the duenorth archives.

why fred fascinates me

When other presidential would-be's are out raising funds like there's no tomorrow, Fred is appealing to the American people: my cancer is in remission; I'm strong. When other political starlets and long-standing Washingtonians are declaring they're RIGHT FOR THE JOB, Fred is simply saying: I see things that need to be done that only a president can do. When other '08 hopefuls are preening and posturing (to say nothing of changing their accents), Fred is playing it straight and honest, tried-and-true with those who will listen. And more and more people are listening.

The guy isn't playing the game the way the game is played.

But I kinda like that.

www.imwithfred.com

you thought you knew pachelbel

there's a line in there somewhere that's been crossed

I'm a country music fan, thanks to my big sister. It probably started when we were kids, and I did everything she did because I wanted to be cool like her. So I would sing along to her Garth, her Shania, and her George Strait. But today, much more my own person (I hope), I listen to country music because I want to. Because it's faith, family, and country music.

Despite the Chicks, it's still patriotic, all-American music.

The trouble began in 2003, when Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines declared to a London audience, "We're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." This, at a time when the entire country was behind Bush as we entered Iraq. We were (and are still) at war. The backlash was immediate and forceful. Stations all across the U.S. took the Chicks off the air and their fans turned their backs.

They disappeared for two years, with the occasional exception of a blurb like that run in May 2003's Entertainment Weekly, geared particularly for the shock factor. (By the way, did anybody actually read that story? I think we all just stared at the front cover with the Chicks posing naked with words like "Traitors" and "Shut up!" written across their bodies.) Sensationalism sells, I guess.

Now, in today's world of national doubt and lost backbones, the Chicks are feeling justified. Their newest album, released last year, has put them back on top with the in-your-face single "Not Ready to Make Nice." And, by golly, they've even got their own documentary--just released in February--that chronicles the entire saga.

But there's a line in there somewhere that's been crossed.

The line is called responsibility. They're not politicians, not policy-makers, not military. They're just citizens of the United States who happen to have a pretty big soapbox. Do I, personally, want them to "Shut Up and Sing," as their documentary is defiantly titled? Nope, not in the least. This is a free country with freedom of speech. Read your first amendment rights.

My beef with the Chicks is that they're irresponsible with that big soapbox...irresponsible to the point of harm. To the point, even, of indirectly weakening our resolve and our unity in a time of war. That has serious repercussions. They haven't single-handedly done this, of course--I wouldn't attribute that much power to them. But they are a contributing factor to the disunity we see in our country today.

The Chicks are blinded by their influence, money, and prestige. Their fame (or infamy) has brought them to a position of power, and they have repeatedly abused it. They are not the first to have done so. Nor will they be the last. We can't, nor should we, try to stop people from speaking their minds.

But we should diffuse the effect, because it's a solid gold fact that nobody has the monopoly on knowledge. Why should the Chicks or anybody else be able to influence your opinion? Be an informed and educated citizen, and you will have nothing to fear from irresponsibility.

i stand corrected

Vilsack's Withdrawal Troubles Centrist Democrats

So former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack withdrew his presidential bid Friday, February 23, 2007. He's more pragmatic than I gave him credit for. (See "early predictions").

early predictions

In the not-too-distant American past, we would have said that it's too early to begin 24-hour insatiable coverage of our potential presidential nominees. As I write this, Election Day 2008 is 622 days and 14936 hours away.

And yet, it has the feel of the bandwagon: Has he announced his candidacy? Yeah, yeah, I know all about the exploratory committee, but has he ANNOUNCED? And later, what in the world is that governor from Iowa thinking? Still later, she's cold and never makes a wrong move; he's young and charismatic...what are the polls showing in New Hampshire?

And so my early thoughts:

(First, my own party)

McCain: Despite his war hero status (for which I can't help but admire him), I haven't seen much of a backbone. His political strategy has been to distance himself as far away from Bush and the Conservatives as you can possibly get and still be within the Republican party--and he did this early on. He knows he only has one shot at this thing.

Romney: Former Republican governor of a very Democratic state: Massachusetts. You gotta give him credit. Remember back a couple, three years ago you heard something about gay marriage becoming legal there? Yeah, he did all he could to stop that. Good guy, though overshadowed by more magnetic lights in the Republican party.

Brownback: Republican Senator with CONVICTIONS! A Conservative's conservative. Maybe my early personal choice, but I'm not sure if he has the other critical factor called electability. There are a lot of people out there who hate what he stands for with a burning passion of ten thousand fires. We'll see if he can effectively put them out.

Giuliani: Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England. Okay, really, bull-dog of a Republican former mayor of New York City, America's Mayor after 9/11, and all that good stuff. Rudy is a household name. Kind of like Hillary. Not a Conservative on the social issues, but I admire him because he stands by what he believes. At this point, I believe Giuliani is the only one who is electable, especially considering the opposition's playing field.

(On to that other party)

Vilsack: Who? I only know him because I myself an am Iowan. But the rest of nation can't claim that connection. (Thank goodness! Otherwise Iowa wouldn't be Iowa...but I digress.) He's not going to win, and probably is in the race simply to spend Democrat dollars in Iowa so Hillary doesn't have to.

