John Locke and The Subjection of Eve.

Quotes taken from John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government

edited by Peter Laslett.

Up to this point John Locke has spoken against Sir. Filmer on the accounts of Adam’s claim to sovereignty by Donation, Creation, and Paternal & Regal authority. And at this point Locke turns his attention to the subject of Adam’s authority by way of Subjection of Eve. Filmer’s assertion, according to Locke, is based on the sixteenth passage of the third chapter of the book of Genesis, “And thy desire shall be to they Husband, and he shall rule over thee.”(Gen. 3:16.) Thus Filmer has established not only that monarchy is the only legitimate form of rule, but that patriarchal monarchy is the only legitimate form of rule. However, Locke asserts that God cannot violate the laws of speech, and therefore we must interpret what is said as though a human is speaking. This is especially true when Locke states , “he vouchsafes to speak to Men.” In this case, it cannot seem logical that God would chastise and degrade Eve for her disobedience when Adam himself also took part in the sin. In fact, God lowers Adam’s station by making him a day laborer and forcing him out of paradise. And so it would seem odd, Locke asserts, that on the same day that this happens, God grants Adam the prerogatives, privileges, dignity, authority, dominion and monarchy as well.

Here I must diverge for a moment to address Locke’s list. He specifically states, “granting Adam Prerogatives, and Privileges, investing him with Dignity and Authority, Elevating him to Dominion and Monarchy.” Prerogatives, Dignity, and Dominion all go together as they are something all men and women are capable of sharing in. All humans are given dignity because we are human, and made in the image of God. By granting us free will God has granted us prerogative as well. And finally all men, in the charge given to Adam by God, share in the dominion of the world and eventually their private lands. As such, it would be odd for God to grant only these to Adam when it is clear that we all possess them. As for the other three, Privileges, Authority and Monarchy, these are specific powers. Only those capable of ruling are possessed of these three powers, and according to Aristotle only he who is capable of sharing in the rule of the polis is called a citizen. As such, if Adam is being lowered because of his part in the disobedience against God, it would seem clear he is not capable of sharing in the rule (though this is what is meant when the Bible says God made man in his own image.) If Eve, therefore, is not included in the granting of all these powers, then neither can Adam for the first three are common to all men while the last only to those with the faculty to use them.

And so we are clear that Adam and Eve both possess either all or none of these powers, since both are guilty of the same sin. Further, we cannot change the understanding of a directive spoken to humans by God simply because it comes from God. Our understanding must remain consistent because God himself cannot break the laws of speech. Looking at the quote we will soon realize that God is speaking directly at Eve, not at Adam, and that God never uses a plural and so it cannot be assumed to apply to all women. Eve alone is subject to her husband, not all women. However, it can and has been taken as a statement to all women about their position to their husbands. Though, it is not a law just as it is not a law that all women must bring their child forth in sorrow and pain since there is a remedy for this. And if there is a remedy, it cannot be considered law. This is not a law placed on women or a grant given to men, but rather a mere observation of how nature has been ordered by God. The lot of women is to bring forth children in sorrow and pain, and to be subject to their husbands. The latter is evident by the mere fact that every nation has the custom that women are subject to their husbands. But as Locke asserts, would Queens Elizabeth or Mary be subject to their husbands politically? In modern times, Queen Elizabeth II is politically superior to her husband. The lot of women to bring forth children in sorrow and pain cannot be an indication of their inferior nature, it is a punishment for disobeying God’s command. As for the latter, Eve is subject to Adam because she is his wife, not because she is a woman. Man and Woman retain their equality, but within the familial the wife is subject to the husband. Consequently, neither directive from God can be seen as political since the former is merely punishment, and the latter is an isolated condition of women.

Locke then also demonstrates that political power is the power over life and death. If we look at the Bible it tells us that God made man in his own image; though we are not told what that image is. We can infer the answer through other Biblical passages. God tells both Adam and Eve to go forth and procreate, indicating that they have been given authority over life. Upon completion of the flood God tells Noah and his sons, “For if man sheds the blood of man, then by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6.) Indicating that God has given man the authority over death. Like God, man is sovereign of his world. However, Locke warns at the end that the authority of man over animals or the relationship between man and woman are both apolitical. Why is this? In the first case, political rule is the rule over rational animals. Animals are not rational, therefore man’s authority over animals is not political (it is more like master-slave, which according to Aristotle is also apolitical.) The relationship between husband and wife is that between equals; Adam is not superior to Eve and vice versa. As such Adam cannot hold the power of life and death over Eve and she cannot over him. This is a divergence from Aristotle because he asserts that the relationship of the husband and wife is political. The reason for this differing in opinion stems from the definition of political rule. For Locke it has been stated the political rule is that of life and death, while for Aristotle political rule is between equals. Thus the relationship to husband and wife for Locke is apolitical because it does not concern itself with life and death, but for Aristotle it is political.

Published in: on November 14, 2008 at Comments (2)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

And Darkness hath Fallen

I wish to dedicate this to all of those who realize the despair our country is about to enter through the next four years.

Ten score and thirty-two years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Tonight a mixed racial man ascended to the highest office in the land, testing whether that principal of equality could be realized. We are met on a crossroads of America. We will soon find whether or not the blood shed upon this earth will be for nothing. It is only just that we look at what has happened here tonight in order to brace ourselves for the future.

Yet, we cannot know for certain what the future holds for us. We are only mere months removed from Russia invading Georgia during the Olympic games. The North Koreans have once again promised to build a complex capable of launching longer range missiles than ever before. The world will long forget the election of 2008, but it cannot and will not forget the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. His lack of experience will only begin to show as the coming months unfold and he is tested by enemies foreign and domestic. In the coming weeks we will see as he pays back those who supported him with high ranking offices in his new administration. And ultimately the legacy that will be left by Mr. Obama will be that of an inept President too ill prepared for the slings and arrows of his new office.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the election of Barack Obama will spell almost certain doom for the American Republic. One can almost see St. John’s prophecy coming true:

I looked, and there was a pale green horse. Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. (Revelations 6:8)

Published in: on November 5, 2008 at Comments (3)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A reminder on election day

Today is the day that America finally gets to decide who her next President will be. Will it be the socialist or the maverick? Only time will tell, and probably not until later this week or at worst this month. But for those who still haven’t gone to the polls here are a few reminders for you as go to vote:

1. Winnie the Pooh is not a viable write in candidate, he isn’t America; He is Canadian.

2. Just because Barack has the same skin color as you, doesn’t mean he is good.

3. Vote for who will produce the best results and get things done in Washington; just because you have been promised paradise doesn’t mean you won’t end up with hell on Earth.

4. Politics aside, this is the one time a year where you are truly and fully the embodiment of the United States.

5. With great power comes greater responsibility.

6. If you were in the middle of hostile territory and you had a broken leg, who would you rather have protecting you Barack Obama & Joe Biden or John McCain & Sarah Palin?

7. Socialism works, just look at Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam and the former Soviet Union if you don’t believe me.

8. We’re only 6 months away from a major international test of Barack Obama; it took the Japanese 7 years to test Franklin Roosevelt.

9. The last time we had a weak President, Americans were kept hostage for 14 months by the Iranians, but nothing like that will come from electing Obama.

10. No matter who is elected he will be the 44th President of the United States, or the 1st Chairman of the Socialist Party for the United Socialist States of America.

And finally a few words from our Democratic nominees, just a little food for thought before voting:

“Mark my words It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”- Joe Biden, (D-Vice Presidential Nominee)

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”- Barack Obama, (D-Presidential Nominee)

