Parker Jensen: Parental Rights v. State Power
December 29, 2008 by Bryan Hyde · 5 Comments
It’s been 5 years since the Parker Jensen case was providing us with a vivid example of parental rights vs. the power of the state.
Parker, a 12 year-old boy living in Sandy, Utah, was diagnosed with Ewing’s Sarcoma after a tiny growth was removed from beneath his tongue.
His physician recommended that Parker be placed on chemotherapy immediately or face virtually no chance of surviving the cancer.
Parker’s parents stubbornly insisted on getting a second opinion and exploring alternatives to the chemotherapy that would likely leave their son sterile, if he were to survive at all.
The doctor insisted that they begin treatment or he would be forced to contact the Division of Child and Family Services to have Parker removed and forced to undergo chemo.
Parker’s parents refused to submit and following a hearing by a state juvenile judge had a court order and a warrant issued for their arrest.
By this time the Jensens had traveled to Idaho with Parker and soon found themselves facing an additional charge of kidnapping their own son to avoid the state ordered chemotherapy.
Not only were Parker’s parents accused of being abusive and medically neglectful, but they also were described as being stubborn and suspicious regarding what the medical and legal bureaucracy were telling them to do.
With all the state’s power being brought to bear against them, along with the threat of prison sentences, and loss of their parental rights, it would have been understandable for Parker’s folks to simply capitulate to the state’s demands and acknowledge that it was a battle they could never win. But win they did.
Ultimately the state blinked in the face of rising public outrage over the issue of parental rights and the apparent callousness with which the state was seeking to force its will onto the Jensens.
The charges were dropped, though not before the Jensens were sternly admonished that the consequences of their choice would be solely upon their shoulders. With that warning, the state washed its hands of the mess it had created as the family sought to once again find gainful employment and rebuild their lives.
Today, Parker Jensen is a perfectly healthy young man who last summer celebrated his 18th birthday. He shows no sign of the illness and is by all accounts a happy, productive member of society.
Apologists for the state and DCFS have few kind words for Parker’s parents, but must concede that for a boy who was supposed to be dead within weeks if not forced to undergo chemo, he’s now living proof as to who was right and who was wrong.
Those who work within the child protective system often have the best of intentions and their efforts are sadly necessary at times within our society. But unchecked power, even in the hands of those with the best of intentions, is a sure recipe for suffering and abuse that is no less real just because it’s happening at the hands of the state.
[email_link]
********************
Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice-work through his company One Clear Voice.
He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.
Obama’s Inconsistency: The Blindspot of Modern Liberalism
December 27, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 2 Comments
“One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” -Aristotle’s Law of Noncontradiction
I just finished reading The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Here’s my take on the man: I like him. I really, really like him. He’s a person that I’d love to hang out with casually and work with professionally. I respect and admire his drive, his desire to make the world a better place.
Assuming he doesn’t use a ghostwriter, he’s a world-class writer (there is speculation to the contrary). He’s a piercing and holistic thinker, and a top-notch persuader. He is sincere, thoughtful, caring, and judicious.
Here’s my take on his politics: His conclusions and policies are inconsistent and contradictory.
There are many examples, but I want to focus on just one here.
In the chapter entitled Faith, Barack discusses his own religious views and delves into public policy regarding faith and religion. Interestingly, he and I largely agree in this area.
He details not only the glaring dangers, but also the simple realities of mixing religion and government. He writes:
“Jefferson and Leland’s formula for religious freedom worked. Not only has America avoided the sorts of religious strife that continue to plague the globe, but religious institutions have continued to thrive…Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
“But let’s even assume that we only had Christians within our borders. Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?”
His point, of course, is that using the force of government to institute, enforce, and/or promote religion is a bad idea.
Two pages later, he makes my point regarding his own politics by saying:
“In judging the persuasiveness of various moral claims, we should be on the lookout for inconsistency in how such claims are applied…we need to recognize that sometimes our argument is less about what is right than about who makes the final determination — whether we need the coercive arm of the state to enforce our values, or whether the subject is one best left to individual conscience and evolving norms.”
Exactly.
Unfortunately for those of us footing the bill to enforce his values, his own views are inconsistent. For one so concerned about not enforcing particular religious views through the government, he’s strangely eager to do that very thing in the economic realm.