Obama: Who? Well, okay, we know who he is now. But four years ago, who'd have ever heard of Barack Obama? When he gave the keynote address at the '04 DFL convention, I remember Peggy Noonan writing, "A star is born." And that's proving more and more correct. He's a charismatic Socialist disguised as a middle-of-the-road Democrat. A wolf in sheep's clothing (if you could ever compare a Democrat to a sheep). But he sure can speak.

Clinton: No, the other one. Hillary. The brains behind the outfit. (And I say that disparagingly.) Perhaps the only candidate in U.S. election history who can campaign with only her first name. That, in itself, is imposing. She will be the Democrat nominee. And she'll be difficult to beat. She has the money, the support, and the will to win. She's in this to the bitter end.

independence day

"When the last dutiful & humble petition from Congress received no other Answer than declaring us Rebels, and out of the King's protection, I from that Moment look'd forward to a Revolution & Independence, as the only means of Salvation; and will risque the last Penny of my Fortune, & the last Drop of my Blood upon the Issue."

-George Mason (October 2, 1778)

Go Eagles!

Yesterday, on the eighth of October, a Division III college football team made history. The Northwestern College Eagles…my team.

I had heard that ESPN and others would be covering the story, so I went to investigate. And there it was, front and center on ESPN’s college football page: “Eagles Take More From Two Games Than Just Wins.” It’s a great article by Wayne Drehs:

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- The game is already over, the home team has won. Now it's time to decompress.

At the end of one hallway, a pair of lineman sit slumped against a wall, nodding off in exhaustion. On a quiet stairwell not far away, a receiver buries his head in Scripture. In the trainer's room, players sprawl out on any open piece of carpet they can find. And upstairs in the coach's office, five men sit around a platter of sandwiches trying to figure out just how this is going to work.

On any other normal fall football Saturday, the day would be over for the Division III Northwestern College Eagles. Already having disposed of winless Trinity Bible College 59-0, they should be heading home. To their wives. To their girlfriends. To an afternoon of watching college football from the couch.

Following the games, players barely had enough energy to eat some postgame pizza.

But this is unlike any other Saturday in college football history. The Eagles' work is only half finished. In a little less than four hours, 6½ miles down the road, there's another game to be played, another physical, mental and emotional peak to be reached.

Read more here.

New Orleans

I don't know exactly what to say about Hurricane Katrina. From a historian's perspective, this week has been monumental and there will be much to record. Weaknesses in the levees, weaknesses in the response, strength and determination from the victims, the relief teams, and the President. From an American's perspective, I grieve for my country. There have been highs and lows, and more highs...and I'm not just talking about the gas prices.

The footage is incredible and disturbing. As far removed as I am geographically from New Orleans (we've been enjoying nothing but gorgeous weather up north for the past couple weeks), it's hard to relate, except that I keep reminding myself that these are my countrymen.

And so I donated to the Red Cross.

And I pray.

What shocks me the most is the looting and the guns on the streets of New Orleans. The city is dead, its people are hurt, confused, and homeless. But why rob the gun supply in the local Wal-mart? Why commandeer an aid truck with your fellow vigilantes sporting AK-47s and roam the streets looking for opportunities to release anger and fear? This is a dark definition of survival...I run out of words.

I weep for those who turn to lawlessness and exploitation; I weep for those who have given up on hope.

And I pray.

There is always hope. We are not without strength, resources, determination. As Americans, we have overcome hardship and despair many times in the history of our existence. We will overcome this. But how do I truly know this? How do I know that this time will not be the time we bend, not the time we fall and cannot rise, not the time the sun fails to rise on a new day? Because above all, I know that there is a God in heaven who is not ignorant of our greatest needs. As the author of Hebrews says, "Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive and find grace to help us in our time of need." (Heb. 4:16)

And so I pray.

Frustrations Behind the Wheel

I heard on the morning news that the safest drivers in the United States are those from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This is according to some insurance study or something. Can you believe it? Now when I heard this, I was not in Iowa and thus not listening to an Iowa radio station, but being from Iowa I listened for the inevitable slam. And then it came--"Well, I guess there's more than corn in Iowa." Oh, yeah. In case you missed it, there it was.

I just have to get this out there--I am sick of people slamming Iowa! Because I'm an Iowan, I have every right to slam my own state when and if the opportunity presents itself, but I will not allow it from others who have no idea what they're talking about! And incidentally, simply having driven through the state on I-35 does not merit the privilege either, I'm sorry. Iowa may not have 10,000 lakes like Minnesota or mountains like the West or oceans like the coasts, but the state certainly claims a simple beauty of its own. And its people are stubborn, hardworking, unpretentious, down-to-earth, good people...

...who also happen to be the world's slowest drivers.

Currently Reading

I've been saying I'll read it for about a year now. It's been sitting on my shelf for about half that time. It was the first book that I chose to pick up after my college graduation, the first book that I chose to read in this new era that affords me choice in my literature habits. David McCullough's Pulitzer prize winning John Adams is a monumental piece of work.

The FORCE is Loose

To see a movie in a Minnesota theater is not an experience marked by the camaraderie of an exuberant audience. I have been in theaters where this is the case--where the audience participates in an audible, vivacious manner--but not in Minnesota. Here, movie-going can be quite dull if noise is the experience you're used to; it can be frigid and still like the winters.