Published in: on November 4, 2008 at Comments (0)
Tags: , , , , ,

Comrade Obama

In recent weeks the Republican Candidate for President of the United States, John McCain, has attacked Barack Obamafor what he sees as his socialistic beliefs. The root of these claims come from Joe the Plumber, an individual who got into it with Obama over his tax plan, which would call for a taxation of all Americans who make more than $250,000. Joe the Plumber said he was looking to open a small business in the near future, but under the Obama plan he would be heavily taxed if he made more than $250,000. Obama went on to imply that he was looking to redistribute the wealth from the wealthiest Americans down to the poorest. Obama’s exact words were, ” I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Some may argue that this doesn’t mean that Obama wants to redistribute the wealth of America, but consider this: in an endorsement by Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Powell said that Obama wasn’t a socialist, but that what taxes do is redistribute. Let’s get one thing straight before we move on, Gen. Powell is wrong. If you want to put your semi-socialist, Barack Obama loving glasses on then you can see taxation as a means of redistribution. Yet, taxes are universal and everyone’sfunds are taken in order to help finance government programs, and pay government officials. Your tax dollars go to things like the Iraq War and rebuilding roads. For fans of the earlier days of the Democratic party, you will agree with Andrew Jackson that a state should fix their own roads without Federal money. This view radically changed under Franklin Roosevelt, who himself faces postmortem charges of socialism. He started the wellfare state with his introduction of Social Security. Lyndon B. Johnson further helped create the system with his Great Society program, which among other things extended these programs and even created new ones. If you look at these programs, than it is easy to see where Gen. Powell is coming from. Only one problem, these programs don’t help universally all the poor as a true socialistic policy would operate. Everyone who works, and is therefore taxed, has taxes taken out to help Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

What Barack Obama has in mind goes deeper than what FDR or LBJ had in mind. Obama, per his response to Joe, wants to take money from the wealthiest Americans and give it to the poorest. Point blank, no sugar coat, Obama has said he wants to redistribute the wealth. In 2001 Barack Obama had an interview on a Chicago radio station: Chicago Public Radio. During the interview Obama lamented that the Warren Court failed to redistribute wealth during the civil rights cases. The Warren Court is considered to be the most liberal of all the Supreme Courts we have ever had. Obama charges in the interview that it isn’t that radical because, while it gave the black man the right to sit at the lunch counter with whites, “they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.”(Foxnews Election Central) Obama goes so far as to say, “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” Meaning, that the Constitution was written with certain constraints put on it by the Framers. In other words, Obama states, “that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.” His charge is nothing more than that government should be given the right to do whatever it feels is necessary to help the people. This is a similar belief of the Soviets, Communist Chinese, Communist North Koreans, Communist Cubans, and Nazis.

During the early part of the 20th century, and the late 19th century, men like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey believed that the government should be reformed to the point where it can react quicker to the desires of the people. They also assert that government should be run by professionals, rather than by elected individuals who have no knowledge of the subject they were elected to. As a result they were able to draft, and pass, the 17th Amendment which gives the election of Senators to the people. The “negative” Constitution spoken of by Obama is similar to what the Progressives saw. The connection between Obama and the Progressives is that the Progressives developed out of Germany, and was helped started by men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who wrote such books as Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. Both books argue for a socialist society where the government is used to make all men equal in a way the Founders never would have understood. The end game for Marx and Engels is Communism, which comes about from a Capitalistic Society, which transforms into a Socialist Society and then finally into the destruction of the government, and of wealth/property. Wealthand property have been viewed as the root of all evil by various individuals, but none went so far as to suggest the total destruction of both than Marx and Engels. The destruction of government wasn’t a new idea to America either, men like Emerson and Thoreau.

Obama’ssuggestion that our Constitution is filled with negatives on both Federal and State legislatures is a bad reading of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution gives power to the Federal government to: lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in order to pay for debt, provide common defense and general welfare, to borrow money, to regulate international and interstate commerce, to create a uniform rule for naturalization and bankruptcies. to coin and value money, to fix the standards of weights and measures, to provide punishment for counterfeiting, to establish the post office, to promote arts and sciences through patents, to constitute inferior courts, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the seas, to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to raise and support the army, to provide and maintain the Navy, to make rules for Government and regulation of the land and naval Forces, provide for the calling of the militia to execute laws of the nation and repel insurrections and invasions, providing/organizing/arming/disciplining the militia, exercise exclusion legislation in all cases whatsoever over all lands ceded by the states for the Federal Government for a seat of government, forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper. That is everything explicitly given tot he Federal government to do. Anyone who is a student of politics knows that this gives the Federal Government extension power to do whatever it sees fit.

Barack Obama’s comments to Joe the Plumber and previously to Chicago Public Radio explicitly socialist. Obama wants to redistribute the wealth and beliefs that the civil rights era failed because it did not achieve redistribution. All of these charges coming from a man who has had one of the most privileged lives by anyone of his race. It is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Barack Obama does not harbor socialist tendencies now that it is clear he has explicitly argued for redistribution of wealth.

