Glorious Day

Only a few days before America celebrates the 233 anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the Supreme Court of the United States today has made a glorious decision. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 attempted to make equality a reality in the United States by, among other things, requiring businesses and schools to adopt affirmative action. Affirmative action is a process by which schools and business accept and hire individuals based first on a racial and sex quota of individuals attending their school or working for their business. Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act mandates quotas for minorities in businesses and schools.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States in keeping with the second part of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The City of New Haven failed to uphold the inalienable rights of 19 white and 1 hispanic firefighters by tossing out the scores on a promotion test because too few minorities passed the test. A lower court, which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is currently a member of, ruled earlier in the year that the City of New Haven had not done anything wrong by denying the promotion of 19 whites and 1 hispanic firefighters.

Today the Supreme Court over turned the lower court’s decision, by declaring that the City of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, which voted 5-4 to overturn the lower court’s decision. Justices Scalia and Alito wrote concurring opinions. Justice Scalia in particular wrote that this act itself should have been ruled unconstitutional. According to Scalia, “Intentional discrimination is still occurring, just one step up the chain. Government compulsionof such design would therefore seemingly violate equal protection principles.”(557 U.S. 08-328) In specific, Scalia has raised the question as to whether or not anti-discrimination laws, which call for the discrimination against non disadvantaged races, sexes, and nationalities is in fact a violation of the equal protection clause of 5th and 14th Amendments.

Today’s decision has set down that it is not ethical for a business to discriminate against whites simply in order to insure

Published in: on June 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Further thoughts on disunity

Argument taken from the Federalist Papers, along with certain questions and paraphrases.

Quote from Stephen Hopkins found in American Political Writings of the Founding Era, volume 1.

One of the fundamental causes of the Constitutional convention was the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation from reigning in the power of the states.  The primary goal of the United States Constitution is to control the passions of the people, specifically in regards to situations that arise causing an outburst of a single opinion among the people (i.e. during the period of Confederation, the people of the various states were able to convince their state legislatures to make laws affecting contracts, effectively retarding the power of contracts between persons.) Our Constitution does this first be erecting a Republican government.

Our Republican government, “guard[s] one part of the society against the injustice of the other party.” It is not be to implied that our Federal government is beyond injustice, however history has shown that the States are more likely to be unjust.  The Constitution of the United States, therefore, creates to opposing governments; one Federal and the other State. The Federal government is divided into three branches, with the most powerful being divided into two. The States are divided into three branches, and in most cases the most power being divided into two houses. The State governments also share their power with the local community governments. This is all in an attempt to curtail the possibility of an unjust government. It is also an attempt to curtail the tyranny of the people.

Through the style of our republican government, we are able to create barriers to protect against an unjust ruler. The second way our Republican government protects against the infringements of persons, and State and the Federal governments is through the size of our Republic. In history there has never been a Republic the size of the United States. A severe defect in the State governments, which necessitate the Federal government as a protector, is the closeness of the people to their legislatures. The State governments are too unstable because of how close the people are to their government. In order to keep their job, State legislatures act according to the demands of their constituents rather than according to the principles of justice.

The rule of factions is what has brought down republics throughout history and is what dismantled the American Confederacy. The problem of faction is the main focus of the American Constitution. In order to curtail factions there must be barriers placed to prevent their power from infiltrating the chambers of government. The first step to achieving this has been in the creation of two governments: State and Federal. The second step has been in the creation of an extended Republic, which allows for a multitude of opinions. This is achieved through the House of Representatives, which has traditionally (up until the passage of the 17th Amendment) been the direct representative of the people to the National legislature. They serve a short two year term and are eligible for reelection infinite times. All laws must be passed by them and by the Senate, which is indirectly elected by the people through the State legislatures (until the 17th amendment was passed.) Faction is dismantled in the chambers of our Congress as the multitude of opinions are presented by the House of Representatives and are filtered through the Senators who are further away from the influences of the passions of the people.

