The Choice 2012

This is a quick rundown of the most important governmental and social issues on my radar, and which candidate matches my leanings on each. Part of my reasoning here is that the president can make significant contributions to any issue and plays a part in many of the country’s policies, but he does not make law or set policy himself for the most part, so even if I disagree with particular points, I don’t always consider them deal breakers.

This feels short and simplistic, but longer disquisitions are likely to go unread and become overly complicated. I’m unlikely to be swayed by arguments attempting to change my mind on these issues before tomorrow: what I’m trying to decide is which presidential candidate I would be happier to see in office.

Abortion: This is a key issue for me (though, obviously, not my single issue). I am against abortion in all but the classic conservative points: rape, incest, and the life of the mother exemptions. I believe life begins at conception, indeed, and every cut-off point I’ve heard proposed is not based on morals or ethics, but convenience. I was disappointed that Obama promised to make abortions legal but rare (a preferable alternative to legal and common, as they are now), which had a better chance of success than attempts to outlaw the practice under current conditions. He has not shown any initiative to carry that ideal through.

You know what gets my goat, though? The complaint leveled by many liberals is spot on: conservatives want these restrictions, but do little to help those who are struggling and who are the most vulnerable when it comes to carrying pregnancy to term in difficult circumstances. Things that ought to be included with any campaign to end abortion are a far greater support for single mothers, much greater funding for the support services that aid those mothers as well as child care and adoption options and assistance, and real accountability for fathers. That last is especially egregious. I’m not certain how to go about it, but making certain fathers are financially and socially responsible for their own offspring is vital. If we mean what we say when we claim that all life is precious, then we had best do out best to provide for those lives in every way we can.

Candidate: Romney

Marriage: The least important issue on my radar, but an issue nonetheless. I’m increasingly of the camp that says that the government should get out of marriage altogether: make all couplings (and the inevitable future triplings and so on) civil unions; hand marriage exclusively to social organizations (usually, churches) to make their own rules. Historically, this has been the model until the recent era.

That said, I’m still against same-sex marriages. I’m not prepared to overturn history, logic, and my faith to choose otherwise, and I think a government that endorses it is headed down the wrong path. No, my marriage is not threatened when others marry; yes, the definition of the term is in jeopardy when it begins to be applied to whatever we feel like. (If the term itself wasn’t important, there wouldn’t’ be such a fight over it.)

Candidate: Romney

Supreme Court: This may not be on everyone’s radar, but there’s a high likelihood that the next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice during his term. Given that I’m a conservative when it comes to legal interpretation, I’m guessing that Romney would put in a justice I think more acceptable than Obama’s probable pick. (Though given the likelihood of a slim Republican majority congress, the candidate who makes it through is likely to be pretty moderate in any case.)

Candidate: Romney

Economy: Like many items on the list, this one’s a toss-up. I do think Romney knows how to run a business, so I think he’d have a handle on things economic. On the flip side, I am not convinced he’d help anyone except business owners and corporations—the latter needs some help but not all of it; the former need little to no help at all. I’m terrified of Romney’s drive to reduce restrictions and regulations (which were put in place for a reason) and aid corporate interests at every turn. I’m also not convinced Romney’s numbers add up.

Obama hasn’t been the engine of change that I would like to see, but things have been improving under his watch and I think they would continue to do so. I don’t think that it would have been possible for anyone to turn things around in just four years, and steady recovery is workable. I’m somewhat disturbed by the tendency of folks to vote directly based on how they, personally, are doing economically, rather than looking at the bigger picture of the economy as a whole. I am not against taxes that go toward helping others. (Though I’ve heard the argument that if we paid fewer taxes, we’d have more to give to charity, I haven’t seen it—and government welfare was established to help precisely because private giving was not covering the needs of many. When tax returns show up, I rarely hear people crowing about how they can now make bigger donations to help others…)

Candidate: Obama (probably)

Education: Obama is the clear winner here. His dedication to education seems far stronger than Romney’s, and while Romney may have some useful reforms in mind, his general lack of interest in the subject and his dismissive attitude don’t lead me to think that things would get better on that front. Romney’s push to weaken unions also disturbs me: to take the guidance of education out of the hands of those who actually educate is not wise. Two areas of public interest in particular, I think, cannot be run like businesses: education and health care. I believe Romney would run both of them as such, and the results will be ugly.

Candidate: Obama

Energy: This is tied strongly to the next issue of the environment, but again it seems as if Romney’s agenda is to pump money into the economy at any cost, even if it means pushing wasteful and dangerous energy sources, and his desire to do away with restrictions is frightening. Green energy is going to be required in the future—the experts only disagree on the timing. The more we invest in such technologies now, the better off we will be in the future. There will be some parts of the economy that will suffer, as there always will be. Obama’s policies are more sustainable and less damaging.

Candidate: Obama

Environment: This is a big one for me, and the evidence all leads to one side. Yes, trees and owls and mice do matter as part of the ecosystem. There may be tweaks to be made to accommodate industry and nature, and serious consideration to be given to employment, but Romney’s desire to do away with restrictions for pollution and resource extraction, and his goal of opening up the wild lands that remain in our country to more industrial exploitation, makes me ill. As with so many things, we are sacrificing long-term stability for immediate gains, and we are already paying some of the cost: I fear that the future costs will be unsustainable. While I’m not completely convinced that global warming is entirely human-caused, evidence suggests that it is at least partly true, and if I’m not certain, I would far rather play it safe than be sorry later. Those who suggest that, since it hasn’t been proven in their minds, we should continue as if it isn’t a possibility seem incredibly short-sighted to me.

Candidate: Obama

Health Care: Sorry, conservative friends: this is one that I am quite liberal on. I’d rather have my options severely reduced if it meant providing basic services to everyone. I don’t know if I’d call health care a right, but it is a service that should be available to all. The only reason I don’t like Obamacare is that I’d rather see a single-payer plan. It was a real blessing in Canada when we lived there, and I’d go for it in a minute here. The argument that it cuts down on competition and innovation doesn’t seem to hold water, and I have faith that universities and corporations will still pursue health care even if they can only earn large profits rather than the staggering profits they are seeing now.

Candidate: Obama

Immigration: I’m utterly undecided on this one. On one hand, I think we need stronger enforcement of immigration law, and I don’t have the same problems with efforts such as those in Arizona that some do. Sneaking into the country, for whatever reason, is illegal: it may be understandable, but we don’t let people off the hook for other crimes just because they had good reason to commit them. If your family is hungry and you steal, that may be understandable; you still get charged with theft. Those who argue that such laws—and those policies recently unveiled in California—are deporting people for minor infractions are missing the point: they are being deported for minor infractions committed after breaking the law to enter the country. I have great compassion for those born into difficult circumstances, but from a civic standpoint, much as it might be desirable to help every soul, a country’s resources are limited, and as a political entity,  government must attend to its own citizens first.