Published in: on October 27, 2008 at Comments (1)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama starting to fall

Over the recent weeks Barack Obama has gained a substantial lead over John McCain that some observers believed to signal the end of the Republican candidate. Current polls, however, show that McCain trails Obama by 5.2%, a drop from the almost 7% lead Obama has held in recent weeks. But as any good observer of politics will tell you, the national polls mean very little since it is the individual states who are responsible for the electoral college and thus the President of the United States.

Yet, certain battleground states have demonstrated a similar example as the national polls. In the most recent weeks and days, Obama has improved his lead on McCain or gained the lead. As recent as October 12, Obama held a 5% lead on McCain in Florida according to the Foxnews/Rassmussen poll. Then on October 16, the SurveyUSA poll shows that in the same state McCain had a 2% lead on Obama. The Real Clear Politics people combined all the polls from the earliest on October 12 to the October 16 poll to show Obama has only a 3.2% lead on his opponent. In Ohio, another key battleground state, Obama has been shown to hold a 9% point lead on McCain by the Suffolk poll (taken 10/17). However, on 10/16 NBC/Mason-Dixon showed that McCain has a 2% point lead on Obama. Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls in Ohio to a 3.3% point lead for Obama. These are just two examples that the polls are tricky and never truly accurate. What matters in these polls is who is called, and where in a given state they are taken. For example, in Ohio the Suffolk poll might have been taken in a more liberal area while the NBC/Mason-Dixon poll might have been done in a more conservative area. What can be shown, however, is that McCain has been regaining lost ground that was given up when the economy began to fall. Obama’s attack on Joe the Plumber hasn’t helped much either, and the McCain Campaign’s focus on Obama’s policies have shown holes in the Democrat’s plans. The new charge that Obama’s plan is nothing short of socialism has also brought Americans back to their senses and have seen a rise in McCain support as a result.

Either way, with election day closing in ever so quickly and early voting beginning today (at least in Texas), we are starting to see things turn differently than expected. It is still most believed, at least by this author, that come November 4 when most Americans will do their voting, the core base of the Obama supporters will be no where in sight. Obama’s two biggest groups of supporters are young people and blacks, neither have are well known for voting. The traditional base of the Democratic party, older white middle class people, are typically more conservative than the new breed of Democrats. While the addition of Joe Biden to the Obama ticket might reassure some of those more traditional Democrats, it is plausible to assume that some if not most will vote for the more moderate McCain on election day.

Published in: on October 20, 2008 at Comments (0)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama on Life

One of the perennial issues that has dominated Presidential elections since the 1960’s is the issue of abortion. Abortion, as we all know by now, was legalized in the United States by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Further abortion rights were extended in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where Roe’s strict trimester rules were overturned to allow for abortions after the first trimester. Laws have been introduced since to help side line the number of abortions in the country, the vast majority of these laws have been found unconstitutional. Among those which have not include a law called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which makes it illegal to perform an abortion on a child partially born (past a certain point in the woman..)

Senator Obama, one of the most liberal members of the United States government, has campaigned for President on the platform of hope and change for all Americans. He has fought for greater health care coverage to all Americans; even going so far as to call health care a right. He wants to return our fighting men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan to remove them from harms way. Yet Senator Obama has been one of the biggest supports of extending abortion rights. Obama has said before that women should not be “punished” with a baby that they do not want. In 2008 he has opposed a law which would provide medical treatment to babies who survive an attempted abortion. He has also voted no on allowing unborn children access to SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), which provides health insurance to families with children who aren’t able to afford their own insurance. He has also voted no to prevent minors from crossing state lines in order to receive abortions, and has also voted against requiring minors from notifying their parents before receiving an abortion out of state.