He shudders at the thought of religion being imposed through government, while toiling to institute laws that forcefully take from some to give to others. He praises New Deal reforms and champions wealth redistribution.
His perspective is arrived at in the name of such lofty ideals as “helping” and “communal values” and “equal opportunity” — all of which, by the way, I share with him, but in a different context. As I’ve written elsewhere, when the decorative language is stripped naked, a cold gun of physical force is exposed.
To quote from Barack again:
“That is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose — this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through the government.
“Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual success and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that our government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better — or for the worse.” [emphases added]
This euphemistic rhetoric ignores the hard realities of the nature of government. It sounds nice, but there’s a fundamental difference between churches, communities, businesses and families and the government. The former institutions are based in voluntarism, while the latter is based in force.
Herein lies the blindspot of modern liberalism. As George Washington warned, ““Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”
Barack’s first inconsistency, then, regards how the government should be used. According to Barack, government shouldn’t be used to force religious values, but it should be used to redistribute wealth.
But the second, more perplexing inconsistency, regards why Barack feels the government should be used this way. His reasoning behind his views on the relationship between religion and government rests on values.
Values are subjective, as the argument goes, so one group cannot rightfully impose their values on another. And since religious morals are arguably a set of subjective values, the government should not be involved with religion.
Here’s where I’m stumped: How is wealth redistribution any different? How is democratic socialism not fundamentally based in values?
The fact is that wealth redistribution is based on subjective values every bit as much as is religion. The only way for Barack’s perspective to be consistent is if religion is value-ful and economics is value-less. But it’s not true — economics carries within it values and mores, all of which are arguably subjective, just like religion.
You can’t state that the government should stay away from religion because it’s based on subjective values, while also holding that the government should redistribute wealth in the name of “communal values.” Both courses equate to the exact same thing — one group of people imposing their subjective views and values upon others through the force of government.
This is the classic intellectual tyrant fallacy — thinking that your values are the right ones, the values that can rightfully be imposed upon society. Barack is ultra-concerned with religious values being imposed upon himself and others, while simultaneously imposing his economic values upon us.
To clarify, I wholeheartedly support any and all charitable efforts when done through voluntary institutions. I’m not arguing against charity and “communal values” and “equal opportunity”; I’m arguing against illegitimate government force.
I agree 100% with Barack and all other liberals who believe that we should love and lift and serve. We agree that vast inequities in wealth distribution pose significant dangers to society. We agree that individuals and institutions can and should do more to cure societal ills. We agree that wealth should not be used to exploit. And frankly, I think that more conservatives should agree with these ideals than they seem to.
Our disagreements revolve around the role that the government should play in all of this. Government is force. It’s not a nice community hall where we all come together in the spirit of cooperation to help each other out — that’s the purview of family, community, religion, and business.
The blindspot of modern liberalism is thinking that government is a good place to solve all societal problems. The only problem that the government is qualified and has the natural right to solve is the violation of unalienable rights between individuals and groups.
Keep the government in its proper role of protecting unalienable rights, and use voluntary institutions to perform works of charity.
[email_link]
Restoring the Constitution Starts In the Home, Not In Washington
December 27, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 2 Comments
Dr. Frank Luntz is a “language architect and public opinion guru” who has written, supervised, and conducted more than 1,500 surveys, focus groups and dial sessions in more than two dozen countries and four continents over the past decade.
In 1998, his firm, Luntz Research, surveyed American teenagers aged thirteen through seventeen on their knowledge of U.S. history. What they found would make the Founders roll over in their graves:
- Only 23 percent of American teenagers know that there are one hundred Senators.
- Only 40 percent know that the first three words of the Constitution are “We the People.”
- Twenty-four percent cannot name even one of the three branches of government. Only 42 percent of teens can name all three.
- Fewer than 10 percent know that the Supreme Court case that found separate but equal treatment of blacks and whites in public schools unconstitutional was Brown v. Board of Education
- Only 25 percent know even one provision of the Fifth Amendment
- Only 26 percent know that the Constitution was written in Philadelphia.
“As bad as kids are with simple historic facts,” writes Luntz
“As for what they did know — only 18 percent could name the majority leader of the U.S. Senate (Bill Frist)…Remember, this was not a poll of teenagers or American adults as a whole — these were voters on election night.”