On the other hand, something does have to be done with the vast number of illegal immigrants we have now. Denying them services does not normally force them to re-emigrate; it just creates a huge underclass who have no other options than crime. I don’t know if the DREAM Act is an answer, but some form of amnesty has to be put in place for people already here coupled with stronger enforcement. I don’t know, from the candidates’ shifty answers and minimum effort to actually deal with this problem, who would do the better job here.

Candidate: ?

Foreign Policy: The candidates presented themselves as so closely aligned on these issues that the choice seems almost immaterial. Obama certainly engenders more goodwill overseas, and Romney’s gaffes have been ridiculous. Though Romney has the stronger stance on Israel (which is important to me, though not as apocalyptically important as it is to many others of my acquaintance), both have pledge support to that nation, and the complaints leveled against Obama on that score have been relatively slight (though not immaterial, and certainly worrying). I might regret either choice depending on what happens in the next four years, but based on what’s happened so far, I can’t suss out who comes out on top here.

Candidate: ?

Role of Government: Again, a toss-up. I’ve been very disturbed by some of Obama’s moves on this score, including the assault on moral objections to provisions of health care and his insistence on some government programs that seem wasteful. On the other hand, Romney’s stripped-down version of government—which seems to exist solely as an aid to business—scares me almost as much. A hands-off government which backs the power of the dollar before people, or one whose octopus-like tentacles reach into every area of life: which one is worse? I haven’t figured that out yet.

Candidate: ?

So Obama wins on points, but some of the points that favor Romney have a higher priority. Where are the scales to weigh this out?

What is it that ultimately scares me?

Under Romney, a country where my moral values are upheld, but many against them become militant in the face of seeming dismissal by the powers that be. A country ravaged environmentally by business interests. A country that puts corporate interests above social welfare and trades in long-term stability for today’s gratification. A country that leaves its poor to become poorer and helps its rich to become richer. A country where education and health care are up for sale, and the losers are cut off as unprofitable.

Under Obama, a country that continues to slip down the slide of relativism, where my morals are more and more seen as dangerous attacks on the selfhood and dignity of others rather than ethical statements. A country in which the government overpowers our freedoms in the name of safety and security. A country where everything is allowed and celebrated, save for disapproval, and conscience is trumped by political correctness. A country in which the government’s hand is in every transaction and bureaucrats decide what is best for me and mine.

So: what do I do on Tuesday?

This Is Why

For years, a kind of self-righteous screed has been floating around the internet and elsewhere, popularized in an episode of The West Wing and brought up against Christian beliefs (usually when the condemnation of homosexuality is mentioned). I answered this set of questions on an internet forum, and just posted them again in response to a friend on Facebook (where it was probably not wanted).

I'm posting it here now so I don't have to keep copying and pasting the thing. It won't do any good at getting rid of the fallacious thing, but it'll make me feel better.

First, for reference, the screed:

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a
Canadian)

My response:

Yes, God's word is "eternal and unchanging." That does not mean that all verses are to be applied to all circumstances blindly--but nor does it mean that the clear indications of those things God finds morally repugnant can then be ignored. The new covenant does not call on us to punish sins the way the Israelites were called to, but that does not somehow mean that those sins have since become acceptable.

(For reference, I repeat my statement from an earlier post: "The short version is, OT covenant law breaks down into three basic categories, which we might call practical (like the call to build railings around the roofs of houses), cultural (such as the directives about eating and dress), and moral (such as the directives about sexual behavior and punishment). They are grouped within the covenants with relative clarity and are not difficult to differentiate." )

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Your friend is a buffoon. Yes, slavery (as a form of indentured servitude and not the version of permanent racial subjugation, which we tend to think of with our own past) is a feature of ancient Near Eastern life--and, by the way, a means of survival. People often sold themselves into slavery so that they could have food and shelter. Since slavery is no longer legal, these, of course, don't currently apply. If a Canadian (or anyone else) offers to work for you for room and board, and the alternative is to let them starve in the street, which would be the better course of action?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Again, since our cultural situation is vastly different from that of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors, there isn't any particular way to apply this today. Today you might argue about what a fair minimum wage would be for her work, though, which is essentially the same issue. If you are unable to provide for your children and you don't find a way to provide for them, I'd suggest it is you who have the moral failing.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Um... You are one disturbing fellow. If we lived in a time of extremely basic hygiene, we too might wish to be cautious about how and with whom we interacted. This is one of those practical guidelines, and is, in essence, giving women a week off each month during which they were relieved of any household duties and did not have to put up with the demands and attentions of men. How very cruel!

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

If you are still living under the covenantal requirement to sacrifice animals, you are in trouble indeed. And isn't this tantamount to an argument for religious freedom? Shouldn't this be allowed, no matter what the neighbors say? At no point is there a biblical injunction to smite those who dislike the smell of barbeque.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Are you an ancient Israelite living under the old covenant? Then there are no police, and you will have to gather folks from the village, most likely guided by the elders, to carry out this punishment. (Though, of course, since Hebraic law is always given as a guide and all such cases would be decided on a case-by-case basis by a local adjudicator, the man would have ample opportunity to explain and defend himself.)

Oh, wait--you're not an ancient Israelite? Then you are under the new covenant, and God handles all such cases of judgment and punishment. You would be wise to counsel your neighbor against his actions, but you are under no obligation to investigate the crime or carry out the penalty.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

As shown earlier, yes, indeed, there are levels of abomination. (It's called a hierarchy of morals--the same reason that lying to the Nazis about the Jews you are harboring is not a sin on the same level as turning those Jews over to the Nazis.) So, yes--according the covenant, homosexuality (a sin of the moral kind--look at what else is condemned in Leviticus 18) is a worse abomination than eating shellfish (a cultural proscription, meant to keep the Israelites separate from other corrupting cultural influences). You clearly just need to actually read the bible...

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Sadly, if you are an ancient Levite, a vision problem might indeed keep you from performing the act of presenting the food offerings on the altar of God in the capacity of priest. Of course, given that there was no way to measure visual acuity in the ancient Near East, unless the sight issue was severe, it most likely wouldn't be noticed.

Again, we're talking about God's purity, and as a symbol of such, no defect was allowed in those who approached him: a very powerful visual metaphor. So, ancient Levite, if your vision is so bad that you can't see or you have an obvious wound on your eye, I'm afraid you'll have to carry out one of the thousands of other tasks prescribed for your clan.