While he has supported minors being able to cross state lines without telling their parents to get an abortion, he has also supported parents having more control over what their children read, play and watch. If a parent is going to have control over what their child watches, reads, or plays then why shouldn’t they have control over whether or not they get an abortion? A person under the age of 18 is not a legal adult in the eyes of the United States Government, and therefore should not be extended the rights of a legal adult. If a young girl gets pregnant, then she shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion without her parent’s permission. It is ludicrous to think that a child has to have permission to go on a school field trip when they are 15, but they can go to another state on their own and get an abortion. This is not protecting America’s youth in any ways Mr. Obama.

The general consensus on when a fetus becomes a baby is when it takes it’s first breath of air after leaving the mother. There have been instances where an unborn child has survived an attempted abortion and later been brought to term. Senator Obama has voted against providing these children with medical care when he was in the Illinois State Senate and in the United State Senate. Senator Obama wants to extend health coverage to families with children. So why does he not want to provide basic medical care, offered to every other young child, to those who survive an attempted abortion? A child who is born, as defined above, regardless of whether or not they have survived an abortion, should be granted medical care.

When looking at Senator Obama, one must not pay attention to his smoke and mirrors routine, but look at the issues and where he stands on them. Barack Obama is not a friend to children. He claims that he wants to see health insurance and medical care extended to those who don’t have insurance, specifically children, yet he was to refuse such care to those who survive an abortion. He claims that parents should have more control over what their children watch, read, or play yet he wants to restrict those parents from having say in their daughter’s pregnancy. Ask yourself this, do you want a man in the Oval Office who will protect the rights of America’s version of the Aryan child and will ignore the needs of those deemed unworthy? Or do you want a man in the Oval Office who will protect the rights of all Americans, whether they are not yet born or are already independent adults? As Governor Palin recently said in a speech on the issue of life, “Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection… and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake….”

Published in: on October 17, 2008 at Comments (0)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

False Rhetoric and a False Prophet

For some time now Barack Obamahas kept up a steady tide of false promises that make him on the level with prophets such as Joseph Smith. The Kingdom of God is not going to ascend upon us in January as his “prophet” Barack Obama is sworn in as this nation’s 44th President. The election of Barack Obama will not signal  an end to economic, racial, or military woes. Obama’s plan for this country is nothing more than false rhetoric akin to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Fransisco Franco.

Barack Obama’s economic plan for the United States includes, among other things, taxing small business owners who make more than $250,000 a year. Ladies and gentlemen, the small businesses who help drive our economy are among these companies Senator Obama wishes to tax. In a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Obama was questioned about his tax program by “Joe the Plumber” who told the Senator that he wants to open a business, but Obama’s plan will prevent him from doing that. In rallies after this, Obama bashed the poor man for being a republican. Obama’s tax plan is set to bring jobs back to our country by offering corporations a $3,000 tax break per new employee. The problem is that most of these companies invest their money in foreign markets, and then never bring it back because of the taxation which would be put on their funds. In order to create new jobs it costs upwards of $20,000, a $3,000 tax break is little incentive for corporations like GE to bring jobs back to our shores. Senator Obama also blames the current economic problems of Bush’s economic policies, while completely ignoring the fact that for the majority of Bush’s presidency, the legislative branch has been democratically controlled. Among those Democrats who helped take control over both houses for the first time in 2006 was Barack Obama. A little politics lesson for Senator Obama and his apostles, Congress is responsible for the passing the budget and helping the economy. Article One of the Constitution is quite clear on the subject, the legislative power has the authority to make law not the executive nor the judicial.

Senator Obama’s attack on President Bush’s policies for the last eight years are clouded by the policies of a Democratic legislature for the last two years. Whats worse is that when Obama was elected to the United States Senate he spent all of a year actually being a Senator, and has spent the time since running for President of the United States. Obama’s economic plan for the United States will amount to doing one thing: making us Socialist. Obama has proposed the government take a more active role in the economy, which is what has us in the current problem as is.