The FORCE changed all that. When Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith opened last week, it was if all that pent-up passion shunned by the Jedi and embraced by the Sith broke loose on Minnesotan movie-goers. There was cheering, singing, whistles, laughter and tears in the darkened theaters.

But enough of the dimensions of audience thaw. When the Star Wars logo hit the screen with that bombastic music accentuating it, I was plunged back into the world of galactic empires, the Jedi, lightsabers, droids, and--of course--the FORCE. This time the tale was darker and the path to the Dark Side more slippery because there was much, much more to lose.

Do I recommend Sith to you? Absolutely...but on the condition that you are already a fan. If you don't appreciate the tale that Star Wars has to tell, then Sith will certainly not change your mind. For those who are wondering what has come over the world in the past week, or perhaps even noticed the heightened energy of Minnesotan audiences, but have not yet engaged in the tale, then do not start with Sith! For you, though I think you have perhaps been hiding under a rock for the past 25 years, I recommend that you see the series in chronological order beginning with Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

What is it about Star Wars that so obsesses American culture--indeed, even culture at large? I personally believe it's the resonant thread of hope and heroism amidst the battle of good-versus-evil that causes that catch in our throats and fills us with an inexplicable exhortation to fight against all odds--though I may be wrong. By all means, share your thoughts with me.

Great Thoughts in Government Class

My high school government teacher was one of the best teachers I ever had. Honestly. He was engaging, challenging, and above all had great report with his students. Mr. Young said something once that I?ll never forget--ever. The particular class discussion for the day was on the democratic principle of citizen engagement:

?Students,? he remarked off-handedly as the class came to a close, ?honestly, I don?t care whether you vote or not. For each one of you who doesn?t vote, that makes my vote count all the more.?

I left that class slightly discomfited. Actually, more than that. I knew, though I couldn?t put my finger on it at the time, that the sentiment he candidly expressed was arrogant. It was antagonistic. It was antithetical to everything a responsible civics teacher should be teaching--that is, the duty of the American citizen to become involved.

It was a profound moment in my education.

Though at the most basic level the remark was entirely correct, it was also jaded. It was fundamentally opposed to what I would later come to understand as my obligation as an American citizen to engage in discourse with my fellow countrymen, participate in--not just stand aside and observe--the political and social struggles of our country, and cast my vote on Election Day.

I was reminded of this moment--lingering in the recesses of my memory--when I read an address Dr. Dobson printed in Focus on the Family?s Action Newsletter dated April 2005. Coming on the heels of the upsetting death of Terri Shiavo and other decisions-that-should-make-us-spitting-mad, Dr. Dobson rightly castigates the haughty and unruly judicial system for their oligarchical, morally-relativistic rulings.

The words of Justice Antonin Scalia are chilling:

?So it is literally true?that the court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people.?

Dr. Dobson continues on in a raw appeal:

?Please tell me you understand the danger of this outrageous situation. To put ultimate power in the hands of those who promise to make up their rules as they go along--or to base them on treaties that were never ratified by Congress--is a recipe for disaster. Democracy itself hangs in the balance.?

He?s right, you know. I hope you realize that. The gravity of the situation is immense. The crises that face our country today are no less heart-rending than the crises our parents and grandparents faced in the Great Depression and World Wars, no less terrifying than the generation of our ancestors who fought their brothers on American soil in a war that had the very morally-charged issue of slavery at stake. But the difference is that today?s fight is our fight.

Though I look back with fondness on Mr. Young?s government class, he was not correct on this issue. It is our duty to become involved. We engage culture and fight for the truth at the polls, across the lunch-counter with a co-worker, on the bus-ride home with a seat-mate, at church with a fellow congregant, with a neighbor in our backyard, with our friends, with our spouses, with our sons.

Above all, we bring our country before the throne of our Heavenly Father.

Please take the time to read Dr. Dobson?s letter. Pay attention to it; it's the stuff of which history is made.

Eugenics: The Choice of the Century

I’ve heard it said that the great question of the 20th century is eugenics—the question of the 20th and the choice of the 21st. Today in Northwestern’s chapel, Dr. Nigel Cameron spoke convincingly and lucidly of the convergent technology and of the wisdom and caution that is so necessary to any treatment of the subject.

Biotechnology, nanotechnology (so new, incidentally, that my spell-check doesn’t even recognize the word), cognitive science, gene therapy, germline treatment—all are words that conjure images of sterile lab environments, petri dishes, DNA and things really, really small. Have you ever stopped to wonder where all this is taking us? Dr. Cameron certainly took me and my fellow collegians “there” whether or not we wanted to go.

Picture this: Dolly the sheep—cloned in Edinborough, Scotland. Attempts to clone a human being. Babies by design—human design, not God’s. Genetic diseases removed at the germline—no longer hereditary, no longer a threat to future generations. Some of this isn’t so bad.

The nature of man changed by man himself.