Oh, wait--you're not an ancient Levite? And, in fact, there is no altar of God which you could reasonably even wish to approach? Well, I guess it's a moot point, then.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

*snort* Why do you keep insisting on killing people? At what point does Leviticus proscribe death for this?

As another of those cultural markers, the ancient Israelites were commanded not to cut their facial hair (as many neighboring tribes did as part of their religious rites). So since you're an ancient Israelite...

Oh, wait. No you're not.

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

I know almost nothing about sports, but I do know they haven't made footballs out of pigskin for decades. And if the ancient Israelites played football, they would have been in trouble. They would have had to stay outside the camp for a whole afternoon as punishment. Again, the cruelty of the Old Testament is staggering, isn't it?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

One, the burning is only for someone who marries a woman and her mother, not just sleeping with them. So there's that.

But, again, O thick-headed commentator, we're talking about two different kinds of laws: cultural and moral. The clothing and planting issues have never carried the penalty of death. (One good measure to tell the difference is to look at the prescribed penalties: cultural deviations were never punished with death, while moral and spiritual ones often were.)

And yes: the ancients put the same weight on profaning the name of God as they did murder--all those who insist endlessly that we have to respect cultural differences and not judge others should have no problem with this equivalency. And all such executions were public: in a society always on the brink of chaos and starvation and with no margin for social deviation, they would be a public affirmation of values and solidarity.

As a final note: yes, I know some will accuse me of taking this too seriously. "It's just a joke." But it's a joke premised on a thinly veiled attack on belief in and the integrity of the bible, which is not a matter for levity. This is, in it's snide way, a serious attack on Christianity, and it ought to be confronted and buried whenever it rears its ill-informed head.

The Sensible Solution

Last week, another of our citizens was taken from us, and to no real purpose.

Ray Blatterson, a manager for the Ohio trucking firm Safe-T Transport, was sentenced to forty years behind bars. Blatterson had a running feud with his crosstown rival, Stephen Rigg, which had grown increasingly bitter as the economy slumped. Thanks to the nation's lax gun laws, on Monday, July 13, Blatterson was able to obtain a Glock 19 at a legal gun dealership. He crossed the city in one of his company’s trucks, walked into the offices of Nation’s Best Trucking, and fatally shot Rigg at his own desk.

It was the very first time Blatterson had murdered anyone, yet thanks to the judge's sentencing this week, he will most likely die in prison.

It’s time we face up to an important truth: the war against murder has failed.

Last month, thousands marched on the capitol, demanding that the government decriminalize murder, and they were right to do so. Never has it been so clear that all of our efforts and legislation attempting to control (and even end) murder have proven useless. Thousands upon thousands of police are on the streets; every state has the strictest laws against homicide; yet the killings continue. When will Congress realize that, no matter how Draconian your laws, you cannot stop people from doing what they want to do and think is right?

Murder has been a natural part of life since the dawn of mankind. Every major civilization has had murder, and those individuals who accepted this managed to live normal, even exemplary lives. From the kingdoms of Europe to the empires of the Americas, from tribes in Africa to clans in the Far East, this inevitable feature of life has always been with us. Anger is as natural to mankind as laughter.

However, early in our history, political and business interests decided that murder was a threat to America’s industry. Unregulated killing could eat into their precious profit margins. Thus began a campaign to spread fear and paranoia, fanning the flames of moral outrage of politicians beholden to special interests until murder was illegal across the nation. Pulpits rang with righteous indignation against the simplest and most understandable of killings. Murderers—even those who had been a threat to almost no one—had to hide their desires and activities, driving them underground.

Now, we’re faced with an epidemic. In 2007, the latest year for which statistics are available, there were over 16,000 murders in this country, and those who committed these understandable acts are languishing in prison, contributing little or nothing to society. Studies show that they are most likely learning new criminal behavior from the other inmates, refining their “murder” skills and making connections with larger criminal elements. Someone who might have begun as a fairly innocent 3rd degree offender might leave jail ready and able to take out an elementary school.

It’s time we legalize murder. After all, in a society in which blood sports and “extreme fighting” competitions are sanctioned (resulting in untold numbers ending up in hospitals and suffering through agonizing recovery every year), why is this one activity singled out for special treatment? Can you honestly allow the death penalty, but somehow hypocritically condemn the individual’s right to the same freedom the government enjoys? What kind of socially conflicted society allows the hunting of all animals save man?

When murder is illegal, then only criminals murder. Anyone who wants to take the life of another right now must sneak around, plotting in secret, living in constant fear of being caught. Under the current regulations, not only is the freedom of the murderer taken away, but others are put at risk. Since the murderer is often doing his work under cover of darkness, trying to avoid the ridiculous legal restrictions on his legitimate desires, he may come upon friends or family members of the real target, making them incidental targets as well. The concerned (or nosy) neighbor who chooses to investigate may also find herself in dire straits. And this is not even taking into account the law enforcement officials, potential witnesses, and dozens of others who must put themselves in danger to continue cranking the outmoded wheels of the legal process.

With murder criminalized, killing remains in the hands of the worst of our society: violent gangs and deranged psychopaths. Assassins and so-called “hit men” make a tidy profit by providing murder services. The “black market” price for murder is astronomical, and it is in these elements' interests to keep it illegal. When such thugs and lawbreakers are in favor of something, can any right-thinking citizen support it?

If murder was legalized, the government could regulate it, ensuring that only the chosen victim faced his potential killer, and that in a secure and contained environment. People are going to murder anyway—why not make it as safe and open as possible? And with the possibility of televising the events, corporate sponsorship, and a new “murder tax,” we might even manage overcome our current economic slump and provide revenue for our struggling state and local governments.

Right now, billions are spent each year on police officers, federal agents, and the entrenched interests of the law enforcement industry. Yet there is not one reliable, verified estimate of the number of murders that have actually been prevented. We would not put up with a track record like this for any private corporation, and we shouldn’t allow such inefficiency in our government, either.

Some argue that legalizing even the simplest murders will lead to the legalization of worse crimes: serial killing, mass slaughter, and even genocide. These slippery slope arguments are only fear-mongering at its worst. No one can prove that these would ever occur, and surely lawmakers and citizens of conscience could craft laws that allowed personal, small-scale murder but kept the most dangerous bombings and terrorist acts illegal.

