JRHS Writing BLOG

Monday, June 11, 2007

Knocking At Your Door

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious group which is famous for door-to-door evangelism and condemning birthdays. This is only scratching the surface. First of all, The Jehovah’s Witnesses movement was first founded by Charles T. Russell in the late 1800’s in Pittsburgh. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in one God. They say that men have sinned, and only the followers of Jehovah will receive salvation, and only 144,000 of these followers will be deemed worthy of Heaven. The rest will live on a peaceful earth for eternity. There is no Hell. The non-believers are merely obliterated. They do not burning for eternity. It is also part of the Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs to study a magazine called the Watchtower, which is accepted as holy and without error. It is as valid as the scriptures.
I can see what is appealing about Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are many similarities to Christianity. They are monotheistic. They acknowledge Christ’s existence. They are evangelical. They believe in Heaven. It’s also a religion that is peaceful and selfless. There some that do in fact make me wonder about the religion, though. It seems illogical to me that the people believe that a magazine is worthy to be deemed holy. I also think that the first time that the prophecy of the 144,000 failed, the followers really should have picked up on the fact that something was kind of off. I don’t think that God would ever mess with his people like that. But, I really don’t see how I can mock anyone’s religion when I believe that a man died and rose again.

Islam: A Commentary

Many people confuse the God of the Bible with Islam’s Allah. They say that they are the deity, but different religions. This is a truly ignorant thing to say. There are a few reasons why this is so. First of all, Jesus is the Messiah to all Christians. In Islam, Jesus was merely a prophet. A second reason is that Allah is mysterious being, while the Christian God wants to be close to His people. Allah is also a single deity. He does not exist in three persons. The Christian God, however, does in fact exist in three persons. For these reasons and more, the God of the Bible are absolutely different deities.

Islam is a religion which is centered around submission to Allah. Part of this is accepting that Allah is far off and distant from his people. I can’t think of anything more depressing than thinking that my God is not there for me as a personal friend like He has been. I feel like everyday, I get a little closer to God. This is more meaningful to me than anything else in my life. If my relationship with God was suddenly ripped away from me, I would be crushed. Its something that gives me hope as a person in life. If God didn’t really care about me, then life wouldn’t be nearly as meaningful as it is to me now.

Confucianism: Relationships and such

Confucius is hailed to be one of the greatest philosophers in history. He has influenced generations of people all over the world. His teachings were entirely humanistic. He focused on human relationships. There are five different types of relationships. These are parent-to-child, ruler-to-subjects, husband-to-wife, sibling-to-sibling, and friend-to-friend.
As important as these relationships are, they pale in comparison to that of the God-to-man relationship. In my life, I find myself talking to God non-stop throughout the day. I love it, and I feel like it is a great encouragement to talk to God in every situation.
My mother and I are very close, and I have some of the best friends in the world. Still nothing compares to talking to the greatest force in the universe and knowing that He’s listening back. Confucius had it together up stairs as a philosopher, but when it came to spirituality, there was something missing. No one can really create a realistic philosophy without consulting the greatest philosopher ever: God. 

Is Mormonism a Good Quality for the Next U.S. President?

In November of 2008, the most important decision is going to take place. The United States’ citizens are going to vote for the next president. Depending on this coming up election, the next president will decide this country will do in/about Iraq. As of right now, Hilary Clinton is the number one democrat, where as Mitt Romney is the first republican.

There has been much controversy about the republicans going into office. Many democrats and some republicans feel that if we elect another republican that person will put our country in I worse position than it is now.  Mitt Romney is both a republican and a Mormon. In World’s magazine, the writer of the article Catching Mitt, introduced one man and asked him if he would vote for Romney. In this case, Frank Senger said, “No way will I be voting for Mitt Romney.” This was very interesting considering that Senger is a republican and a Baptist. He dislikes the thought of voting for a Mormon because “it bother me that someone that bright could fall for the stories about where Mormonism came from, and all that blather about the golden tablets.”
Mitt Romney insists that Mormonism is very similar to Evangelicals and that they have the same “values that are very much the same. We could look at each other’s records for protecting life or preserving traditional marriage and for strengthening families and see that we are on the same page in terms of the directions needed for America.” When asking Charles Colson of his impression of Romney he stated, “While I have deep theological differences with him, I am more influenced by his values and how they would our in public office.” Some are just worried that Romney will make the decisions that Bush would make if he were going to stay in office.