20th century science has witnessed the leap into the unknown. The sky is the limit, if there are truly limits at all. But—wait. In our determined effort to conquer nature, what will we achieve in the end? When we stop for a breath, where will we be? What moral quicksand awaits the unobservant human race? To borrow a line from Jurassic Park:

“We tried so hard to get here, to see if we could, that we never stopped to ask if we should.” (Well, it goes something like that.)

I think C.S. Lewis was a man of great vision. He looked to the horizon from the vantage point of a war that catapulted the world into the new technological age and saw the dilemma we would get ourselves into. In the Abolition of Man, he speaks of man’s attempt to conquer nature, while instead being unwittingly conquered by it. Whether or not we recognize this now, we will find that, in the end, we do indeed have limits. We are the created, not the Creator. The choice of the century is before us. Will it be wisdom or foolishness? Will we be noble bearers of power or reckless lunatics with a very big gun?

Under Construction

For the next few weeks, this site will be under construction. We apologize for any upcoming bizarre fonts, styles, graphics, colors, links that don't go anywhere, random phrases, etc. But stick around--duenorth perspectives is not going anywhere.

Thanks for your loyalty. :o)

The Gift of Trust

Well, exactly seven days ago America went to bed knowing who her president would be for the next four years. Eight days ago I went to bed sometime in the wee hours of the morning yawning from boredom...once I realized the election was in the bag whether NBC and CBS wanted to concede it or not. Incidentally, FoxNews had called Ohio for Bush hours before the other networks. I mean, come on guys, nothing like holding out to the bitter, inevitable end. Thankfully, though, this election was officially decided the very next day, rather than numerous days after. I have to applaud Kerry for his gracious concession.

I almost didn't want to write a blog entry on the whole outcome...you know, the whole victory dance and everything. After the huge buildup to the election, the election itself was almost anticlimactic. So, I procrastinated. But I have to say that looking back on the election from the vantage point of one week's time makes me realize how very hopeful I am for these next four years and for the future of America. And how very relieved I am to have this uncertainty behind me. In the years ahead, I will be watching Congress and the President very carefully to see how they handle the trust that has been given them.

May God bless America.

Do you know why you're voting for him?

Critical answers for critical questions. Find out where the candidates stand.

Presidential Voter's Guide

The Third and Final Debate

Well, I breathed a sigh of relief after last night's debate. The formal debates are over, which means we'll all be done with that critical (but seemingly endless) component of democracy in action: the election campaign.

Bush came out fighting. He started strong, stayed strong, and ended strong. Almost a different man than the one America saw a couple weeks ago in round one. Almost. Skills definitely more honed. Kerry didn’t show remarkable change—-his performance throughout all three was more consistent, steadier. I’m not so sure this is to his advantage. In the end, he wasn’t matching Bush step for step; in the end, he was on the defensive.

I’d like to thank Bob Shieffer for his excellent, intuitive, hard-ball questions. As the voice of America during this third round, he spoke from every American heart. We needed to hear these men’s answers to the tough questions. Of particular importance were the faith, homosexuality, Social Security, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice appointments, and national security questions. Shieffer began with, “Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?” Unflinching questions. If you didn’t see the debate, check out this link for a full transcript. Pay attention to these men’s answers—-they reveal the heart and soul of the one who will lead our country for the next four years.

The debates showed me the kind of men we are being asked to choose between: statesman or politician. Statesmanship is an art, a vision, and a selfless duty. On the other hand, a politician plays for power, finds his calling in prestige, and the strongest sense of responsibility he possesses is a duty to himself. One of those two men at the podium last night is a statesman--the other, a politician.

Just Couldn't Help Myself

Thanks, Jer, for passing these along. It's roughly three weeks until elections. So in case you haven't made up your mind yet:

Round Two

I'm sorry to say that I didn't get to watch Round Two of the presidential debates this last Friday! Unfortunately, I had to work. So instead of reading my thoughts, here's a few grassroot opinions I have overheard:

"Bush definitely did better this time than the last." -Phyllis

"The President went into this debate stronger and more firm; he really turned the tables on Kerry." -Gary

"I was glad to see that tonight [Bush] was able to more clearly answer everyone's questions (and that he just seemed more comfortable in general)." -Heather

I need to hear more, though! Please give me your take on this townhall-style debate. Feel free to add a comment! Remember that the winner is not decided by the media, but by YOU, and ultimately by all Americans at the polls this November.

Comments on Round One

Last night Senator John Kerry debated President George W. Bush in the first round of presidential debates this election. Much speculation and hype went into this showdown, with some staunchly declaring that the election would be won or lost on this single night in Florida. Frankly, that didn't happen. Though Kerry has been down in the polls as of late and thus exposed, Bush did not exploit this opportunity as fully as he could have. And though Bush’s debating skills were not as refined as the Senator’s, Kerry attempted to cater a sincerity and honesty that were visibly lacking.

Delivery. Bush strode on stage first—as president—confidently, calmly. Kerry followed, his height made evident when he grabbed the President’s hand and pulled him in, the first power play of the evening. You know that old trick? A lot is communicated in a handshake. In this case, Kerry was using physical presence as an intimidation tool. I don’t think it worked, by the way. The Senator was clearly nervous as he started out with the first question, talking rapidly and tensely. And when Kerry spoke, Bush—Bush looked annoyed. I was annoyed; I could understand why the President was annoyed. Bush continued to look annoyed and fidgety throughout the remainder of the debate whenever Kerry ranted and raved. When Bush spoke, often Kerry openly smiled and nodded, particularly when Bush had just zinged him with one of his main points. Bush: “Kerry’s core convictions keep changing with the politics.” Kerry smiles and nods. Condescending and…something else.

Content. The debate centered primarily around foreign policy. Names like Iraq, Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein received significant air time. Here is where Kerry’s lack of core conviction was made evident. This is perhaps the main theme of Bush, and of Kerry, oddly. Both men approached it from a different angle. Kerry says something like, “The President didn’t go to war [in Iraq] as a last resort. But while we’re there, I’ll get help to those boys and put measures in place that will begin to bring them home in six months.” Bush then very candidly points out, “When I went to Congress about Iraq, my opponent voted in support of going to war. He thought it was the right thing to do at the time. Now he says it was the wrong thing to do, wrong place, wrong time. And furthermore, while promising aid to the soldiers, he voted against the $87 billion supplemental troop package.” Or something to that effect. Oh, and this I love—Kerry responds to one of these attacks by saying, “I’ve never wavered in my life.” Direct quote. I laughed.

You may hear the media report that John Kerry won the debate. Today, I’ve heard it both ways. In my mind, however, what you say is more important than how you say it. Bush was sincere, Kerry was condescending. Bush made sense, Kerry contradicted himself. Bush was straightforward, Kerry led you in circles. Bush was not as fluent, but Kerry was too polished. The President held his own, and I must say that outwardly, anyway, Kerry also presented himself well. But I just don’t trust John Kerry to lead America. George W. Bush is America’s man.

Kerry's The New Soldier

You may have heard rumors of a book written by John Kerry in the early 70’s that is in ever-decreasing circulation, thanks to certain people (ahem—Kerry Campaign) who are determined to stifle its influence. In fact, when Kerry ran for Congress in 1972, his campaign worked tirelessly to track down stray copies.

The New Soldier is primarily an account of Kerry’s testimony before a Senate committee concerning his experience in Vietnam and subsequent anti-war activism. Now, in the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry’s service in the Vietnam War is highly lauded by those interested in seeing him to the Oval Office, but his activities immediately following the war are largely ignored by these same groups. The fact of the matter is, Kerry shamelessly betrayed his fellow soldiers in his efforts to discredit the administration and tarnish America’s dedication to freedom.

Few copies of the 1971 book now remain. They have been known to sell on Ebay for more than $750. (Though none are selling currently—I just checked). However, for those of you in the habit of making informed choices, click on this link to a website that is offering the complete text of The New Soldier for FREE in .pdf format.

I printed off a copy of the book for myself. I found The New Soldier to be a typical example of Kerry’s ping-pong ideology. First this side, than that—oh, nope, I changed my mind again. Back on that side. Read beneath the surface of the tough-sounding words, consider them in light of his actions, and you will find a calculating man who forgot to take into consideration the devastating effects that the lack of an internal, moral navigation system inevitably produce.

Threadbare Rings

I see literature as a well-worn piece of the pattern of the Grand Design. Not well-worn in the sense of falling apart but well-worn in the sense that each thread is visible. Threadbare. The intricate needlework done by the hand of God is more clearly seen in some aspects of life—like in the gift of writing—than in others.

God speaks to us through his creative schemes—from the immensity of the universe to the delicacy of our genetic makeup to the music of our souls to the freshness of our imagination. God speaks to us through the gift of words. Literature is a wonderful world, a world in which the complicated is made simple and the temporary transformed into the eternal.

Let me give you an example. I recently watched Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy again. Truly a fabulous production, but the books are better. J.R.R. Tolkien’s series is timeless, not for its precedent-setting exploration into the world of fantasy nor for any attempt at Christian allegory, but for the timelessness of its theme—the battle between good and evil. (I personally believe Tolkien did not write the series as an allegory for the Christian struggle, but nevertheless, because he was writing from a specific worldview, Christian themes are present.)

Tolkien’s masterpiece is a story where the bad guys look bad and good triumphs through perseverance. Orcs and goblins are disgusting creatures; surely no mother ever wanted them. The Nazgul—the Ringwraiths—reek of darkness and dread. And an alliance with the Dark Lord requires a selling of the soul.

The heroes are touchable. Aragorn with his humility, self-doubt, and courageous sense of duty; Frodo with his staunch will and trusting heart; Samwise with his undying devotion to his master. We recognize in these heroes a part of ourselves.

The work of Tolkien is one of those threadbare examples of the tapestry of life. Throughout the literature is woven a golden thread that vibrates with life, truth, and the grace of God. The words spark our imaginations and stir our hearts to longing for the time when good will triumph over evil. The quest of the Fellowship resonates with the greater purpose of our lives.

Bush in St. Paul

President Bush gave an outstanding speech at a St. Paul rally Wednesday night. A crowd of 15,000 gathered to lend their support to see him re-elected to the highest office in the nation this coming November. I was honored to be among them, despite the fact that this honor called for a feat of feet---standing for over three hours in three-inch heels in a type of political-rally-mosh-pit experience on the floor of the Xcel Center. Not to mention the endless cheering that left my ears ringing... (Wait, what was that? What did he just say?!?!?)

The papers reported a presence of 200 protesters. They were exaggerating. The protesters were removed from us across a busy street and on the other side of a police line where officers were armed with body armor and assault rifles. My favorite protester was shouting, "See you in Baghdad!" Was that intended to strike fear in my heart? It didn't.

I was interviewed by the St. Paul Pioneer Press. I said something along the lines that I was there to support my president and that I admired his firm stance in national and international affairs. Nothing spectacular. I was not surprised that I was interviewed, and even less surprised that my words didn't make it in the paper the next morning. There were, however, two equally un-spectacular quotes from Kerry supporters who were protesting the rally that did make it into print. Again, "I'm dying of not-surprise," here. (Does anyone beside Heidi recognize this quote?) Media bias? The Thursday morning article is seething with it. Right down to the report that the President was fifteen minutes late. Cut the guy some slack---he's got a country to run. Even I survived that extra fifteen minutes on my three-inch heels.

Bush looked good, though. He looked like a man who carries a great many burdens but carries them well. He apologized that his wife couldn't be with him and graciously accepted our thunderous cheers when, at the climax of his speech he promised to defend America with all the resources, courage, and steadfastness his office possesses. (Not his exact words, but you get the picture. He said it much better.) Bush is a humble man, American to his core. His words and actions reflect a spirit of integrity and a heart of character. He's a man you can trust. He is now, more than ever, my president.

Avid Sociability

I'm an avid reader. I like that word--avid--I like the way it vibrates through your lips and I like the way it describes the type of reader I am. I have been an avid reader for as far into my past as my memory stretches, though I doubt the word paints the same picture of a first-grade reader as it does an adult. Nonetheless, I was an avid reader even in the first grade.

Through my long years of avid reading, I have discovered two very basic, often overlooked-by-avid-readers-such-as-myself truths. First, literature is not life. A book, while an alternate reality, is not reality itself.

I consider it a sweet delight to lose myself in a book. The world seared into my imagination by the onward-marching letters is simply that--imaginary. The characters line up in gang-plank fashion, ready to jump from the author's head into mine, but never to jump the chasm into flesh-and-blood touchability. As non-profound as this truth is, my fellow reader will understand the comfort of sinking into this sub-world--a world where you become the private eye, the lone cowboy, the damsel in distress rescued by the rogue buccaneer. Indeed, you may become anyone you like--you may step into the shoes of Napoleon, Lincoln, Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce--and you may feel the mantle of greatness weighing down your shoulders.

But the non-reality of literature is deceptive, for you will never truly experience what you are reading. You must come to the surface before you lungs explode and your mind implodes.

Along these same lines, the second truth I have discovered is that books are unhealthy substitutes for relationships. Reading cannot become your sole social activity, for there is nothing social about curling up with a book by the fire on a cold winter's night. And human beings are wired to be social, there is no getting around that. Books are friends, but they should not be best friends.

Perhaps my personal epiphanies mirror Aristotle's moderation-in-all-things principle. Am I capable of unique thought? Perhaps, though this is certainly not and that subject is best left to another time. Meanwhile, I will go pick up my book and disengage from social reality with the full knowledge that that is exactly what I am doing.

A Perspective on Liberalism

Liberalism questions the validity of truth. There are many who adhere to the ideology and recognize the balance of the natural world and moral absolutes as well. You will find few who call themselves liberal who deny the wrongness of murder.

But my concern is not with these law-abiding citizens who, as humans, bear the imago dei.

Rather, my concern lies with the liberal ideology that inherently lends itself--opens itself up to--an aggressive attack on the foundations of truth. This ideology expands beyond the narrow bounds of politics. Liberalism, in its constant forward motion, its thirst for knowledge, discovery and advancement, is dangerous because it ignores natural boundaries. Its own curiosity leaves behind a vast wake of destruction---principles, traditions, cultures and institutions are left in shambles.

The imminent danger in liberalism is its unquenchable lust for power and knowledge. Our science today, a product of the Age of Reason, has taken us beyond natural boundaries to a point where we find ourselves in a quagmire of moral issues. Only now are we stopping to think about if we should even be here in the first place. Stem cell research, abortion, cloning, gene therapy, even our faith in penicillin has been shaken as we find new strains of viruses and bacteria resistant to its potency. I'm not stating my stance on these issues, I'm just pointing out the quicksand.

Above all, the danger in liberalism is its propensity to question truth itself. Liberalism has tried to bring us a world of "tolerance," but instead we have a world that is afraid to reinforce absolutes. A tolerant world is not a respectful world; it is merely a world that has given up on the battle for truth. In a tolerant world anything goes and the framework from within which government operates--given authority through divine mandate--is termite-ridden.

Who is American?

I am American. I cannot trace my ancestors back to the Mayflower or to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but I am American. In the historical sense of ethnicity this is enough for me. In today's culture of ethnic diversity and cultural pluralism, it seems many have dissected their heritage to the point that it becomes necessary to hyphenate their identity. When filling out census papers or standardized test identification boxes, I see "Native-American," "African-American," "Hispanic-American," "Asian-American." If I saw a box for "German-American,"—knowing my last name you might wonder—I would not claim it. I am American.