Meanwhile, anyone who murders even just one person ends up in prison for decades, sometimes for life. “My husband is a good man, a good father,” Blatterson’s wife, Cindy, stated in a tearful press conference after his sentencing. “You can’t imagine a more responsible murderer than Ray. There are so many others Ray could have killed, but he knew how to keep his temper in check. The court has taken away my husband, a wonderful father, and our sole support simply because of these idiotic laws…” She then broke down, unable to continue.

“Mr. Blatterson is no monster,” stated Blatterson's lawyer, Shane Williams, at the same press conference. “There were nineteen bullets in that gun—nineteen—and yet Ray only shot one man. If that isn’t control, I don’t know what is. While madmen are running free in our streets, gunning down dozens of victims without rhyme or reason, this relatively harmless individual, responding to a perfectly natural urge, is nabbed and thrown into a cage to prove some kind of point. A great injustice has been committed here.”

Evan Talbot, spokesman for the Organization for the Sane Murder and End-of-Life Regulation (SMER), stated, “Ray Blatterson is the real victim here. When will the government get out of people’s private business? You cannot regulate morality, but lawmakers and conservative groups continue to attempt to curtail our freedoms, trying to force everyone to live by their outdated and narrow-minded definitions of right and wrong. We must fight these unwarranted restrictions at every turn, and SMER will be at the forefront of that fight.”

What isn’t to like about legalizing murder? We will reduce crime rates, put an end to the criminal monopoly over the industry, allow government regulation, raise revenues, and put an end to the senseless curtailment of personal freedoms so rampant under the previous administration. The proven benefits of murder—stress relief, free expression, population control—far outweigh the terrible consequences of forcing thousands (if not millions) into illegal activity. The billions of dollars we’ve poured into fighting the problem have proven useless: no matter how many small-scale “murderers” are thrown into prison, murders continue each and every day. Victim apologists, big business, and entrenched bureaucrats may object, but it’s time we came to our senses and did the right thing.

The Need to Write

It's only been a bit over three months since the last post—there's no real need for more, but I figure it won't hurt.

And I still don't have my own writing to post. Life has been full to bursting since that last post, but I can't get up the gumption to recap it all. So I offer someone else's words instead.

I found a set of signs I used to have up in my office in order to remind me of why I write, or why I should be writing; to encourage me to get to work or to keep working, or at the least not to give up completely. When I moved offices, they got shuffled, and now they're in bad shape, so I'm working on recreating them.

And I figured I'd get you in on the work. If you know of any inspirational or chastizational (my adjective form for chastising), or other quote that touches on writing—or creative endeavor of any kind—feel free to post it as a comment below. I need all the encouragement I can get these days. (I'm also putting up a similar post with different quotes over on my Facebook page, if you're interested in such things.)

The following comes from Michael Card's book, Scribbling in the Sand, which is a great read. One of my favorite aspects of the book is that it includes a number of letters from Christian artists to others; these are selections from a letter by H.R. Rookmaker:

“If God has given us talents we may use them creatively—or rather, we must use them creatively. A Christian artist is not different from, say, a Christian teacher, minister, scholar, merchant, housewife, or anybody else that has been called by the Lord to specific work in line with his or her talents. There are no specific rules for artists, nor do they have specific exemptions from the norms of good conduct God laid down for man.

“Freedom is the necessary basis for creativity, for creativity is impossible where there is timidity, when you allow yourself to be bound by narrow rules... Freedom is positive. It means being free from tradition, from the feeling that everything you do has to be original, from certain fixed rules said to be necessary in art—but also from the thought that to be creative you must break all kinds of rules and standards.

“Freedom means also that there are no prescriptions for subject matter. There is no need for a Christian to illustrate biblical stories or biblical truth, though he may of course choose to do that. An artist has the right to choose a subject that he thinks worthwhile... It is freedom to help a neighbor out and give him something to delight in.

“... art has its own task and meaning. There is no need to try to justify one's artistic activity by making works with a moralistic message, even if one is free to emphasize moral values. Nor is there any need to think one has to serve as a critic of culture, or always provide eye-openers to the non-artists, or teach, or evangelize, or do whatever other lofty things one can think of. Art has done its task when it provides the neighbor with things of beauty, a joy forever... [The artist] has to make art while thinking of his neighbors in love, helping them, and using his talents on their behalf.”

Picaresque

From my bible reading today, 2 Chronicles 12:7-8:

"Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. They will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands."

How often, I wonder, have I been spared the consequences of my actions, but become "subject" to rulers other than God as a result? How often do I continue to serve under other masters, laboring in vain, because I have repented of the sin of the moment but not given my heart over to Him completely as a result?

The closeness I desire with God, the moment-by-moment experience of walking with Him, can only be found by... well, walking with Him moment by moment. Too often I walk my own way, only throwing my arms around Him when I'm about to plunge off a precipice or I get so mired in a swamp that I cannot pull myself out. Then He sets me aright, and I turn and wander off on my own paths once again.

I think I do this less often than in the past, but this seems like a journey a man might walk—to a greater or lesser extent, and always hopefully growing toward the lesser—all his life. Or maybe I'm pushing this metaphor too far...

This Is Why I Study Literature

It's one thing to get your spiritual sit-upon kicked by an exhortational sermon; it's another to be humbled by a poem:

Batter my heart, three-personed God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurped town, to another due,
Labor to admit you, but O, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy.
Divorce me, untie or break that knot again;
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
—John Donne, "Holy Sonnet 14"

Indecision 2008, Indeed

I'm not even certain I'm going to post this—it has more the character of a mental exercise than anything particularly useful to share. And I realize that by posting it I'm inviting the whirlwind onto my blog space.

But perhaps others can weigh in and sway me. Honestly, I'm in complete confusion when it comes to my vote for the presidency these days. I've been reading articles on the "undecided voter" which suggest that such folks are either (A) uneducated and therefore simply unable to process which way they ought to vote, or (B) secretly do know which way they will vote and just don't want to say. I don't think I'm uneducated, and I'm certainly not coy enough to play dumb. I just cannot make a decision that satisfies me.

For some folks, I know this choice is easy. The moral stance of McCain is, in many ways, a better fit for my own. But I do not know if I can, in good conscience, vote for a candidate whose morals match mine but whose leadership I doubt gravely, and whose choice of a running mate has continued to depress me more with each passing day. If Sarah Palin's style of "golly gee," simplistic, vitriolic, petty, and unprepared "from the cuff" leadership style is the future of the Republican party, I'm glad I abandoned ship for the independent label a long time ago. I am honestly scared about where our nation will head if the McCain/Palin ticket is sworn into office. I liked John McCain eight years ago—now he seems only a hollow simulacrum of that man, whose simplistic talking points, seeming inability to speak substantively, ineloquence, stubbornness, and short-sightedness frankly give me serious pause. I do not like the look of the world promised by McCain, and I have been sorely disappointed by the ugly tone of his campaign.

I do have concerns about Obama's inexperience, but after reading his book and listening to him, I think he is the far more reassuring leader. His stances on many social issues̶healthcare, taxation, the environment—match mine far better than McCain's. (And yes, I know that will come as a shock to many—or maybe not—but there it is.) And I admit that a spirit of optimism and bipartisanship appeals to me far more than McCain's brand of hard-edged fear. Obama's inspirational abilities, as well as his intelligent and thoughtful handling of issues, gives me far more confidence in his leadership abilities.

So why not just swing with Obama if he's so much more appealing? A couple of issues still nag. One is abortion. I am not a single-issue voter (obviously), but it is one of the more serious issues facing us, and McCain's stance is the right one. But, if Obama is to be believed, I am very impressed with his stance that, though abortion may be a woman's right in his opinion, he wants to work to reduce the number of abortions as far as possible. That stance seems more useful than absolute refusal to engage in the debate, leaving things just as they are now. (And I admit to being disappointed that social conservatives can tow the [again, correct] hard line against abortion, but do so little by way of assisting young mothers and children in difficulty.) Given that we are looking at an even more vast Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the president seems unlikely to have much chance to change abortion policy in any case.

The only other issue of note at the moment is the appointment of Supreme Court judges; I suspect I would approve more of McCain's appointments (assuming they made it to the bench through the tedious and partisan confirmation process) than Obama's. That is another serious consideration, but again, I am trying to balance that out against what I suspect would be a painful four years in which the discourse of the nation would become uglier and our nation's greatness lessened.

There's also this lingering suspicion that Obama might be the herald of the Antichrist, being so charismatic and all, but I don't know if that's a voting issue (and if it is, might as well usher in the End Times now, eh?).

I really ought to be writing for NaNoWriMo at the moment, but this has been bouncing about in my brain for too long, and I wanted to free it. I don't but doubt that my friends could have much to say on this subject, and there are far more detailed analyses to be made of the issues, but I solicit any (well reasoned and even-tempered) advice that anyone can offer before Tuesday. (Of course, given the poll numbers, it may not make much difference. But it just might...)

The True Meaning of Halloween

This doesn't in any way replace a "real" post, and I've been meaning to get on here and ask your help in deciding which presidential candidate I should dislike the least, but I found this video and it was too delightful to pass up. (Even if it's not your cup of tea, it's worth watching to the end.)


In The Know: Has Halloween Become Overcommercialized?

We should do it for the children.

Red Tagged

I dunno—I just wanted a clever name for the post.

Frodo over at Mystery Cycles tagged me, and so I shall, sheeplike, follow. More people should do this kind of thing: even though it wastes just as much time and effort as an original post, it feels much easier.

Here are the rules:
1.Post the rules on your blog
2.Write 6 random things about yourself
3.Tag 6 people at the end of your post
4.If you are tagged, just do it, and pass the tag along!

1. I am, and have constantly been for most of my life, obsessed with finding "wilderness"—that is, areas untouched by man. I am coming to realize that I'm really looking for areas only lightly touched by man; in a totally wild area I'd probably be dead within a week. But I've always been saddened to think that there are no unmapped areas in our world, and few places man has not set his foot. I think this is part of why I've always loved fog: not only does it bespeak of the foul weather and cold temperatures I love, but also lends the world an air of mystery, of hidden-ness, the sense that there is much more out there than the normal pathways you tread. Even in my own house, the fog makes me feel isolated, independent, and somehow more alive.
   
   And that's at least a large part of my hiking obsession as well: the quest to find places where we have not marred the landscape beyond a simple trail. That there are so few of these areas left is a constant sorrow to me. I was reminded of this again when I came across a passage in John McPhee's Coming into the Country, about his collection of essays on Alaska. On meeting a grizzly in the woods, he says this:
   

   What mattered was not so much the bear himself as what the bear implied. He was the predominant thing in that country, and for him to be in it at all meant that there had to be more country like it in every direction and more of the same kind of country all around. He implied a world.

   
   That's at least part of what draws my heart northward. Here in Southern California, there just do not exist such places. On a narrow ridge of arid mountain, surrounded by city on all sides, it feels like we exist on an island of nature amidst urban seas, and their effluvia pollutes us. I thank God I live on that island rather than down in the muck, but still...


2. It strikes me that point Number 1 up there is self-serving, self-pitying, annoyingly mannered, and pointlessly baroque. That's how most of my writing strikes me, which is perhaps why I have such trouble with it. I cannot for the life of me figure out why something I profess to want to do, that I feel called to do, that has taken up so much of my breathing and thinking and desiring for so long, is something I cannot make myself do without threats and desperation. How can that be? Have I just convinced myself that I "should" be a writer, to the point that I can't let go of it? Is there any other pursuit that one must chain oneself to to get it done? Am I kidding myself?
   
   Rose is a gorgeous singer, and this semester at school she's taking a voice class. She loves going to class; she loves the practice; she loves the performances (or will do, when they come up next month). She doesn't claim to want to be a singer but constantly find other ways to amuse herself instead of practicing; she doesn't whine about how she wants to be professional singer but then refuse to actually pursue singing; she doesn't say that she's called to sing and then make constant excuses for doing anything but sing, or claim her job is "too hard" to leave her any time for singing.
   
   Something's not right here.


3. I appreciate climate control as much as the next person, but my office is so cold that I'm wearing a jacket at the moment and I keep making typing mistakes because I'm shivering and my fingers feel numb. Really, people—let the natural temperature have precedence once in a while, or at least TURN DOWN THE BLASTED AIR CONDITIONING.


4. As life continues I feel slightly more able at manual tasks that are required of me (i.e.: wielding a chainsaw, building a block wall, changing oil in the car), yet I'm constantly reminded of (a) how few things that really constitutes; (b) the many, many tasks that I cannot figure out (i.e.: fixing my leaking faucet, building stairs to my currently unusable back porch, locating my now-buried water main); and (c) how even those things I have learned I cannot reliably repeat because I don't do them often enough. I want to be a grown-up.


5. I'm putting way too much thought into coming up with random thoughts, which kind of describes much of my approach to life. I cannot recall what show it was on, but in one sitcom a character is being derided for not being spontaneous. His response was along the lines of, "I like spontaneity, as long as it's controlled and planned out ahead of time." That's me, and that makes me sad.


6. I love the wind: the feeling of air rushing along my skin and ruffling my clothes, the sound of it roaring through the trees, the squall and scatter it causes on the ground. But nowadays that love it tainted with a constant fear of wildfire, and I find myself scanning the mountains every time I walk to or from class, looking for a line of smoke and wondering if we're going to get evacuated again. That's life in the West these days, I suppose.

I hesitate to post this at all—it seems my "random" thoughts today are taken up with the angry. This is the most complain-y thing I've put up for a long time, and it's just a kind of "blah" cycle, or an attack, or something. I was actually feeling pretty good this morning... Thanks a heap for tagging me and bringing up these painful thoughts, Frodo!

Oh—the people to whom I'm passing on this cursed electronic virus called tagging:

Slater
My Sis
Matt the Fox
Corrina
The Esteemed Mrs. Miller
Katie ('cause the last time she wrote was the last time I tagged her...)

I'm going to go teach. *grump*

Hope and Patience

Two things in short supply in my life at the moment.

We're in the midst of homeschool (since Rose [Joanna's code name, if mine is Samwise] is taking a voice class on Fridays and so is gone all day). So I've been running things during her absence for the last couple of weeks.

Legolas, if you're reading this: this is absolute confirmation that I should not teach second or third grade. Ever.

How Rose manages to keep her brain in one piece between cleaning, keeping Denver and Poncho on track, and keeping an eye on Born Dancin', I'll never know. I already knew it was an incredibly hard job, but sheesh. One kid is lolling out on the table, daydreaming; the other is tapping out mysterious rhythms with his pencil, and Born Dancin' has just emptied her water cup all over the living room carpet. Oh, yeah. Bring it on.

So I haven't posted forever, and I make no promises as to how often I'll pick it up again now. I'm trying to pare down things in my life as it is, and much as I love reading other people's blogs and feel free to chastise them for not posting, I'm coming to either (a) resent feeling guilty for not posting, and/or (b) spending too much time figuring out what I'm going to post. I've got endless amounts of other writing to do, and I've already given up World of Warcraft (only took me 3 months to come to rue buying that thing—entertaining time-waster extraordinaire) and other minor annoyances; most likely, we'll be getting rid of TV again this week. So I'll see you on here when I do.

Meanwhile, here's the wrap-up for the summer:

• Sequoia Camping—Our trip to the Sequoia National Monument went very well, despite a ten-hour drive home thanks to insane traffic. It was lovely up there, and, like a miracle, the fish-stocking folk from the Forest Service showed up again, netting us about 18 fish among the ten of us. Now the kids really do expect that is what fishing is like.


• Idaho—The long journey to Idaho was pretty fantastic. I'm always a fan of road trips, and the drive was excellent. We stopped by the Slaters' gorgeous house and had a blast for two days meandering through their idyllic country landscape at the foot of the Sierras. Grass Valley is a lovely place.
  
  Then it was on over the mountains to Nevada (and my deepest apologies to anyone who actually has to live there), then up through a corner of Oregon and on into Idaho. It was delightful to see the sister for a good solid week, though I think we wore her out and I can imagine the quiet after we departed was appreciated. We got to raft the river, go to a host of tasty restaurants, watch Grandma squirm while watching nature documentaries about cave lice and eyeless fish, and hang out among the charming Idahoans. We even got to visit my pseudo-relatives up in McCall, where I would move instantaneously if given the opportunity.
  
  The drive home was a little crazy and we got home one day before summer school started, but overall it was a lovely trip.


• Summer School—Speaking of summer school, don't.
  
  Eurgh. Due to issues with The Great Wall (discussed below), summer school was a kind of hell this year. I was behind constantly, missed too much class time, and basically felt as if I had been hollowed out and filled with poisonous millipedes all summer. It was a joy to be done, but some of the students still haunt me into this new semester.


• The Great Wall—Replacing our retaining wall has been the largest, most terrifying project I've ever taken on, and for several weeks there I thought we would literally be buried alive. Doing it ourselves was our only option (since our original contractor so severely underbid the job that we didn't have the funds to get professionals to do it). It seemed possible, but 100 feet of 4-foot wall was a monster. When the neighbors' yard filled up with pallet after pallet of 60-pound bricks, I almost fainted. God be praised, the army of friends and relatives mentioned in my previous post showed up to lend a hand, and through several weeks of toil, the vast majority of the wall arose. Yesterday we got the last load of capstones and I'll spend this weekend trying to finish the beast off to some extent. Now we just have to figure out how to get some stairs in here from the street...
  
  Oh—I forgot a couple of folks from my earlier list of helpers. Rose's sister and our niece and nephew spent at least one afternoon here lending a hand, and our former neighbor Debra spent so much time here in the early weeks of construction that I nearly forgot she didn't live here. Many thanks to them as well.


• The Neighborhood—Speaking of neighbors, don't.
  
  After having the house next door stand empty for half a year after the Claypools left, we got a herd of new people. Eight people in a house built for half that many. They're an interesting bunch. On first glance, the multiple tattoos, the incessant smoking, the fairly constant profanity, and the fleet of off-road vehicles did not inspire confidence. When the sheriff's officers showed up and had two of them on the ground in handcuffs with weapons drawn on the others, this did not improve our impression (Thankfully, this was mostly a misunderstanding, since someone had come and threatened them. Still, though...) However, they've proven to be very generous and easygoing folk, which was a blessing while we had their yard buried in bricks and since we have to tromp across their property to reach our house. Not an ideal situation, perhaps, but we're working things out. A lot of mental pressure there, whatever the case.


• The Present—(It ends soon, I promise.) So Fall semester is in full swing, and I feel more on top of things than I have for a while. (I'm still not anything like caught up, but I'm less behind than I have been lately.) I'm working on a murder party for my niece's 16th birthday, and I'm way behind on that. I dream daily of doing my own writing again (on the fancy new computer my wife brought back with her from her trip to Indiana for a week—all the children made it in one piece, which was a bonus) and not having much time to is frustrating. (And don't go pointing out that I could have done that rather than post here—this post has been cobbled together piecemeal over the last six hours whenever there was a pause in the homeschool regimen.) The yearning for a new place, for grasping a purpose and a plan beyond day-to-day survival is burning hot in me, and in Rose to some extent as well.

And that's about it. A giagantor post, but at least it's all out of my head now. I'll pop back in when I can, and God bless in the meantime to all my readers and fellow blogiteers.

Because This Is Easier than a Real Blog Post

First, I wanted to give my endless gratitude for all those who came and took a turn slaving on the Great Wall. It's now mostly finished, with just capstones and one tricky corner left to tackle. Most of the bricks are out of the neighbors' yard, and though the house is still a catastrophe, at least there isn't an insurmountable project hanging over us. So many, many thanks to Holly and Joseph, to Herr Eldevik, to Ben and Debbie, to Gimli and Frodo, and to my old man for helping out in various and highly needed ways.

Now, on to the easy bit:


From the blog, Very Good Taste

Here’s a chance for a little interactivity for all the bloggers out there. Below is a list of 100 things that I think every good omnivore should have tried at least once in their life. The list includes fine food, strange food, everyday food and even some pretty bad food - but a good omnivore should really try it all. Don’t worry if you haven’t, mind you; neither have I, though I’ll be sure to work on it. Don’t worry if you don’t recognise everything in the hundred, either; Wikipedia has the answers.

Here’s what I want you to do:

1) Copy this list into your blog or journal, including these instructions.
2) Bold all the items you’ve eaten.
3) Cross out any items that you would never consider eating.
4) Optional extra: Post a comment here at www.verygoodtaste.co.uk linking to your results.


My results:

1. Venison
2. Nettle tea
3. Huevos rancheros
4. Steak tartare
5. Crocodile (Well, actually, alligator, but I consider another large, water-borne reptile close enough)
6. Black pudding (Ah, British cuisine... Bring it on.)
7. Cheese fondue (Is there anyone born in '70s America who hasn't had this?)
8. Carp
9. Borscht (Not quite stroganoff, but still good stuff.)
10. Baba ghanoush (I'm kind of shocked I haven't had this yet.)
11. Calamari
12. Pho
13. PB&J sandwich
14. Aloo gobi (I might have had this at one of my visits to Indian restaurants in England, but if I can't remember for certain, I won't claim it. Sounds yummy.)
15. Hot dog from a street cart
16. Epoisses (Man—why haven't I had this yet?)
17. Black truffle (I wish.)
18. Fruit wine made from something other than grapes
19. Steamed pork buns (Huzzah for dim sum!)
20. Pistachio ice cream (But why pistachio? Is it magic or something?)
21. Heirloom tomatoes
22. Fresh wild berries (Stealing blackberries from the neighbor's yard is fun.)
23. Foie gras (A bit cruel, but what can you do?)
24. Rice and beans
25. Brawn, or head cheese (Can't say I'm all eager, but I'd give it a shot.)
26. Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper (Wowsers!)
27. Dulce de leche
28. Oysters (Actually haven't had these; again, I'm not going to run out and find them [especially after watching Mr. Bean eat them], but I'd try them out.)
29. Baklava (Oh, mama.)
30. Bagna cauda (Sounds yum.)
31. Wasabi peas (Though I can't imagine eating one again.)
32. Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl (Yes!)
33. Salted lassi (Sounds weird, but okay.)
34. Sauerkraut (I don't generally eat it unless threatened, however.)
35. Root beer float
36. Cognac with a fat cigar (Sadly, not at the same time. Have to rectify that.)
37. Clotted cream tea (Oh, man. Don't get me started on clotted cream.)
38. Vodka jelly/Jell-O (Never did a shooter. Can't quite see the point, since drunkenness is not my aim.)
39. Gumbo
40. Oxtail (Do yourself a favor: eat this.)
41. Curried goat (Smelled it every day coming out of our apartment in Toronto, but never actually got around to eating it.)
42. Whole insects (On purpose? If pressed, I suppose.)
43. Phaal (Holy moly. Well, okay.)
44. Goat’s milk
45. Malt whisky from a bottle worth £60/$120 or more (Not as of yet, but I'd sign on.)
46. Fugu (More of a legend than a dish; there's no way I'd ever afford this, but if someone I knew and trusted gave me some, okay.)
47. Chicken tikka masala
48. Eel (They used to raise these by the ton in the canals of Edinburgh, so how could I say no?)
49. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut (Waaay too sweet, but I've eaten them, yes.)
50. Sea urchin
51. Prickly pear
52. Umeboshi (Gah. Our Japanese exchange student had us try these, and laughed his head off at our reactions. If you like squishy, slimy balls of salt, knock yourself out.)
53. Abalone (Ah, but they weren't illegal when I was a boy. Not bad.)
54. Paneer (If it's cheese, please put it into my mouth.)
55. McDonald’s Big Mac Meal (Sadly, yes. Many a time.)
56. Spaetzle
57. Dirty gin martini (Never done the martini thing. Gin and tonic works wonders, though, save that it puts me to sleep almost instantly.)
58. Beer above 8% ABV (I'd try it, but I'm no fan of beer.)
59. Poutine (Sounds like we're making a road trip now.)
60. Carob chips (Not sure why you'd want to, but yes.)
61. S’mores (Too sweet and messy. I eat the components separately, usually.)
62. Sweetbreads (Meh. Why not? Might take some mental gymnastics, but I'd put it in my mouth.)
63. Kaolin (This the one I came closest to crossing off. Just... Why? If you are not poor and mineral deficient or pregnant, then why?)
64. Currywurst
65. Durian (Heard of this one—Guess I'd have to smell it to know for sure.)
66. Frogs’ legs (I'm pretty positive we had these in the South somewhere; if not, I'm still in.)
67. Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake (Yes, please.)
68. Haggis (So want to try this, and so jealous of all the Burns Dinner folks. Joanna wasn't quite up to it, though.)
69. Fried plantain
70. Chitterlings, or andouillette (Sir, I'll have you know that chitterlings kept my family alive during the War!)
71. Gazpacho
72. Caviar and blini (Not at the same time, though. Blini, yes—always. Caviar, only in tiny bits—in the immortal words of Scott Nelson, "It's like licking a pier.")
73. Louche absinthe (After watching Moulin Rouge, who wouldn't want to try this? Wee little Kylie Minogue fairy, here I come!)
74. Gjetost, or brunost (Cheese, so yes, please.)
75. Roadkill (Not yet, but kill a deer with a bullet or a bumper—it's all good.)
76. Baijiu (Don't see why not.)
77. Hostess Fruit Pie (I sometimes suffer cravings that can only be satisfied by a Fruit Pie the Magician apple infusion.)
78. Snail (Eating escargot is like eating a sponge full of garlic butter.)
79. Lapsang souchong (Sounds excellent.)
80. Bellini (The Italian physicist? Oh, the drink. Well, sure.)
81. Tom yum (Getting past the prawn head would be the challenge, yes.)
82. Eggs Benedict
83. Pocky (Heard of it, even seen it, but never had any of it.)
84. Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant (I wish.)
85. Kobe beef (Again, I wish.)
86. Hare (Not yet. Rabbit's fine, but I hear this is a different beast entirely. Never got over to Wales for the rarebit.)
87. Goulash (Oh, yes.)
88. Flowers (Candied orchids at my Elizabethan murder party. Tasty, if a bit chewy. Also, we used to eat the vinka flowers from the garden.)
89. Horse (Garrett swears up and down that this is fantastic; I'd give it a try.)
90. Criollo chocolate
91. Spam (Are you kidding, Marilyn? A little fried Spam is heaven for breakfast. Or a lot of fried Spam. Spam eggs Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam and Spam for me!)
92. Soft shell crab
93. Rose harissa (More willing to try this as my taste for hot things grows.)
94. Catfish (Not my favorite.)
95. Mole poblano
96. Bagel and lox (Once. Not again, save under duress.)
97. Lobster Thermidor (Oh, I wish.)
98. Polenta
99. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee (Any coffee is good coffee.)
100. Snake (Rattlesnake is fine.)

Amidst the Sound of Jackhammers

You know, I'm going to coin a new phrase, meant to be used along the lines of, "Life is like a box of chocolates," only hopefully less inane. Mine runs like this:

You never know that your house's previous owners have filled the hollows of your retaining wall with cement until you begin to tear it down.

Life here is full of dust and madness as we attempt to tear down all our old walls and put up new, hopefully so that the hillside does not slide down and crush us all this winter. And once we started the demolition, we discovered that every space inside each block our apparently mortarless walls was filled with a solid column of concrete, with a nice little strand of rebar through the middle. Meaning that it was very strong, until it started to fail, and now it's just hellacious to break through. We've had to hire a couple of guys to come in with jackhammers to try and get the thing down. Meanwhile, I'm the pick-up-discarded-chunks-of-wall-and-cart-them-away guy, and it's never been more apparent that I'm a soft, flabby white teacher. I'm just on a break from that job now, and I had best get back.

Though our crisis is nowhere near on the level that so many others seem to be going through with family, health, job, and such issues, a prayer or two winged our way would not go amiss. I'll try to get some "before" pictures up so that the "after" pictures one day may have context.

Oh--and I have to grade in here, somewhere. Yeesh.

Back to hauling blocks!

This Comes as a Surprise to No One

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0 created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Batman, the Dark Knight As the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause. Batman, the Dark Knight 79% Neo, the "One" 67% Maximus 58% Indiana Jones 58% William Wallace 58% Lara Croft 54% El Zorro 54% Captain Jack Sparrow 50% James Bond, Agent 007 46% The Terminator 42% The Amazing Spider-Man 42%

We are alive and having a wild, crazy summer; I'll try to put up a real post soon.

Up-to-the-Minute Update

Just thought I'd drop in to apologize for not posting for so long and to try to catch you all up on what a mass of insanity our lives have been, and what insanity lies ahead. At least ours has been mostly self-chosen and positive.

So, the past couple of weeks have included

• The end of the semester for me, including trying to deal with a student who plagiarized a paper, was given a second chance (a circumstance that will not be repeated for any future students), and plagiarized a second time


• The boys ending school, freeing them up to be wild monkeys on a full-time basis


• A Cub Scout hike/campout dinner, at which the boys graduated to being Wolf Scouts (for those of you out of the Cub Scout loop for some years, there are now four gradations: Bobcat, Tiger, Wolf, and Bear. I am convinced that these were added in order to make parents pay for four sets of hats, belt buckles, neckerchiefs, and slides during their sons' Cub Scout career). Also, Born Dancin' once again showed her propensity to become instantly covered in grime (in this case, a combination of dirt, popcorn cheese, fried chicken grease, and s'mores)


• Speaking of, Born Dancin' turned three last week, and we had her birthday party today during which she showed her propensity to become instantly covered in grime (in this case, a combination of bubble gum and stolen lollypops, bubble blowing solution, sand, dirt, and Play-Dough)


• I attended the Audio Publishers Association conference (thanks to all the generous contributors who got me there), and it was pretty great. I spent the day trying to chat up audio publishers and fellow narrators, and there were some excellent panel discussions and demonstrations. It was much better than I thought it might be—now I just need to get my demo shaped up and sent out. Pippin is helping me with my website and has up my current demo if you want a listen. (I may add a track or two, if I can get my wee home recording set-up to emulate the fancy-pants recording studio within which the original tracks were recorded


• As Frodo reported, I have brought the evil that is World of Warcraft into my home, and had the audacity to drag several of those I care about with me. Now Gimli, Frodo, Joanna, and I have played many an hour. Thankfully, the charm is starting to wear off, so I can occasionally drag myself away.


• I'm beginning to work on the murder party my niece requested for her sixteenth birthday. It's a Civil War affair (actually, I'm setting it in the Reconstruction, just so's we don't have to have people kill one another instantly), and I've never done such a thing for teenagers before, so it's challenging but interesting

Now, given all that, if the summer held the promise of some cooling-down time and relaxation, some broad swaths of calm, that would be nice. But a partial list of the schedule for the coming months:

• We leave tomorrow for five days of camping in the Sequoias with a friend's family. It's a beautiful spot and a fun trip, but always exhausting. Born Dancin', no doubt, will display her propensity to become instantly covered in grime, several times a day


• When we return, we'll have four days, and then we pile everyone back in the ol' minivan to head up first to Pippin's house for a day or so, and then on to Kathie's place for almost two weeks. She thinks she's ready for this; we shall see. I know that will be a great time, and it'll be terrific to finally see this new palatial mansion she's moved in to. If that "bonus room" isn't the bee's knees, I shall be sorely put out


• We'll get back just a couple of days before summer school starts, so that will keep me pretty well booked for six weeks. It'll be hard to get back into the swing of things since I took last summer off


• Partway through July comes a Cub Scout camp, which will be intense but fun; then a trip to Mammoth with the folks, because how can you turn down Mammoth?


• August brings us to the end of summer school and Joanna heading back east to visit her family and friends for a week, leaving me with solo dad duty. It'll definitely be the longest either of us has been away all at once, and by far the longest we've been without mom (though she was away with Born Dancin' nearly that long a couple of years ago), so it'll be an educational experience for us all, no doubt


• Denver and Poncho turn seven in August as well, so there'll be birthday madness to plan all over again. Thanks to watching Mommy and Daddy play World of Warcraft, no doubt they'll want a Tauren and Draenei party (though, given their almost-seven-year-old natures, that's likely to change a dozen times in the next two months)


• And then, one week after summer school ends, the fall semester begins in mid-August. Egads.

So that's what's up at the Slusser household. If you don't hear from me often over the summer, you'll know why, but I'll certainly be trying to put forth a better effort once we return from the wilderness.