But whose to say if Clinton or Obama was in office neither of them would not make similar wrong decisions? As a voter, I am skeptical of voting for Hilary Clinton because she could be just like her husband and give military secrets to other countries. Obama is refreshing, he would be the first black president. Although I like what he is for and against, I do not know if this country is ready for a black president. Personally, I like Mitt Romney. I do not know why he is changing his political roles, but I do think that the values and morals he upholds will be a good role model for the citizens of this country. I also think that he will enforce the laws and do all he can to help the United States of America.

Belz, Joel. “Catching Mitt.” World Magazine.

European Excursions

Budapest:

The first day of our trip was spent in the airport and then on an overnight flight from Boston to Frankfurt. By the time we arrived it was dawn, and few of us had gotten any sleep on the plane. We changed planes and then flew on to Budapest, Hungary, where we met our tour guide, Inka, and set off to the center of town, where we looked around and got something to eat. After picking up the other group at the airport a couple hours later, we had the option of going on a walking or tour or relaxing in the thermal baths at the Gellért hotel. I chose to go to the baths. It was probably the best thing that I could have done that night, after such a long day of traveling. There were three different thermal, mineral baths at the hotel, two of which were inside, the third was outside. The decorations inside the baths were beautiful. That is when I first understood that we were really in Europe!

The next morning we set off on a sightseeing tour of Budapest. On our tour we stopped at Hero’s Square, St. Stephen’s Basilica, and a nice overlook of the city on castle hill. It’s interesting to note that inside St. Stephen’s Basilica was a chapel called the Chapel of the Holy Right Hand, where the mummified hand of St. Stephen was encased as a holy relic. Later that day we drove to an old Serbian village outside of Budapest called St. Andrews. Here we walked around, looked in the stores, and went into a Marzipan Museum, where they had Marzipan sculptures, including the Ninja Turtles and Michael Jackson.
~Elizabeth


Vienna:

Vienna, Austria was our second destination. We traveled from Budapest to Vienna via bus. On the way to Vienna, we stopped in Eisenstadt to visit Schloss Esterhazy. It is a castle where Haydn worked. A tourist gave our group a tour of the place. It was very interesting to see all the rooms of the castle. It was not an extremely large place compared to other castles that we saw during the trip, but the elaborate decorations of the rooms were very impressive.

Right after we arrived in Vienna, the whole group went out again for a formal night. We first went to Stadt Park before dinner. It was a beautiful park, and people spent time there for a while. After dinner, we went back to the park. It was interesting because some boys played soccer with locals. Even though I didn’t participate in the game personally, it was exciting to see people getting along despite the difference in nationality and language. The concert that we attended that night was mainly performing Mozart. It was very interesting because the form of the performance was different than what I was used to. They did not only play the music, but the dancers performed at the same time, corresponding to the theme of the music.

The next day, we went on a walking tour. The place that amazed me the most was Schonbrunn palace. The size and the architecture of the place were splendid. Especially, the garden of the palace was beautiful. It seemed like it was so elaborately planned that there is no flaw at all. We didn’t have enough time to really go through all the parts of the palace in detail, but it was enough to feel the magnificence of it.
~Vivvy


Prague:

The next destination in our European travels was Prague, the Czech Republic. After trying from Vienna to Prague, we immediately hopped off the bus and began to walk through the city. After walking to the center, we had a chance to look around a bit, but most of our city exploration came the next day, which again began with a sightseeing tour. Our first stop was Prague Castle. It was big and beautiful, but unfortunately we couldn’t enter one of its central buildings, St. Vitus Cathedral. This was a disappointment, but we still were able to see it from the outside and see other parts of the castle, including the Golden Lane.

After seeing the castle, we walked down to the center of Prague (quite a long walk). After lunch we split into smaller groups to see different parts of the city. I chose to go back to the castle, hoping to be able to go into St. Vitus Cathedral. So a small group walked all the way back. We still weren’t able to go into the Cathedral, but we did get the chance to go into St. George’s Basilica, which is very old (dating back to the 10th century). After this second visit to the castle, the group again walked all the way back to Prague’s center (by this time my feet were yelling at me with each step). At this point, some of the group went to the park and others to the marionette show of Don Giovanni. I went to see the marionettes. Despite getting a little lost of the way there, we were able to see the marionette show of the Mozart opera original performed in Prague. Overall, Prague was probably my favorite city. It was absolutely beautiful, and rich in both history and culture.
~Elizabeth


Munich:

We left Prague, Czech Republic, and headed to Munich, Germany. Everyone was excited about the idea of being in Germany. The most memorable part of visiting Munich was when we went to Dachau Concentration Camp. I was always interested in the time of Nazi and Hitler, and I was slightly nervous and excited at the same time on the way to Dachau. We got an opportunity to watch a short documentary that shows what happened at Dachau Concentration Camp. Some of the scenes were quite shocking to me, and they made me think about what the nature of human beings were. Unlike other places, I wanted to look through the place by myself. Just by being at that place, I felt very calm and sad at the same time. It was hard to believe that quiet place was once a place of agony, sorrow, and hatred.
~Vivvy


Berlin:

Our final destination was Berlin, Germany. As soon as we arrived off the overnight train, we started our city tour. Unfortunately we had only one day to see Berlin, so it was barely a brief introduction to the city. One of the interesting things about Berlin is its architecture. Since nearly 75% of the city was destroyed in World War II, much of the architecture is fairly modern, and really quite incredible. It was amazing to see where the Berlin Wall stood, not too many years ago, and see first hand the places that we’ve only read about in text books. We also went to the Checkpoint Charlie Museum and the Reichstag. After taking an elevator to the top of the Reichstag, there is a great glass dome, which you can climb and it provides a beautiful view of the city.  After dinner, we went back to the hotel, where we spent our last night in Europe. Early the next morning, we flew home to Boston, with our only souvenirs, photographs, experiences, and memories left of our whirlwind central European tour.
~Elizabeth

Sunday, June 10, 2007

We need: 2 white men, 2 black men, 3 women, and 1 other

Michael Savage, author of The Savage Nation, makes a very good point while discussing the (in his opinion) intolerance of left-wing liberals.  He uses the Manhattan Project to expose the impractical thinking of this group.  Only the best scientists were used for this project in order to produce an atomic bomb before any other country could beat us.  This was a race.  “They didn’t look for a certain number of women ...people of color… they didn’t tailor to every ethnic group on earth [as they would if this project was completed in modern times]. They just went for the best scientists they could find.  The result? We beat Japan and Germany… (56).” His point here, in this section of his book, is simply that people are people and to use the best when the best is necessary is vitally important.  Here, he is warning America to not follow the liberal idea that all races, genders, and people should be included just to be safe.  If there was a mix within the best, then so be it!  But, to intentionally turn down good scientists in order to fill a quota would not be the best idea.  His idea of what would happen if the Manhattan Project had taken place nowadays goes like this: “While we would stop to make sure our group of scientists mirrored the diversity of a McDonald’s commercial, the enemies of America would gain the upper hand and make hamburger meat out of our country (56-57).” He has a good point: that sometimes the ‘getting a job done’ part is more important than who is involved and what categories they fit into. 
Savage, Michael.  The Savage Nation. New York: A Plume Book. 2002.

Peace = War… What do you think?

According to Michael Savage, who wrote The Savage Nation, “war does bring peace (54).” He says, “Look at World War II.  The idiots don’t even know their own history.  Hitler was killed.  That was the end of the war.  And war brought fifty years of peace, more or less (54).” His discussion of war summarizes his feelings toward the liberal side in this specific subject.  He puts down the people who choose to not fight back.  The following words are from college students from Brown University: “Our parents taught us not to hit when we were young, not to hit back, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.  Violence will only beget more violence (54).” To these words Savage remarks, “Do you hear these morons?” Savage obviously disagrees.  He makes himself very clear.  He believes that war is the answer and to not be petty about it will help a lot. 