This has been dismantled through the adoption of direct election of Senators, but can be restored through the repeal of the same. The individual States are unable to protect against minority and majority factions, which make them the least able to protect the rights and liberties of the people. As was evident in the period leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the States were impotent in protecting justice in particular regards to contracts. The people held too much sway over their elected officials, resulting in the harming of the rights of the minority. Only through a Union, with a Federal government at the head, of the States can the defects of the State constitutions be repaired.

The rights of minority interests in the Federal government are upheld along side those interests of others. By extending the Republic from sea to sea, we have achieved in making all opinions and interests minority and only those that obtain a majority of proponents are made law. The aim of the Federal government is not to create a minority rule in the United States, but rather to represent only those interests shared by the majority of persons. It is left to the States, as small Republics, to represent the interests of the minority. Within small Republics minority factions are able to wield some power within the government. It is the main objective of the Federal government to entertain the interests of all parties, and it is given to the States to entertain the interests of their citizens.  By entertaining all interests, the Federal government protects the rights of minorities by permitting them to exist whereas without the Federal government there is a greater chance that the minority opinions will not be heard. Which is why during the periods of Confederation, individuals unable to pay their debts and uphold their contracts were able to persuade their State legislature to nullify their contract and harming a minority party.

A third argument against secession will be brought forth next. I close with the words of Stephen Hopkins, “These, with all other matters of a general nature, it is absolutely necessary should have a general power to direct them, some supreme and overruling authority with power to make laws and form regulations for the good of all, and to compel their execution and observation.”

Published in: on May 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm Comments (8)
Tags: , , , , , ,

Souter to Retire: Conservatives Listen Up

As Justice Souter is ready to retire in June of this year, I can already hear Conservatives rally behind rejecting any nominee President Obama wishes to place before the United States Senate. When Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor left the Court under President Bush there was speculation that President Bush would cause the court to move further right. When Obama makes his selection and the Senate approves the appointment to the nation’s highest Court, the Court will not move further left.

Justice Souter, along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens are the liberal left wing of the United States Supreme Court. President Obama, a liberal himself, is unlikely to appoint a conservative or centrist justice to the Supreme Court (Justice Kennedy occupies the centrist position on the Court.) The worst that could happen for the President, as it happeend for Nixon and George H.W. Bush, is that his liberal appointment to the Supreme Court will turn out to be a centrist or conservative Justice. This is exactly what happened with ex-President Nixon’s appointment of Justice Stevens.

Conservatives should not attempt to put up a serious opposition to the President’s appointment. For one thing, the opposition might come back to hurt conservative Republicans in Representative elections. By only putting up the minimal opposition to his appointee, conservatives can both get their point across and still save face before the American people. Yet, there is a more important reason for why conservatives should not seriously oppose whomever President Obama wishes to appoint. As a Professor of mine said when Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were appointed to the Court, it doesn’t matter if Atilla the Hun is appointed to the Supreme Court it won’t change the make up. There are still nine Justices on the Supreme Court and it takes five to make a decision on any case. As long as Kennedy remains a right leaning centrist on the important issues to conservatives, it doesn’t matter who Obama appoints to fill the vacancy left by Souter in June.

Published in: on May 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm Comments (4)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Obama to give up….

As the American economy continues to slip amid failed attempts by our Federal government to inject trillions of dollars into the country, President Obama and wife Michelle will be flying to England for the G20 summit scheduled at the beginning of April. President Obama scheduled a private meeting with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England. While not an official state visit to England, Obama believes that it is proper for him and the Queen to get to know each other.

Among topics planned for discussion between the Queen and President is the possibility of England retaking control over her former crown jewel colony, the United States. While the White House has remained silent on this issue, it seems clear that President Obama has come to grips with his failure as President of the United States. Unable to stop the bleeding economy, Obama finally is willing to admit he was not the right man for the job.

Further complications are that President Obama has lied to Americans about pulling troops out of Iraq in a timely manner. It was announced that the President intends to have all but roughly 50,000 troops pulled from Iraq over the next several months. Liberals across the country, and in the U.S. Congress, are irate that the President has turned out to be like every other man who ran for the nation’s highest office. The final death knell to his administration seems to have been his failure to remove all earmarks from legislation. In February the U.S. Congress passed a $700 Billion stimulus package that was deemed to be nothing more than earmarks; President Obama subsequently signed the bill into law.

In addition to failed campaign promises, President Obama is faced with the continued failure of America’s car companies, specifically GM. It has been speculated for months that GM will be forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Like Herbert Hoover, who was President during the stock market crash of 1929, President Obama is faced in his young presidency with absolute failure. While not completely his fault, President Obama has called for a socialization of the medical community and partial socialization of the economy, which have both caused fear and panic to drive the stock market to all time lows. President Obama inherited a terrific mess and has made it worse.

In light of these problems, the President has decided he is unfit for command of our country and instead of handing the reigns over to his incompetent Vice President it is best to simply surrender the nation to England. More information concerning the alleged hand over will be provided as it becomes available.

Until then, it is best if we all practice a new phrase: God Save the Queen.

Published in: on March 6, 2009 at 3:19 am Comments (1)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

On the dangers of disunity of government

Quotes taken from The Federalist Papers and Samuel Osgood’s Letter to John Adams.

In recent weeks various state governments have passed legislation to the effect that should the Federal government over extend the authority vested in it by the U.S. Constitution, that the states shall consider the Constitution null and void. Texas Representative Leo Berman filled HCR 66 on February 23, 2009. This bill states:

Memorializing Congress in defense of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirming the right of states to nullify acts of Congress, executive orders, and judicial orders, and asserting that any act, executive order, or judicial order that assumes a power not delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution and which diminishes the liberty of any state or citizen shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution.

This bill, in effect, would forcefully remove the state of Texas, and all its citizens, from Union with the United States of America.

The necessity of the Union can hardly be denied by those who are not self interested. The history of Europe demonstrates the hazards of disunion and should the United States be dissolved we can expect a similar fate. Men by their very nature require political union. Our forefathers understood the principle that necessitated our unity after our separation from England in 1776. Under the Articles of Confederation they attempted to create a loosely connected confederation of states with a weak federal government at the center. By 1787 it had become evident that the Union under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to prevent the encroachment of government upon the rights of the citizens. It was under this premise that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called and a new Constitution was created to form a federation of states with a central government over looking the protection of the rights of the citizens.

While the Constitution limits the national government in many ways, it was written in order to limit the power of the state governments. The states have always been the greatest threat to the liberties of individuals. Samuel Osgood summed up the threat of the states in a letter to John Adams a year before the Constitutional Convention, “The State governments are weak and selfish enough, and they will of course annihilate the first.” And his solution to this folly of the states, “without a proper federal head, the individual states must fall a prey to themselves, or any power that is disposed to injure them.” The existence of a federal government is essential to the protection and continuation of the various states. The federal government permits the presentation of various opinions, which ultimately will lead to the discovery of the proper course of action for all parties involved.

Through unity with the various states we can achieve the individual and collective goals of all citizens of this country. But should we fail in our unity then we will surely fall victim to the, “men [who] are ambitious, vindictive and rapacious.” In the history of Europe, what is there that makes the representatives in the various states believe that these states can exist without unity? Our National government was devised to dampen the passions of men. Yet it is undeniable that if we separate ourselves we fill fall prey to the men whose, “love of power or the desire of preeminence and dominion–the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety” will lead them to call for the acquisition of our current brothers. There has never been an instant in human history where there did not exist a class of men who did not abuse the confidence of the people. Currently our state legislatures are filled with individuals who are seeking to abuse the confidence their constituents have trusted them with.
What is to stop us as separate and independent states from engaging in war with each other? Territorial disputes have plagued the nations of the world since the beginning of time. It is inevitable that the larger states will have designs on acquiring the land of the smaller states. That this should be allowed to happen is to allow for our most divine Republic to be replaced by the most unholy tyranny of Kingship. Through the Union we have been able to protect ourselves from the threat of tyranny. No one party has been able to acquire so much power under our present state of union. Yet, should we dissolve the Union then we should find ourselves amongst the control of violent factions. There is no doubt that there will be some in the various states who will have desire to gain control not only of their state but of the whole continent. In disunion we will find ourselves at the mercy of men who have no regard for the public good, but rather will pass measures, “not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.” The survival of the various states depends upon the unity of this country.

The most pressing issue that we face, should we dissolve the Union, is that we are all commerce republics dependent on trade with each other for our mutual preservation. Presently, this is accomplished in a harmonious manner by our unity with each other in the United States of America. However, should we dissolve into independent states then it will be necessary to continue these relationships in a manner equal to that of foreign nations. In the annals of history, commercial nations fall prey to their own need for commerce and resources. There is little to suggest that as independent nations we would not become subject to this same principle. State will be forced to war with State in an attempt to preserve itself. As a Union we are able to avoid such conflict through free and open trade with each other. Independent nations can only successfully maintain such means through alliances based on mutual self interest. The interests of those within this country have traditionally been the same, or at least not to the point where they have caused a serve rift. Yet as independent states our interests will eventually clash with the interest of others. Our mutual self preservation dictates that we ought to remain united under a federal government.

Published in: on February 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm Comments (3)
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Finally…A New Post

Probably like most American males these days I’ve been following the aftermath of the revelation and then confession that Alex Rodriguez used steroids between 2001-2003. A-Rod isn’t the first athlete to admit to using steroids, Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte are notable examples of players who were willing to come clean.  As much as I am ashamed of all the players in Major League Baseball who have used steroids or Human Growth Hormones, I am more ashamed about the players, managers, owners and league officials who are pointing their fingers away from themselves.

On ESPN.com there is an article that says “Selig: Don’t Blame me for ‘roids.” In it, Selig announces, “I don’t want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn’t care about it…” Well Mr. Commissioner, who are we to blame then for allowing this to become such a problem? During the early decades of the last century Baseball suffered an epidemic of players throwing ball games for money and often players, managers, owners and league officials who knew what was going on did nothing to stop it. It wasn’t until the whole thing blew up in their faces in the midst of the 1919 world series that the owners decided to create the office of the commissioner of baseball. The owners and both American and National League officials attempted to pass the buck. Ban Johnson, then president of the American League, decided to keep his name clean by launching an investigation into the series that was widely said to have been thrown.

Today we live in a world where baseball players are once again trying to get an edge.  Owners and league officials wanted nothing to do with blowing the whistle on the problem of steroids because they were producing exactly what Bud Selig wanted: higher scoring games. Babe Ruth made it evident that people love home runs, and there has never been a more prolific period of home run hitting by a larger group of players than now. Those home runs brought people into the stadium after the 1994 strike ended the season and shortened the ‘95 season. Of course Bud Selig didn’t blow the whistle on something that now appears to have been the worst kept secret in the baseball world. He is the commissioner of a Major League Baseball that is seeing more popularity, more revenue than any other era in the game’s history.

I was saddened to see Selig’s words when he tried to pass the blame onto someone else. President Truman once said, “The buck stops here,” and he meant it. Selig doesn’t grasp this concept; everything that goes on in the game of baseball is ultimately going to be placed on him. He is the end of the line, no one is higher in the game of baseball than the Commissioner. He needs to man up and accept the responsibility that it was under his leadership, greed and ambition that steroids were allowed to go unchecked for a decade while his and the owners’ coffers were padded.

Published in: on February 17, 2009 at 7:02 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Christmas Proclamation

This proclamation is usually said at the Catholic Midnight Mass; one of my favorite parts of the Mass. It is chanted or read at the beginning of the Mass

Today, the twenty-fifth day of December,
unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image.
Several thousand years after the flood, when God made the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant.
Twenty-one centuries from the time of Abraham and Sarah;
thirteen centuries after Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt.
Eleven hundred years from the time of Ruth and the Judges;
one thousand years from the anointing of David as king;
in the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel.
In the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;
the seven hundred and fifty-second year from the foundation of the city of Rome.
The forty-second year of the reign of Octavian Augustus;
the whole world being at peace,
Jesus Christ, eternal God and Son of the eternal Father,
desiring to sanctify the world by his most merciful coming,
being conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and nine months having passed since his conception,
was born in Bethlehem of Judea of the Virgin Mary.
Today is the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.

Published in: on December 25, 2008 at 5:30 pm Leave a Comment

Hope & Change or Despair & Repetition?

For the last two years President-elect Barack Obama has offered America the sounds of hope and change as the platform for his revolutionary Presidency. Unfortunately, in the earliest days of his adminstration when he is still trying to organize the people who will make up his administration, Barack Obama has already failed to bring hope and change. The list of individuals poised to take offices within the Obama Presidency are all Democrat and Washington elites. To begin, just look at his Vice President-elect Joe Biden who himself has been a Washington insider for 30 years as a Senator for the state of Delaware. This alone should have been a warning to those individuals who voted for Obama. At such a young age, Obama owes his party and in general Washington elites for election to such a high office. As a result, we are seeing the fall out as Obama appoints leaders of the Democratic party to positions they do not even qualify for.

Enough for now on the fact that Obama and Biden are not qualified for their positions, but now it is reported that Hilary Clinton will be named Secretary of State and that Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico is poised to become the new Secretary of Commerce. Clinton is most certainly not qualified for the position of Secretary of State when you realize that in her life she has only managed to be a lawyer, the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the United States, and a JUNIOR senator from the state of New York. This resume does not scream out that Mrs. Clinton deserves to be honored by the position of Secretary of State. If anything, Clinton will humilate our nation in the eyes of our enemies. She has no foreign policy experience; she lacks international experience necessary for this job. She will be the United States Chief Diplomat to the world; she will be expected to represent us to the U.N. and individual nations.

The inexperience is not as bad as Obama’s choice of criminals and the old guard as Attorney General of the United States and the Chief of Staff. The latter was a member of the Clinton administration and the former was pardon by President Clinton before ever being convicted. How are we expected to believe that President-Elect Obama believes in change when he has brought in a member of the Clinton Administration to be his top hand in the White House? What about the fact he has offered a man who was surely going to be convicted of serious crimes the job of America’s top attorney?

Finally, we bring ourselves to Tom Daschle, former Senator for the state of South Dakota who has been offered the job of Secretary of Health & Human Services. What qualifications does one gain by being a member of the Senate to allow them to take jobs like these? Of course Mr. Daschle has served in the capacity of Public Policy advisor to a law firm in the state of South Dakota. Yet, we are expected to believe that because he was a Senator for twenty-six years and has served as a public policy advisor that he is some how qualified to hold the nation’s top public policy coordinator.

The only person who makes sense in all of the announcements thus far is Obama’s choice for Secretary of the Treasury. The man tapped for that position is Timothy Geithner, who served as the chief of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He also serves on the Federal Open Market Committe, which is responsible for our monetary policies.

All in all, it looks dismal for anyone who thought that Obama would actually bring about change. In reality, Obama is not anyone new to Washington. Like all other Presidents, he represents those who have held the Oval Office before him. He is a mixture of Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. We can only hope that this will be a one term President, unable to fully realize his plan for America.

Published in: on November 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm Comments (5)
Tags: , , , , , ,

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 1:35 am Comments (3)
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 12:56 am Comments (3)
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries