Yom Kippur is the 'Day of Atonement', not the age, millennium, epoch, or era of atonement. Everywhere in the bible the word Yom is used with a number, or the phrase 'evening and morning' it means a literal 24 hour day. Many try to say that in English we often use 'day' to mean an age: the day of the Lord, In my grandfather's day, etc. We often say the dawn of an age, or the evening of an era. But do we ever say things like 'I remember how my father grew up in the morning of the first day of my grandfather' when we intend day to mean era? I don't. Maybe you do.
That is in English, here we are dealing with Hebrew, where Yom means 24 hour day.
Perhaps the single most important problem with the Old Earth view point is that it requires death before the fall in direct contradiction of Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...” If death, pain, and suffering were built into the world by an all powerful, intelligent being working from outside time and space, how can such a god be called Holy?
In the end, we should not be asking ourselves 'why young earth?” but rather “why old earth?” Many have adopted the old earth viewpoint in order to appear scholarly and intellectual, but they are disliked by both sides, and atheists mock them for being unable to interpret their own Bible. Look at what the bible has to say about creation and the fall, there is no better interpreter of the Bible than the Bible itself.

New Terrorist Threat Discovered

On April 7th 2009, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis released an Assessment titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
I heard a lot of hype about how it targeted conservatives and "rightwing radicals" (try saying that ten times fast). Having learned by bitter experience not to comment on something you don't know about, I read it. When a group wishes to gain or solidify power, the first thing they try to do is shut up the people who disagree with them. For those of you who read animal farm, how did Napoleon turn the animals away from Snowball and towards himself? He first began to say that Snowball was subverting the state. As the book goes on and Napoleon's power grew, he continued to reveal more and more wicked things about Snowball until Snowball is one of the greatest villains in the book. What, exactly did Snowball do? Nothing. Napoleon was able to define him as an enemy and the animals hated him. This is exactly what the Obama administration is attempting to do with this DHS report. The document lists numerous ways that radical rightwing groups may be plotting to disrupt the government. First, Napolitano defines 'rightwing terrorists' with the following footnote:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate -oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejection federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration" (DHS report pg. 2, my emphasis)

Think about that for a moment. First off, anybody who is driven by hatred based on religious, racial or ethnic groups isn't 'rightwing'. I can call apples 'spicy fruit that may also be very hard" but just because an apple has a few seeds doesn't make the fruit very hard, but I haven't done anything but warn you away from apples. Yes, there a few people who go around bombing abortion centers and harassing immigrants, but they are not representative of rightwing conservatives.

"The consequences of a prolonged economic downturn - including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit - could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past" (DHS report pg. 2)

Excuse me, but...pardon my ignorance... what confrontations in the past? This statement has little or no factual basis, as does the whole report. Aside from a few brief and misconstrued references to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the report offers no support for any of its outrageous statements. Along with 'stockpiling guns and ammunition" we 'radical rightwing extremists are recruiting and radicalizing returning veterans so that we can use their military knowledge to stage attacks against the government.
Have conservatives done any of this? Are there any 'radical rightwing extremist groups" out there to do any recruiting? This report is nothing but fearmongering pure and simple. There are far more threats out there for them to spend their time on than us citizens who don't like their policies or the fact that they are using the tax code to distribute other people's wealth.
All this having been said, I would like to speak to those of you who are upset about this report. This is why it is important to be above reproach. No crude or violent joke about the president should ever pass our lips. He is our president for better or worse, and there is a political system the founders set up so that we can make ourselves heard. If you don't know who your congressman or woman is, you frankly have little right to complain about how your government is representing you. Do not ever make it even seem as if you intended or wished violence on our government. Our nation has become the way it is because good people have not exerted themselves on behalf of freedom. Be involved in election cycles, and help out the candidates who represent you. But most importantly, live a life that shows your neighbors and co-workers what conservatism really is. We are not 'hate based' we are love based. We love liberty, and thus defend it from any encroachment. We love the american dream, and defend it against those who would trample it like the KKK, which, may I mention, was heavily populated by democrats. We love America, and will do all in our power to do all we can to make our country great.
I have only scratched the surface of this report, if you want to read more you can at http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf )
God Bless America

Five Reasons boys should read Pride and Predjudice.

1. Bingly and Mr. Darcy (for the second part of the book) are excellent role models for young men.
2. In an age where young people are told to "follow your heart" and that "love will conquer all", Pride and Predjudice shows the pain that is caused by a young man taking advantage of a young woman and doing things that should wait until after marriage.
3.In an age where chivalry, and good manners in general are dying, it is good to be reminded how people ought to behave.
4. It demonstrates how not to behave, in the person of Mr. Collins especially.
5. It is a wonderful book, and that should be reason enough.

The Lay of Arthur, part first

This is the first in a series about Arthur and his knights that I have been working on. And a heads up to everybody, Lancelot does not appear.
THE LAY OF ARTHUR
Part I
So. In the mists of time long past
Of the great kings of lore was born the last
Into realm with strife and greed riven
by kings with no thought of Lord or heaven
For Uther's crown did the mighty strive
And many men did of life deprive.
Nigh' London Town they met in great array,
And in battle joined at the break of Day.
Black the ravens flew soared
above the writhing battle horde.
The field with blood ran red that day
As each man as well as he might did slay
those who challenged his king's right
to rule the throne of Britain's might.
As Darkness slow began to fall
and stretch forth its darkened pall,
Did Merlin on a hill appear, with lightning fey
and ended the slaying for that day.
“That in this land I may war
avert, a test for all, near and far
I now proclaim.” Quoth He
“The Victor Uther's True heir shall be.”
“What shall this test of thine be?”
Cried Lot, Proud King of Orkney.
And Lo! Onthe hill appeared a stone,
And in it a blade as if from heaven thrown.
“Whoever sword from stone can part,
Thou the king of England art”
Then one and all did strive the sword to free
That King of England they might be.
Yet though great and strong the sword did try
Yet none could begin to pry
it from the cold hard stone,
till they stopped, weary heart and bone.
Then Lot again in Furry spake
“What manner of Jest doth thou make?”
Dost thou think us to mock?
A blade in Stone Thou doth lock
So no hand I warrant can free it but thine,
No son of Twlwyth Teg shall be king of mine!”
Then did Merlin swift wax wroth with rage
To be thus challenged, yet within a cage
He checked his passion, and did not balk,
but carefully, wisely crafted his talk
“This stone and I are bound by my word
Uther's heir alone may wield that sword!"
And with that he was gone, they knew not where
Only that he was no more there.

Thoughts on Genetic Engineering

I was reading "Harrison Bergeron" for my English Class this week and came across this line

“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

Is this really what God gave him? We do, after all, live in a fallen world. In God's perfect world, would we not be perfect? Have we not been given dominion over the earth? A little genetic engineering before birth could prevent years of pain and suffering that would otherwise be unavoidable. My grandfather recently had double knee replacement. His knees and ankles were, to quote the doctor "God just made them crooked".
His left leg was about an inch shorter than his right because the bone had been worn away. Genetic engineering could have fixed that before he was born (or will be able to, we're still experimenting with it).
Some would ask if we do not have limits? Does the ability to do something mean that we can do it? Or are there things we can do, but should not? Where should we draw the line between "can" and "may".