What’s the Point?
There are many points to be made within such a dismal survey, but there’s one in particular that jumps out: How can we hold our politicians to standards that we don’t come remotely close to keeping ourselves?
How can we expect Washington to stick to the Constitution when we don’t even know what it says and means ourselves?
The most critical battleground in the fight to restore the Constitution and the Republic is not Washington. It’s not in the halls of government.
The battleground of freedom is in our homes.
[email_link]
Restoring the Chains of the Constitution
December 25, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 2 Comments
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” -James Madison
On March 26, 2007, Terence Jeffrey, the editor of Human Events magazine, interviewed Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
During the interview, Mr. Jeffrey asked Spellings point-blank “if she could point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education or be involved in primary and secondary education.”
Her initial response? “I think we had come to an understanding, at least, of the reality of Washington and the flat world, if you will, that the Department of Education was not going to be abolished, and we were going to invest in our nation’s neediest students,” she said.
In other words, we gave up. We caved to the demands of expediency. And note that she side-stepped the direct question entirely.
Mr. Jeffrey persisted. “It is one thing to say that the political reality is we are not going to abolish the federal Department of Education, but can you seriously point to where the Framers actually intended the Constitution to authorize a Department of Education?”
“I can’t point to it one way or the other,” Secretary Spellings responded. “I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.” After follow-up inquiries, the department did not answer the question.
Secretary Spellings holds an office that requires her to swear to uphold the Constitution, yet she can’t even answer if the very department over which she presides is constitutional or not.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “In questions of power…let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
He spoke at a time when the Constitution actually meant something, when referring to their limitations as “chains” was accurate. This concept is laughable now that constitutional limits are metaphorical strings at best.
Now, a more appropriate quote would be, “In questions of complicated problems, let no more be heard of strict adherence to an outdated document, but let us solve our problems by concentrating power in Washington and trusting individuals with unprecedented power.”
The chains meant to bind the government have been turned against us. We’re being shackled because we’ve ignored the Constitution. The original chainers — We the People — are quickly becoming the chained.
How do we reverse this awful trend and restore the proper relationships?
Well, let me ask you this: When was the last time you read the Constitution? When was the last time you checked the voting record of the people you’ve voted for to see if they uphold the Constitution?
[email_link]
China Rising: A 21st Century Grand Strategy For the United States
December 24, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
Over the next few weeks I’m going to lay out my vision for a new American Grand Strategy. I look forward to some great discussions.
Introduction
If the United States does not change it’s current foreign policy, we will be engaged in military conflict for much of the 21st Century, quite possibly leading to a third world war.
We face serious challenges in the decades to come that are largely being ignored by our leaders and overshadowed by the war on terrorism. Terrorism is not the core problem; it is a symptom of the deeper root problems.
There are three root problems in our foreign policy that we must confront and solve. These are: 1) our relationship with China, 2) a lack of a coherent and common vision for America in the 21st Century, and 3) domestic failures.
While supposed anti-terrorist activities in the Middle East dominate the public consciousness, the real struggle of the 21st Century quietly yet quickly builds in East Asia. China, after centuries of both external and internal oppression and conflict, is on the rise and is asserting itself internationally.
China wants primarily one thing: global recognition and respect. Right now it doesn’t appear that the U.S. is willing to give it to her.
But it is critical that we do, for if the U.S. will implement a cohesive, comprehensive, and principle-based foreign policy to take the requisite steps that will successfully prevent war with China in the next 5-10 years, it will also limit much potential global conflict in the process, for much of the potential threat from China reflects most, if not all, latent 21st Century threats which are rooted in global anti-U.S. sentiment.
Finding itself at the zenith of its power, post-Cold War United States faces far-reaching and intricate dilemmas that can only be solved by long-term vision, rather than ad hoc policy and short-term strategy.
The beginnings of our long-term strategy must be implemented immediately, and we must continue to follow through consistently, or we will be faced with perpetual military conflict throughout the 21st century.
The continuance of the Bush-administration “empire” strategy will not only embroil us in limitless military struggles and entangling affairs internationally, it will also bankrupt and cripple us domestically. We may take the next 5-10 years to tame Iraq, only to come home and find that our homeland has decayed significantly from neglect.
is the time for America to start living up to its ideals. Now is the time for America to humbly turn inward, rather than to arrogantly and hypocritically remain focused on global problems.
As powerful as we are, we do not possess the power to fix the world. We only have the power to fix ourselves, but the powerful irony is that in doing so, we will become the leader — by example — in fixing global problems.
We do have the power, but the only effective way to wield that power is counterintuitive: Fix ourselves and we fix the world.
[email_link]
Economics In One Lesson
December 23, 2008 by Bryan Hyde · Leave a Comment
(Guest Contributor)
With our economy’s vital signs weakening daily, many folks are getting a crash course in today’s economic conventional wisdom with practically no foundational understanding of economics by which to evaluate the soundness of said “wisdom.”
Growing fear and uncertainty are conspiring to compound the difficulty of being able to see the bigger picture. A $700 billion bailout has already been passed and with more being proposed, it’s imperative that each of us have a clear understanding of what’s at stake to better root out the widely held economic fallacies being pushed on us as solutions.
For those who wish to increase their knowledge but lack the time or inclination to pursue a graduate degree in economics, a remarkable resource exists in the book Economics in One Lesson
First published in 1946, Hazlitt’s lesson provides the reader with a clear understanding of economic principles using real world examples to illustrate his economic principles.
The single most important point of his entire lesson is that: “When studying the effects of any given economic proposal we must trace not merely the immediate results, but the results in the long run, not merely the primary consequences but the secondary consequences and not merely the effects on some special group but the effects on everyone.”
When considering the government bailout of the failing businesses this understanding would require us to recognize that while the immediate result of a taxpayer-funded subsidy from Washington D.C. would be an infusion of money to companies that are in need, the long term results will affect more than just those companies and their employees.
The bailed-out companies benefit to the exact degree that the taxpayer loses as that money being transferred out of the taxpayer’s pockets will not be used to support other more viable industries the taxpayer may wish to support.
In short, valuable resources have been diverted to an industry where they are being less efficiently employed.
This may have the appearance of good news for failing banks and possibly for auto workers, but the bigger picture reveals that the effects are not so good for other industries or the taxpayers.
The thought of any business failing is disturbing to many, but Hazlitt shows that keeping dying businesses alive artificially, through government subsidy, has the tendency to lower the production of wealth and to retard economic and scientific progress.
The health of a dynamic economy requires that dying industries be allowed to die and that growing industries be allowed to grow without government intervention.
When most of us think of economics we tend to automatically define it in terms of the flow of markets, goods and services with a dose of government regulation thrown in to make it all work.
A simpler, more concise definition would describe economics as the study of human choices as they relate to ends and means. Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is a great primer for those who wish to understand the economic principles upon which wise choices are based.
[email_link]
Sacrifice: An Alternative Definition
December 22, 2008 by Mike Wilson · Leave a Comment
The traditional definition of “sacrifice” is: “To destroy, surrender or suffer to be lost for the sake of obtaining something;” (Webster’s 1828).
A more common and prevailing definition would be: “to endure the loss of something, or sell at a loss” (Onelook Online dictionary).
More colloquial expressions might be “giving up something you want for something you should want.”
Since we’ve had a recent self-interest thread on the blog, I wanted to throw this aspect into the discussion.
The etymology of the word “sacrifice” indicates something entirely different from the common usage. The first part of the word “sacri-” comes from the Latin word meaning “holy”. The end of the word “-fice” is from the Latin meaning “to do or to make.”
Thus, whether using the word as a noun or verb, it fundamentally has to do with making or doing something holy.
Objectivism considers the concept of sacrifice (in its common usage) to be immoral. Ayn Rand, however, attacks the common or colloquial concept, not the meaning of the word taken from its origin.
Consider the following from Atlas Shrugged:
If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a ’sacrifice’: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.
This is profoundly important. How do we see the things we say we are “sacrificing” and how do we see the things we are sacrificing for?
I think that Rand is right, that the things we end up choosing are, in the final prioritization, more important to us. We want “to buy food for [our] hungry child” more than we want the hat; we are willing to risk death in exchange for freedom rather than suffer life in slavery.
If we continue to see “sacrifice” as giving up something we want out of a sense of duty instead of being the act of choosing something we want more than the thing we are “giving up,” we fail to recognize that our actions are the manifestation of our desires and our priorities.