Why is America so caught up in the debate of Americanism? I suppose the grand exploration of civil rights in the previous century has led inevitably to this quagmire. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. It has been taken too far.

I once met a man who discovered I attend a small, Christian liberal arts college in the Midwest. His curiosity in the college was wholly due to concern for the future of his 10-year old daughter. “Will she be comfortable here,” he asked, “as a minority…as an, you know, an Hispanic.” I replied in a sensitive tone that she most certainly would be comfortable. In fact, I went on, my school offers several clubs and opportunities for its racially- and ethnically-diverse students. He quickly interrupted me, much to my delight. “Oh no, none of that,” he shook his head definitively. “She’s not an Hispanic-American—she is American.”

Would that we all had his perspective.

A Review of Michael Deaver's Nancy

Michael Deaver’s portrait of the first lady of the 1980’s is friendly and familiar in its tone and composition. Though a thoughtful look into the heart of its namesake, Nancy is not likely to win any literary awards. The pages flow quickly but loosely and every so often turn from their primary subject to the overshadowing figure of Mrs. Reagan’s husband.

Mr. Deaver approaches the project of putting into print the lifeblood of the mystifying Nancy Reagan from within the framework of years of friendship.Long a political and social companion of the Reagans—from the California governorship days—Mr. Deaver touts an unusually insightful and authoritative perception of Mrs. Reagan. Indeed, the author revels in his early introduction and impression of the former first lady for seemingly endless pages.

Once past the long introductory passage, thinly veiling an earnest attempt to establish the author’s authority on his subject, Deaver’s portrait of Nancy Reagan improves and takes on a peculiar life of its own. Mr. Deaver writes in a manner that urges his readers to follow closely behind the footsteps of Mrs. Reagan as she stands beside her husband through the days of fading star power and increased political involvement that lead from a shockingly successful term as governor of the largest state in the union to even more astounding years as the highest office holder in the nation.

A particularly well-done aspect of the portrait is its full depiction of Nancy’s life with her husband—a portrayal that does not give in to the temptation of simply focusing on her life as first lady when her husband held the office of president of the United States. While some consider Reagan’s eight years in the White House to be the climax of his very public life, Mr. Deaver rather emphasizes the adventure of Reagan’s life with Nancy—through the thick and the thin. The Reagans are a public couple, after all, and have been quite frank about their difficulties and blessings. The author portrays Nancy as a reluctant political wife whose chief concern is always her husband. She takes the intense scrutiny of the public with wearied acceptance and off-balance grace.

In keeping with his friendship and love of the famous couple, Mr. Deaver devotes a chapter at the end of his story to the Reagans’ battle with Alzheimer’s. Since the publishing date of the book, Mr. Reagan has passed on—losing his long battle with the unforgiving disease—but the author’s words promote awareness for the issue, in keeping with the Reagan legacy of love.

In the end, Mr. Deaver’s Nancy is a candid contribution to the enduring heritage of the Reagans—a proper addition to the annals of history as a friend’s musings on the deeply-rooted soul of Nancy Reagan and her station by the side of her husband as “caretaker, guardian, [and] nurturer of the Reagan legacy” (Deaver, 7).

You Can Believe Something with All Your Heart and Still Be Wrong

Dear Amy:

Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.

I appreciate your thoughts regarding the definition of marriage. It was kind of you to take the time to share your comments.

While, as a matter of my own faith, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that principle, I do not support amending the Constitution to create new federal law in this area. I believe that is proper, and I also believe that marriage licensing and regulation currently is left to the states. Marriage as a religious sacrament should be left to individual religious denominations. At the same time, as a matter of federal policy, I oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation with respect to employment, housing or partner benefits.

Again, thanks for e-mailing your views to me. Please don't hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin
United States Senator

TH/jwc

Outstanding Noonan

I have a huge respect for this lady, she can really write. And not only can Peggy Noonan write, but her words stare back at you unblinkingly--just daring you to argue.

Check out her latest, "People Have Eyes":

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004985

"The Bedeviling Factor"

America is a Christian nation. America is a nation of religious people. America is a nation of democratic, moral principles founded on the Christian worldview of our forefathers. We have all heard these things said of America at some point in time, by both the pastor from his pulpit and the politician from his platform. On the surface level, it is tempting to applaud these ‘perceptive’ words, to praise the pastor for his wisdom and to vote for the politician. As Americans, we like to flatter ourselves that these words speak the unequivocal truth.

But the problem with these catch religious phrases is that they are hollow; their claims, containing just a grain of truth, are coated in sugary shells meant to soothe the troubled conscience of the American mind. That grain of truth, which at the founding of this country had the power of the mustard seed to move mountains, is now exposed to the elements and taking a cruel beating. True religion and virtue is difficult to find in our culture today.