Barack Obama’s second problem is that he is idealistic that he can affect any change in the way things are done on Capitol Hill from the Oval Office. Presidents have always attempted to change the way Congress does business from George Washington to George W. Bush. When Washington became President he took a piece of legislation over to the Congress and they kicked him out explaining it wasn’t his place to propose legislation and that they weren’t going to be bullied around. Mr. Obama seems to think that this is possible 220 years later. Change won’t come, the last President to try and create change caught to resign for his part in Water Gate. President Eisenhower  before Nixon even tried to affect change by dismantling the New Deal (which President Roosevelt never intended to be a lasting thing) but failed and is today remembered as a bumbling fool who just wanted to play golf. President Nixon was set to be our greatest reformer in the White House when the Water Gate Scandal broke. It is generally agreed that if Nixon hadn’t been attempting to make reforms, the Scandal never would have reached the Ivory Tower of the Presidency. Barack Obama should heed these warnings and realize that the change he can affect will probably only be minimal at best.

Barack Obama is a false Prophet of hope and change. His campaign is naive to think that socialism will help cure our economic woes, and that his plan for change will actually amount to anything. Obama is a man who, in his two years as a United States Senator, has received over $1 billion in earmarks, including a $3 Million projector for a local museum in Illinois. Barack Obama wants to reestablish regulation over the economy, something that will cost corporations millions of dollars resulting in job lose for millions of hard working Americans. It was the regulation policies of the Cold War and later Bill Clinton which saw jobs go across the ocean to Asia and Europe.  Further, Obama doesn’t want to control spending, in 2005 he voted against $40B to reduce government spending. We don’t need a man in office who will say one thing and do another. Senator Obama has proved that he cannot be trusted, he supports the small business as the hallmark of American ingenuity but wants to tax them. He wants to reduce government spending but as voted against actually reducing it. He wants to bring jobs back to our shores, but wants to make it unattractive and fiscally irresponsible for corporations to actually do so. On November 4th, don’t vote for Barack Obama unless you want to see false promises reign another four years.

Published in: on October 16, 2008 at Comments (4)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greek: Recollection and Lessons Learned

The following may contain spoilers to ABC Family’s Greek episode from as recent as October 14,2008. Do Not read a head if you do not wish to be subjected to possible spoilers.

Recollection, what does it mean and how does it apply more to one situation than to another. At first glance the word seems to indicate an intimate connection to the subject matter at hand. For example, in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Xenophon recollects the arguments made against Socrates. Xenophon, a student of Socrates, was intimately connected to those events which ultimately lead to the teacher’s death. A student who reads Xenophon, or Plato’s works on the trial and death of Socrates can never recollect the events, but only remember them. This is what lies at the heart of ABC Family’s Greek, which premiered on October 14, 2008. The episode is filled with half truths told by those who cannot actually recollect the past they seem to try and interpret. As a result, mayhem breaks loose and we are left at the end of the episode with broken hearts and confusion.

Finally, after an entire year we are at the cusp of seeing the Zeta Beta Zeta election for President between Frannie and Casey. We get nothing less than the typical political campaign filled with more mud than actual attempts to campaign. Neither Franny, nor Casey actually have first hand knowledge of the events they use to sway the other members of their house. The most important member they attempt to sway is Rebecca, who has become the unofficial leader of the pledge class. At first Frannie tells Rebecca that during spring break Casey slept with Cappie, which the audience knows is false. However, Rebecca can’t know whether or not this is truth as she has no prior knowledge of the incident. Frannie’s lack of recollection allows for the embellishment of the actual events where Casey and Cappie share a brief kiss following Rebecca’s breaking up with Cappie. This issue is only resolved on the surface when Casey finally is forced to come clean and admit that they did not have sex, but rather only kissed. While they did not have sex, Rebecca is still stung that Cappie and Casey shared a kiss–sometimes viewed as more intimate than sex. Casey is able to swing things once again in her favor an hour before the votes when she announces that Frannie was the one who told Nationals about Rebecca’s wild behavior during Spring Break and after. Once again recollection is no where in sight, only the memory of Casey being told by Teagan that it was Frannie who alerted National. Ultimately Ashley is elected president by a write in done by the members of the pledge class. It was Rebecca, the only person intimately connected to politics as a result of her father, that is able to lead the Sorority out of the mud fields of Frannie and Casey and into green pastures with Ashley. By recollecting her past through the memories of Frannie and Casey, Rebecca is able to see the better picture and what is best for not only her, but the whole house.