I agree there is a time for war.  Yet, there is a time for peace, too.  If it can be done, working conflict out peacefully is the best first option, and if necessary resorting to war may follow.  I think he gets slightly carried away with his name calling in this book.  The Bible tells us to turn the other cheek, and yet, he insults these college kids for doing what they were taught and know to be right.  So, I disagree with him on that aspect.  I think there is a good balance, but he seems a little off.

Morality Defined

Ethics are the basis of how we live and conduct ourselves in this world. Secular Humanism, Cosmic Humanism, Marxism/Leninism, and Christianity all have different views and definitions of morality.

Secular Humanist ethics have no foundation for right and wrong, or an unchanging standard. Their morality is subjective and based on the moment and situation, in a view known as ethical relativism. In this belief, “ethics are relative to man’s interpretation of them in any given situation” (Noebel, 94). This ethical relativism is the generally accepted idea of Secular Humanists concerning morality.

Similarly, Cosmic Humanist ethics are based on the same idea of ethical relativism. In this view, the only ethical absolute is individual autonomy. “Ethical Relativism, as one would expect, has led the Cosmic Humanist to a point where the distinction between good and evil has become hopelessly blurred” (Noebel, 111). Cosmic Humanists furthermore believe in internalized values, no external boundaries, and tolerance. David Noebel wrote, “Nothing is ever really wrong, ironically, except judging other people’s moral beliefs and actions (Noebel, 112).

Marxist/Leninist ethics, on the other hand, do define a point of right and wrong. The foundation of their morality is the dialectical views of class struggle. Therefore, Marxist ethics are in constant change determined by social evolution. Perhaps today morality is defined by working towards a classless society, but tomorrow will be determined by the aims of the achieved classless society. Ultimately, Marxists/Leninists believe in class morality. This means that anything done out of devotion to the working class is ethical, including hatred of the Bourgeoisie. “Hatred can be moral, according to the Marxist, as long as its directed toward the proper institution, class, or enemy” (Noebel, 103). The underlying view of Marxist ethics is that the end justifies the means. Therefore, anything is moral if it helps bring the society closer to a classless state. “Marxists judge the result, not the methods; the consequences, not the act” (Noebel, 105).

Finally, Christian ethics are entirely different, as they are based on theology and grounded in the character of God. Morality is, essentially, all that conforms to God’s character. Unlike ethical relativism, Christian ethical standards are universal and absolute. “Without a standard, there could be no justice; without an ethical absolute, there could be no morality” (Noebel, 117). The Bible provides some specifics, and gives the foundation of all morality. However, to fall short is inevitable. Man’s falling short of Biblical moral standards is why the world needed a Savior, and therefore the reason that Jesus came to die as atonement for the world’s sin. Because Christians believe in a strict standard of right and wrong, they believe in forgiveness, and that’s where they find hope. Nevertheless, it is the Christian’s responsibility to not only understand Biblical morality, but follow it, and live the truth they proclaim.

Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times. Colorado: Association of Christian Schools International and Summit Ministries, 1995.

Creation V. Evolution

In his book Understanding the Times, David Noebel also discusses the theist’s perspective on evolution, specifically Christianity’s view. Most Christians believe in the creation of the universe by God as is described in the first chapters of Genesis. However, in attempt to reconcile faith and scientific reason, some believe in theistic evolution. This is the belief that God created a small speck of life and then allowed evolution to occur; causing the universe to develop into what it is today. In order to reconcile this idea to faith, the Bible must be very loosely interpreted and the account of the creation in Genesis must be figurative.

David Noebel sets forward four arguments of facts and evidence that support creationism. First, he examines the structure and complexity of DNA. DNA is a great coded sequence. How could such a thing exist without intelligence behind it? The greatest languages and codes of our world are pieced together with great plan and ingenuity, how could DNA be any different? Furthermore, Noebel quotes Walter Brown who said, “DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different types of proteins. But these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies Creation” (155).

Perhaps a more interesting argument that Noebel suggests is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Noebel quoted A.E. Wilder-Smith about the implications of the 2nd law saying, “The second law of thermodynamics states that, although the total energy in the cosmos remains constant, the amount of energy available to do useful work is always getting smaller” (Noebel, 157). This law contradicts evolution because is describes a universe continuously moving towards disorder, as opposed to the evolutionary idea of progressing towards order. It furthermore suggests that the universe must have had some origin or beginning because the amount of energy useful to do work is always decreasing. “The amount of energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition” (Noebel, 157).

Genetics are further evidence for intelligent design. Although evolutionists would like to promote endless boundaries for breeding, it simply isn’t true. Variations as a result of breeding can only fluctuate to a certain point, even in the science lab. One example is the research that has been conducted using fruit flies. After decades of fruit fly research, 400 different mutational features were noted, but the fruit fly never changed enough to be called a different species. It has been figured that 1,000 mutations of that caliber put into one fly would still not change the species. None of the mutations achieved would improve the species of the fruit fly. Instead, the flies with mutations were weakened and would never survive in nature. If the mutated flies were permitted to breed on their own, eventually the species would return to their original state. The experiments displayed that no species could evolve into another through such small genetic variations and mutations.

Finally, the gaps in the fossil record suggest the inconsistency of evolution. It simply lacks the evidence of clear, transitional forms. In answer to this, as I mentioned in my previous blog, evolutionists suggest punctuated equilibrium. If evolution did happen in random “spurts,” this would explain the lack of fossil evidence. However, there is no basis for this theory either. It is an assumption and not at all founded on fact or evidence.

To conclude, Noebel writes, “The belief that God created all things, including man in His own image, requires faith. But evolutionary theory requires more faith, since evolution runs contrary to reason, science, and history” (162).

Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times. Colorado: Association of Christian Schools International and Summit Ministries, 1995.

Evolutionary View

All worldviews must have some view of the origins of the earth and the species that inhabit it. In most atheistic worldviews, including secular humanism, Marxism/Leninism, and cosmic humanism, the explanation of origins lies in evolution.

For the secular humanists and Marxists, evolution is absolutely crucial to their worldview because they have already established their atheism. If there is no God or creator, their only option is to support some form of evolution. Evolution is the “natural” explanation when nothing can be “supernatural.” Secular humanist biology is based on macroevolution, spontaneous generation, and natural selection, strongly depending on Darwinian evolution.

Marxists/Leninists also embrace evolution on both a societal and biological level. Marx believed that the ultimate result of societal evolution would be classless society. In this way, Marx put sociology in scientific terms. In biology, Marxists/Leninists, like secular humanists, believe in macroevolution and spontaneous generation. However, this worldview takes a more dialectical approach to biology than Darwin did. Darwin described a slow and gradual process, but this does not meet the Marxist definition of progress, in biology or society.

Noebel wrote, “According to dialectical materialism, whenever thesis and antithesis clash, the new synthesis created occurs rapidly, in the form of a jump, rather than in the form of a long gradual process...Marxists expect evolution to work according to the dialectic: when thesis (a species) and antithesis (some aspect of the environment) clash, the synthesis (a new species) occurs rapidly” (Noebel, 139). As a result of the dialectical views of Marxism/Leninism, punctuated equilibrium is also an accepted idea. That is, that in the evolutionary process there are long periods of very little change followed by short periods of tremendous change. In this way, Marxists have worked to make evolution agree with their own dialectical ideas.

Cosmic Humanist biology, on the other hand, is different from the others because it is not atheistic, but rather pantheistic. Still, they do believe in evolution. In the view of the Cosmic Humanist, there was some “ultimate cause” and then the evolutionary process began. They also believe that evolution is progress, and man is therefore moving upward. Cosmic Humanists support punctuated equilibrium and they believe that the next “jump” or “shift” is the New Age. Noebel wrote, “Biology provides a generous guarantee for the Cosmic Humanist. Man is guaranteed to make “leaps in being” that will ultimately lead the whole human race—and the universe—to godhood” (Noebel, 149).

Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times. Colorado: Association of Christian Schools International and Summit Ministries, 1995.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

A Picture Can Speak A Thousand Words

My physics teacher always says, “A picture speaks a thousand words.” It’s true.  It’s true across the board, no matter what the subject is.  That phrase just might save millions of lives. 

Jamie Dean, an author of World Magazine, wrote an article concerning abortion and how South Carolina lawmakers are attempting to make a law to help convince women to reject abortion.  A group called the “Palmetto Family Council, a pro-life group in Columbia, S.C… is marshalling support for a bill that would require a woman to view an ultrasound image of her unborn child before having an abortion (Dean, 25).” Marie Connelly was the woman who gave her testimony concerning the subject. Connelly, who now works for the Palmetto Family Council, shared that if she had seen the picture of her unborn child, she would have “crumbled” and not gone through with the act. Granted, some abortion centers are required to offer informative materials concerning “fetal development and alternatives to abortion (Dean, 25).” But others do not have these requirements.  And, even with this, the women have the right to refuse the materials. 

Connelly’s words sums up one side of the debate: “I think the ultrasound could be a firecracker that will break them out of their catatonic numbness and awaken them to reality (Dean, 25).” “Them” refers to the women who will experience what she, herself, experienced in undergoing an abortion.  The people of the opposing side say that the women, if they are forced to view the unborn child, may face “emotional blackmail (Dean, 25).” They also brought up the victims of rape and incest and yet were counteracted by the words of the bill’s House sponsor, that “the unborn children in those terrible cases are no less valuable (Dean, 25).”

Personally, I think that to make a breath cease is equivalent to killing it.  Death can become a sticky situation when discussing subjects such as: war, taking away life support, the death sentence, abortion, etc.  These are a few examples that I can think of that could be used in debating whether abortion is right or wrong.  Do I think causing something to die is wrong?  Not necessarily.  There is a time for war and a time for peace.  I believe if someone murders another then the governing authorities have the right to punish the murderer accordingly.  The two that I believe get sticky, are the abortion and ceasing life support.  In both cases, there is a life dependent on another person.  That individual who is the guardian or person in control has the power to keep or let go of the life.  The major difference here is that someone on life support has lived life, and now is depending on a machine to breath.  If they are relieved of the machine, they will die, or live, naturally.  In abortion, a baby’s life is stolen 1) before they had a chance to have it and 2) completely intentionally without any natural cause whatsoever.  There is the difference. 

So, I say, since there is such dispute on this subject of keeping or throwing away life, then some sort of compromise must be made.  I believe that this law of requiring women to view an ultrasound before having their child killed would be a good way for them to have one last chance to decide.  If they still have complete peace about aborting the child and they know what they are about to do is best for them and the child they produced, then they still have the right to go ahead and have the abortion.  But, give the picture a chance to speak a thousand words for the baby who might never have the chance to learn to say “mama.”

Dean, Jamie.  A Thousand Words.  World Magazine (Page 25). April, 2007.

A Glimpse Through A Window

A Glimpse Through A Window

A glimpse through a window
Gave view of splendid shores,
Waves that crest and shatter
And swallow sailor’s oars.

A glimpse through a window,
A passage through the night
Reveals a poor soul’s fate
Where darkness takes It’s flight.

A glimpse through a window,
Splashing laughter’s heard
In a child’s heart where the universe’s
Planted beauty hath occurred.

A glimpse through a window
Where passion, love and life take hold,
As if to form a tapestry or a
Beautiful, image’s mould.

A glimpse through a window
A second thought is born
Of timid, cautious, frightful
Nature, abandoned and forlorn.

A glimpse through a window,
Sunbeams blind thy sight;
A maiden’s happy dreams
Arise and fly as like a kite.

A glimpse through a window,
A sharp painful knife,
Takes hold of original goodness
And destroys its right to life.

A glimpse through a window
Reveals a mother’s sincere love
To her precious gem of nature,
Her flower, her angelic dove.

A glimpse through a window
Displays the innermost being by
Exposing the individual soul
Through the penetration of the eye. 

Slow Transitioning

The following is from World Magazine April 28, 2007, Vol. 22, the article name is Slow Transition

Last December when Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia they kicked out the Taliban-style Islamists. This seemed to look as if for the first time in 16 years Somalia’s central government would finally take its root on the countries system. Now the leaders of the weak but well known internationally of the Transitional Federal Government are attempted to take control of Mogadishu, but it is now four months later and they are still trying. The disputes are finally settled Somalia’s clan problems. The unfrequent fighting in Mogadishu has increased greatly in early April because the government and the Ethiopian troops fought a confrontation of Hawiye sub-clans who established in the capital for a long time. The questionable lines between them and the ousted Islamic Courts Union also complicate the matters for Somalia to be able to govern itself. The clan leaders set up some of Mogadishu’s courts and are now giving advantages to the members who have sneaked back.

I think that the Ethiopan forces did the correct thing by invading Somalia to get rid of the Taliban and to allow Somalia to finally be free again. The government really needed to be free after not having a central government for 16 years. I commend them on that and Somalia is heading in the right direction since then. Despite the recent gains in Somalia, they have learned that change takes lots of time. Sometimes like in this case change is good and needs to take time to learn more and to really appreciate what you have gained. 

Thursday, June 07, 2007

stereotypes are a challenge to be different

Michael Savage uses his love for radio and writing to express himself and his beliefs. In his work, The Savage Nation, he explains the reason for all the corruption in the Unites States of America. He proposes that the problem of all problems in this country is the “left-winger” liberals. He begins the book with an overview of himself, his childhood, and his critical stages of development. He credits his humor (now used in radio broadcasting) to the bullies in his school. He said, “So this kid could be sixteen years old. A juvenile delinquent with a zip gun or a knife. I’m five… I’m like 1’9” and he’s 6’2"… So what do you do?… To survive, I had to learn to tell quick jokes. I would disarm the guy with my humor…(Savage, 6).” This “surviving tactic” is how he learned to be quick. So, after he got into the radio business he began broadcasting his views on the Democratic party and the “savage nation.” Like I said before, he blames the problems of America on the liberals of the land. He views the future as so: “the future of America hangs in the balance like a loose tooth. Everything you and I have worked for is being wiped out before our eyes. Our borders, our language, and our culture are under siege (Savage, 19).” He feels that in order to ‘save’ America from being thoroughly destroyed by liberals, we (non liberals) must rise up and stand for what is “right.” Now, in his book he does a lot of stereotyping (Savage, 29). 

What do I, personally, think of all this?  Well… I think he is entitled to his opinion.  I think he has some important insight: that the nation of America is headed in the wrong direction.  Whether I, myself, would blame that all on liberal Americans, I don’t think so.  Many non liberal people have played a part in this decline of values, morals, etc.  Yet, by reading his book, and through what I see around me it seems that the liberal people have a stronger voice. He does not want his cause to be trampled on and left in the dust, so he’s speaking up and proclaiming his beliefs.  I give him credit.  I still have more to read of his book before I comment further on this subject. I am still in the process of formulating my point of view. 

Savage, Michael. The Savage Nation. New York: Plume. 2002.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Lawyer Backed Terrorists

The preceding article was generated upon the author reading Mark Levin’s Men in Black and the chapter called ‘Al Qaeda Gets a Lawyer’

A highly controversial topic that has recently been in the news off and on is the holding of Prisoners of War (POW) at the U.S. Naval base in Guatanamo, Cuba.  These men were all ‘being held without trial’, but what the public doesn’t realize is that in a time of war, enemy combatants are [by the rules of war] allowed to be held until the end of that said conflict regardless of trial.  This has been happening for centuries, but for some reason, in this war, with this president, people say that it is inexcusable.

Many would think that the majority of those held in Guatanamo are U.S. citizens who are completely innocent in all ways.  The truth of the matter is this, there have only ever been two U.S. citizens detained at Guatanamo.  These two men were both captured while they were in the mist of armed combat AGAINST either U.S. forces, or her allies.  Both were forced to surrender their AK-47 (rifle), and both passed through heavy screening to make sure that they were guilty of insurgency. 

The rest of the men being held in Cuba were also captured in the way mentioned before.  Granted, some may well be innocent, but the threat that they just might return to fight is much greater than the threat of leaving them in a secure base where they are fed, and provided for.

It is these people, who literally took up arms, and fought (possibly even killed) American soldiers, with who we are bestowing the ’right’ to sue the U.S. government in an American court of law, using American tax money.  In all wars previous to this, and there have been quite a few of them, no enemy soldier has ever been given the right to contend his capture in the courts of his captor nation.