This failure to see what is happening when we act leads to victimization and perpetuation of the American plague of being unwilling to take responsibility for our choices.
If we see sacrifice as the act of making something holy — of choosing something more valuable to us over something less valuable — it empowers us, brings us closer to others for whom we are sacrificing and strengthens our relationship with God as we “choose” to do His will (and see it as making holy that which he desires).
[email_link]
****************
Mike received his B.S. degree in Chemistry from Brigham Young University and pursued graduate work at the University of California, San Diego, where he earned a M.S. degree in Biomedical Sciences prior to obtaining his M.D. at the UCSD School of Medicine.
He lives in Cedar City, Utah with his wife Jenni and their six children and practices emergency medicine in St. George, Utah while working on a Ph.D. in Constitutional Law at George Wythe University. He is also an Associate Mentor at GWU.
Mike’s passion is promoting idea that the common man has power and capacity to affect grand change in the world through true principles of love, goodness, and virtue. Because of his Jeffersonian trust in the common man, he considers himself a “little d” democrat (an ideal, not a political party). He believes that the cause of liberty is founded essentially in widespread powerful education, checks on power, and promotion of virtue and goodness. Force is never a real solution to problems for Mike and the statesman’s role is to understand the ideal, see where society is, and then put himself in a position to move society in the direction of the ideal.
Postscript To Dinnertime Revolutions
December 20, 2008 by Erin Reynolds · Leave a Comment
(Guest Contributor)
| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 |
The best part of a letter is often the postscript. In the postscript you add all the important things you forgot to say in the body of the letter, bits of gossip and guesswhat?’s. There you can mention anything from the new restaurant in town, or a favorite quote, to the fact you’re engaged, or the details of your latest adventure.
The p.s. section can be the most exciting part, because everything feels like an added bonus — it follows after what you thought was the end.
So what is a postscript of a book?
Well, in a sense it is a literary dessert. It should be exciting, tantalizing enough to make you recall with pleasure all the preceded, but subtle enough that it never overshadows that same thing. The purpose of this postscript, however, is two-fold. It is to summarize, but warn; to beckon, but beware.
What preceded is less than I hoped, and more than I meant. What lies on these pages is enthused — and condemned.
This book began as a series of short essays. Each time I gave one for review to a close friend, a classmate or a total stranger, the first response was a narrowing of the eyes and a hesitant but sincere, “What are you saying?”
The question was more of a statement than an inquiry. They wanted to know if I sincerely believed what I had written, or if this was more of an accident than even I had anticipated. Could I really be prophesying a revolution, an American Revolution, and did I truly believe it would begin, and end, at the dinner table?
Perhaps at first a few of these words were unintentional…but there was something else, something more implied in their questions that told me even though I wasn’t ready yet, neither were they. And because of that, I had to write.
It is a dangerous bargain, to write on the supposition that neither author nor reader is ready, and because of that one must succeed. But in a sense, this is what I have done. It is what I was compelled to do. It is what I fully acknowledge I did.
I realize that the worst place to end a book is with an addendum acknowledging it is incredible. It is not good etiquette to invite someone over to dinner, to a strange and wild feast, and at its conclusion attempt to explain why the salad and gravy were mixed, and why the turkey was left off altogether. But that is the strange part about this revolution, that although one may not be ready, still, one must proceed.
I wrote a book that had no audience — it was not and is not aimed towards any one, pre-existing group. My purpose is not to convince any party, any group, or any club that their ideas are right or wrong. I don’t align myself with any specific political platform, and I don’t promote any certain President’s or people’s agenda.
I wrote a book whose time was too soon. The audience of this book must gather and create itself; I know well enough that this voice is hard to hear, not because it is new, but precisely because it is old.
I am not the first to predict revolution.
In 1966 during a senate session, Senator Robert F. Kennedy predicted, “A revolution is coming whether we will it or not.” In 1970 Charles A. Reich, a University law professor, announced his belief that a new era was coming to birth and revolution was at hand. Many others have claimed the eve of revolution in this land, for good, or ill.
But I do not announce revolution; I accompany it. I have seen the signal fire alight in my neighbor’s eye; I have heard the drum roll in the quickening cadence of a companion’s footsteps; and the cry of battle sounds constantly in my ears as I see neighbors, friends and families fall by my side, mortally wounded in a battle they enlisted in, but recognized its arrival too late.