Likewise recollection is missing in the events surrounding Calvin and Rusty. Calvin, during the ZBZ National Convention week, cheated on his boyfriend Michael. Calvin is plagued by guilt of the deed, which he assumed was alright because of the words a drunk Evan gave him. Evan, who knows first hand what cheating can do in a relationship, tells him to tell Michael before he finds out. Surprisingly, Calvin comes clean and Michael isn’t completely fazed by it and is willing to discuss it later at dinner. During the time, Calvin is searching for a way to get Michael to break up with him, or at least to end the relationship. Finally at dinner Calvin comes clean to Michael that he wants to break up due to apparent differences in personality. Here we see a reversal of what is seen as prejudice when a straight person says it to a gay person. Michael informs Calvin that he is normal, and that Calvin will eventually realize that all gay people are like Michael: into Moroccan food, and drooling over divas. Here we have a case of recollection at play, Michael most likely thinks all gays are the same because he can recollect past relationships that demonstrate that all gays are a like. Calvin can recollect knowing that there are some more like him, having dated Heath for a short time at the beginning of the previous season. Only time can tell who was right and who was wrong in their beliefs about gays.

Finally, Rusty admits to Cappie he has dug out his journal and realizes he has only had one relationship all year, with Jen K. He convinces Cappie to meet him at Dobler’s at four and it is soon revealed he wants him there for a session of speed dating. Rusty, like all people, has placed the bar for what he is looking for at Jen K, his first girlfriend; it is no surprise that his dates fail miserably. While practicing beer pong with Calvin, Calvin suggests that they tell each other what they should do about their problem. Ultimately neither person can make that suggestion since neither has intimate knowledge of what the other is going through. Calvin decides to break up with Michael, and Rusty goes on a date with Jen K. No surprise, the problems which plagued their relationship during its demise still persist when in Jen’s room making out. Rusty is forced to realize through the one person who has shared his first relationship with him, that while she was his first she wasn’t necessarily the one. He is forced through recollection to reconsider his standards for future girls.

Recollection plays a central role in the October 14, 2008 episode of ABC Family’s Greek. It allows for individuals to ultimately reach a decision which has been presented before them at the beginning of the episode. Only through recollection can the characters fully expect to achieve their desired ends, whether or not those ends are what they expected.

Published in: on October 15, 2008 at Comments (0)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recent Developments on ABC Family’s Greek

The following contains spoilers to the most recent season, and previous season, of ABC Family’s Greek. Do not read any further if you do not wish to receive spoilers.

In the recent weeks of Greek, the team of writers at ABC Family have created a new web of relationships and situations which will help fuel the current season. One primary new character has been introduced to the show, that of Rusty’s Resident Advisor Max. The writers, in an attempt to give Casey a boyfriend, have also made Max the new love interest for Casey. But never fear, the writers have continued the story line of scorned ex lovers with Cappie and Evan.

Evan, while still regretting his actions with Casey, has moved on to dating Frannie. At the end of last season Frannie and Evan hooked up, with clear markers that they were both doing it because of who they were rather than any true feelings. As a result, this season has seen Evan Chambers acting more like the spoiled rich kid with a chip on his shoulder. Frannie has taken away the one thing she told Casey to go after, as it would help Casey’s “political” career within ZBZ. As a result, the trophy wife wannabe has now influenced Evan to the point where we now see him. At one point in the more recent episode , “Formally Yours”, Evan laments his situation with Casey to her face. This comes after a visit to season one where Evan and Rusty got into a fight, resulting in Evan receiving a pledge paddle to the face. All of this is observed by Max, the current boyfriend. The end of the episode shows Casey firmly planting her flag with Max, despite the obvious need for Casey to grow up and grow up fast.

The other relationship, more or less affected by Casey, has been that between Cappie and Rebecca. At the end of last season we saw Casey and Cappie sharing a moment while Rebecca was busy getting drunk and rowdy. It  wasn’t until the end of the last episode of the season that we were informed that Rebecca’s father has been associated with a major prostitution ring in Washington. As a result, Rebecca’s parents decide to divorce by the third episode of the current season. Cappie, for his part, was ready to break it off with Rebecca seeing his chance with Casey at the end of last season. Instead, Cappie returns to Rebecca after it was revealed her father is caught up in the scandal. His best efforts are only to distract Rebecca from her family problems by getting her drunk and having fun. Once it is revealed that Rebecca’s parents are going to divorce, Cappie’s particular brand of medicine isn’t strong enough for the wounded heiress. Thus we are left with Cappie and Rebecca broken up, all in the shadow of Rebecca’s confession to Casey that the problems between Cappie and Rebecca have always centered around Casey, and they always will. Whether Casey likes it or not, the relationships on ABC Family’s Greek appear to all center around her.