This said, however, we are still brought back to the insistence of the American people’s pestering claims of religiosity. Why is it so important to the citizens of this nation to keep up the appearance of church-going and all that that implies? Enter Os Guinness’ “bedeviling factor:” civil religion (The American Hour, 223). Religion, more specifically Christianity, has largely lost its distinctiveness. It has become socialized and civilized. True Christianity is the religion of the martyrs and saints, the religion of the Cross. The religion of America today is not the Christianity of history and the Bible. Americans have created their own blend of religion—one that is a “somewhat vague though treasured set of semireligious, semipolitical beliefs and ideals basic to America’s understanding of itself that [is] the object of quasi-religious devotion” (Guinness, 225). Ultimately, civil religion provides the legitimatising factor in everything from the welfare state to affirmative action to tax breaks to the war on terrorism. Its usefulness lies in its ability to be stretched, twisted, and manipulated to further whatever cause the activist needs furthering.

While the vacillating nature of civil religion itself is frustrating, as a Christian I take hope in the realization that this public insistence on moral credo, however diluted, is rooted in the desire to maintain a bedrock of virtue and truth. I believe that bedrock to be very real and present and see in the “bedeviling factor” the opportunity to delve into its deep recesses until the wellspring of Christian morality is brought to the surface and Americans can be truthfully called a Christian people once again.

Chinese Firedrills on Constitution Avenue

Chinese Firedrills are, as one could argue, a thing of your past--a thing that high schoolers do to stave off boredom on a slow Saturday night. There's something about a hot summer night driving down Main Street in Hometown, Midwest that is conducive to this innovative activity.

For those that may have grown up before the era initiating the Chinese Firedrill or (gasp) grew up in the suburban world of harsh city lights, miles of concrete, and hours upon hours of rush-hour traffic--an environment in which I would be shocked to hear of such uncivilized activities as the C.F. taking place--I will venture to describe the ritual to you, though my words are few and feeble.

The C.F. requires simply a vehicle and as many people as can cram into that vehicle. Indeed, these basic requirements have long augmented the life and popularity of the C.F. As the vehicle approaches a stop sign, the participants jump out of the car upon arrival at a complete stop (note the complete stop--this is the safe version--in case you decide to try this at home), run around the vehicle as many times as is deemed 'fun,' and jump back into the vehicle before it is required to move again. These actions consitute one complete C.F. They may then be repeated at the discretion of those involved.

With this said, I must confess that I recently broke one of the cardinal rules regarding locality. I participated in a C.F. on Constitution Avenue in downtown Washington, DC. Oh, yes. And not once, but several times. And between two vehicles, not just one. Several times. In rush-hour traffic. Several times. In front of the White House and the Washington Monument. Several times.

...I have lived the life.

And They Call Us Crazy

Could this belated and futile action perhaps be further evidence of the war of cultural superiority that is being waged by those immature enough to stoop to such lengths? Without pointing fingers, I must unfortunately add the disclaimer that citizens of both sides are guilty of such childlike behavior. Remember Freedom Fries?

Petty games aside, and being the true patriot that I am, I cannot help but wonder if these illusive feelings of inferiority held by the other side date back to a revolution won and a revolution lost.

FOXNews.com: France Bans the Term 'E-Mail'

Friday, July 18, 2003

PARIS — Goodbye "e-mail," the French government says, and hello "courriel" -- the term that linguistically sensitive France is now using to refer to electronic mail in official documents.

The Culture Ministry (search) has announced a ban on the use of "e-mail" in all government ministries, documents, publications or Web sites, the latest step to stem an incursion of English words into the French lexicon.

The ministry's General Commission on Terminology and Neology (search) insists Internet surfers in France are broadly using the term "courrier electronique (search)" (electronic mail) instead of e-mail - a claim some industry experts dispute. "Courriel" is a fusion of the two words.

"Evocative, with a very French sound, the word 'courriel' is broadly used in the press and competes advantageously with the borrowed 'mail' in English," the commission has ruled.

The move to ban "e-mail" was announced last week after the decision was published in the official government register on June 20. Courriel is a term that has often been used in French-speaking Quebec, the commission said.

The 7-year-old commission has links to the Academie Francaise (search), the prestigious institution that has been one of the top opponents of allowing English terms to seep into French.

Some Internet industry experts say the decision is artificial and doesn't reflect reality.

"The word 'courriel' is not at all actively used," Marie-Christine Levet, president of French Internet service provider Club Internet, said Friday. "E-mail has sunk in to our values."

She said Club Internet wasn't changing the words it uses.

"Protecting the language is normal, but e-mail's so assimilated now that no one thinks of it as American," she said. "Courriel would just be a new word to launch."

The Ant and the Grasshopper

CLASSIC VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself.

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome". Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle and Walter Mondale exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican.

The Big Buzz

Caribou Coffee is one of the best things about Minnesota. New Yorkers can have their Starbucks but I'll take my Caribou any day. (Okay, except for Starbuck's Chocolate Brownie Frappuccino during the summertime).

My classic order at Caribou is a medium Turtle Mocha with a shot of raspberry, and so what if they look at me like I'm a crazy lady everytime I order it? It's an amazing drink, and gives me a buzz for about the next 5 hours. My theory is, the more the stuff the better the drink. Anything that disguises that pure, acrid coffee taste is wonderful. I hate black coffee. But, as long as my Turtle Mocha still has even just a hint of coffee in it, I can still call myself a true coffee lover.

As Caribou loves to say, "Life is short...stay awake for it."