For as long as there are “waiting ones,” there will continue to be American Guests. But as long as there are those who advocate revolution, personal, powerful, dinnertime revolutions, there will be an America, and a world ready to embrace all the good she represents.
The revolution has arrived, and we still have sides to choose and medals to win; the common girl, the unassuming grocery story attendant and the innocent child will impact this revolution more than all the greatest formal armies in the world.
My hope is that there are others like myself — others born early, who care too much to die alone, and who know too much to live like everyone else. I think there are others who still seek the answer to internal war, and who understand that solutions exist.
My feeling is that the keys to our most haunting questions are here. That the reason for our broken past is a healing future. And I defy the world to prove that freedom, happiness, and progression were meant to be curbed, confined, and denied to anyone who happens to live somewhere other than America.
I defy any American to prove that his or her duty is not to defend, and share, the promises of liberty.
This all began with another book. I read about a man who moved to America and called himself a guest. I thought he was ungrateful, proud, and wrong. His life, his livelihood, and his happiness hinged on what America had provided, and on what America had done. He had been saved from the worst of starvation, torture, sickness and death; he even recognized and appreciated that fact.
Still he called himself a guest, and dreamed of returning to, what I believed to be, his accursed land. This man, Jacques Lusseyran, seemed to be saying, “Thank you, America, for all you have done…but your gift it only imagined, and still has to be realized.”
I could not comprehend what I termed his ingratitude. I could not understand what I saw as his fault. Yet finally I saw myself, and realized that all the while my judgment had been right, only I was serving on the incorrect jury. I was the one who was content to let freedom remain an American idea. In indicting another I had somehow condemned myself. I was the ungrateful, the proud — the wrong.
Since then I’ve begun to sense that somehow I, and he, are connected. I think that this man who died many years ago still exists. I think it matters to him how late I stay up and how late I sleep in. I think the wrongs he experienced are directly connected to the wrongs I never will experience, and that his torture has created in me a sort of debt.
I feel an obligation to right what he could not, simply because it is possible, at least to some extent, that I can. I consider this man to be one of freedom’s greatest advocates, even though he is dead. And that is our problem, that some of freedom’s greatest advocates are dead.
Some of liberty’s truest defenders never lived to see real liberty. And the people who ought to be the ones breathing, eating and living freedom are actually some of the most indebted, most afraid, and most unprepared to enjoy, and pass on, that gift. They are, in deed, the waiting ones.
What Am I Saying?
We don’t comprehend all our blessings, we don’t know what they are, or where they came from. And worse, we have no idea how to keep them.
That is what I’m saying.
If we care enough about tomorrow, we’ll forget about it today. If our deepest desire is happiness, and our most sincere hope is for peace in this and the next life, then we’ll have it. We hold the answer to every problem we can think of.
That is what I’m saying.
We ought to volunteer for the hard job. We ought to fail a little more. We should choose to follow someone who might actually be blind. We should never surrender. And somehow that initiative will change how well a son does on his homework tonight.
That is what I’m saying.
These things don’t always make sense. They may seem counterintuitive and illogical. If what preceded this seems audacious at some points and ill-defined at others, I do not blame anyone for perceiving what the author herself could not deny.
However, I cannot but resent the reader who denies the need for something, the student who ignores these facts of existence — the person who will not hear my one purpose in writing these things: to ask each of us to consider that loneliness and poverty weren’t meant to be eternal conditions of existence, and that we were meant to alter their continuation and their nature.
We have the answer to our deepest questions and the world’s greatest problems. We must offer our finest hours to America’s debt. It is our privilege to revolutionize dinnertimes, and all they represent.
This is what I’m saying.
[email_link]
********************
This essay is the postscript of Dinnertime Revolutions: Meeting the American Challenge by Erin Reynolds. Click here to purchase the book.
Erin Reynolds is a graduate of George Wythe University with a Bachelor’s degree in Statesmanship and a Master’s Degree in Education. She has taught in a number of venues, including spearheading a group to Uganda. She resides in Cedar City, Utah.
-
Stay In The Loop Through RSS
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free monthly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information is never shared.
Connect With Stephen Palmer
Free E-Book Download
Polls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...