Casey fell for the rich, attractive Frat boy Evan freshman year and promptly dumped Cappie who couldn’t hold up his end of the relationship. As a result the two former lovers have been dancing around each other for the better half of two years. When Evan cheats on Casey with Rebecca, Casey returns the favor by sleeping with Cappie. Despite either person’s best efforts, both Casey and Cappie still have strong feelings for each other. Evan expected Casey to play the part of the typical rich boy’s girlfriend, but was unable to properly impress his parents. Max to this point has been Casey’s Beatrice, while she has tried to better herself she ultimately cannot compare to the Divine Image Max has. Whether any of the characters want to admit it or not, Max still is hung up on his dead girlfriend and primarily sees Casey throught he lenses of Rusty. Casey, for all her merits, is the worst kind of sorority girl. She was brought into the world where only who you date, what you wear and how much you’re bank account is worth really matters. Part of what makes Cappie and Casey such a great couple is that Casey doesn’t have to pretend to be someone she isn’t with him. Cappie and Casey come from similar backrounds, neither are overly wealthy or smart but they are just them. It will be interesting to see how the writers handle Casey and Max’s relationship throughout the rest of season 2.

Published in: on October 12, 2008 at Comments (0)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abrupt Actions

The current economic crisis on Wall Street has lead members of both the House of Representatives and United States Senate to conclave in order to provide a means of bailing out the U.S. Financial Market. Urged on by our President, George W. Bush, the Senate and House have worked diligently for a matter of days to help resolve the current economic woes. Yet many members of both houses are reluctant today to voice support for the bail out plan reached on Sunday evening. While the proposal for a  bail out plan is rarely opposed by members of Congress, they have rejected the hasty decision to pass such a bill without giving it time. One of the benefits of our Federal Government is that it is divided into three branches, with the legislative divided into two houses.

The original plan for the legislative houses was to have on directly elected by the people of the various states and the other to be appointed by the legislatures of the various states. Under our current system, amended by the 17thAmendment, we have both houses elected by the people of the various states. One might ask, is this not a good thing? Does this not make us more democratic? Surely we must see that this was not the aim of the Framers of the Constitution. They did not desire a quickly responsive national, federal, government. Rather, the Framers intended to create a government that was slow to act so as to remove the passions which have been the downfall of the greatest of democracies. The Framers erected a system which would place passion against reason in the form of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The House, the only directly elected branch of government according to the original Constitution, was meant to be the avenue for which the people could appeal. Stability was sacrificed in order to give the people representation in the Federal government. Meanwhile, the Senate was devisedin order to bring stability and rational thought to the national Legislature. Their hope was that the House would pass a bill and that the Senate would be able to determine with more reason if a law was necessary and proper. In Federalist 62 Publius says, “The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust; which requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages…” The Senate, unlike the House, was looked upon to act as the older tutor for the young, often naive, pupil.

By acting hastily to pass a bill which many in both houses are finding hard to support, the national legislature is doing what the Founders hoped they were protecting against. By having Senators appointed by the States, rather than elected by the People, the Framers established the natural competition which occurs between the interests of the People and their Government. Finally, not only does this bill create a $700 Billion bail out, it also extends their power. Section 104 of the current bill before Congress creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board, which is created for oversight of the proposed bill. This is just one new agency that the proposed bill intends to create and allows the United States government more control over the economy than was ever intended. Our economy, while stumbling, is not in recession nor is it about to fail. Our national legislature should take the time to review this bill in a way which will make sense to protect the contracts of the people of the United States. We do not need to act in a manner which could potentially destroy the liberty of companies and the people to freely contract. If we let the market work itself out, then we will find that government intervention is not necessary.

Published in: on September 29, 2008 at Comments (0)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries