Yesterday afternoon I received word that my Uncle Charlie had passed away. This was not unexpected as Charlie had been deteriorating for almost two months. He entered the hospital two months ago and the family was told Charlie wouldn't survive the weekend. That was 2 months ago. Charlie was released from the hospital and sent home. Just two weeks ago, Charlie was moved into hospice care and has been losing ground ever since.

Yesterday morning, the family received the call beckoning them to the hospice facilities as Charlie was slipping away. The family arrived just in time. A minister came to visit Charlie and was asked to lead the family in prayer for Charlie. During the prayer, Charlie went to be with the Lord. When the family completed their prayers they turned to notice a red bird come and land on Charlie's window sill. There was peace.

"Semper Fi" is a shortened form of the Latin phrase used by the U.S. Marine Corps -- Semper Fidelis -- or "Always Faithful." Charlie served in the Marine Corps during World War II and participated in numerous campaigns in the Pacific Theater. Though he never talked about his war experiences, Charlie was the quintessential Marine -- tough, rough and ready. He also exemplified the Corps' motto -- Always Faithful. Charlie was married to his wife, Margene, for nearly 60 years. I can't remember a time when I didn't see Charlie and Margene together. He was always faithful.

Charlie was one of my most favorite relatives. I loved it when Charlie would hold a fish fry. He made the best fish I've ever had. I will miss Charlie.

Simper Fi, Charlie! Semper Fi!

I received an article from a friend of mine (Thanks, Chip) about a Schiavo-like case in the UK. A British Court has ruled that doctors can refuse to intubate or start ventillation if a seriously ill infant stops breathing. This is being done gainst the wishes of the parents, who want to preserve life at all costs. The 18-month old infant, Charlotte Wyatt, was born barely able to see of hear and weighed just one pound. Young Charlotte has also stopped breathing three times over the past 18 months, but has been resusitated each time. Doctors claim that to continue Charlotte's care is only to prolong her pain.

This is becoming an alarmingly more frequent problem. According to the article, similar cases are popping up more frequently:

Terminally ill baby Luke Winston-Jones died last November after the High Court ruled that his doctors could withhold lifesaving treatment, against the wishes of his parents, if his condition deteriorated.

This, along with the alarming Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands, is furthering the agenda of those who feel that life is, or can be, an inconvenience. These people see cases like Charlotte Wyatt, Luke Winston-Jones, Terri Schiavo as a matter of their continued life being an inconvenience to the system. With the exception of the Schiavo case, all these others have proceeded against the wishes of the infants' parents. Soon, doctors will be empowered to make decisions not to treat patients if the case merely seems difficult.

Stand up, people! Life must not be casually thrown away! It's too valuable.

A good friend of mine just sent me this piece -- an AP story on Yahoo News. "Expert: Apes May Be Key to Human Nature." It is ludicrous that people still believe this drivel. I can train my dog to speak (although I don't understand "dogese") and exhibit behaviors that are like the ones described here. And yet, to the mind of this scientist, these behaviors in the apes is evidence of evolutionary descent from apes.

Hello? Bueller?

I was just over at MarkDRoberts.com and Mark has posted a good review of the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI. Go have a look.

While I'm not sure about the selection of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, or whether the Conclave should have chosen someone from the Third World or Southern Hemisphere or somewhere else. But Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is at least a champion of conservative theological truths and will not likely water down the theology of the Catholic Church, as many would have him do.

Recently, I posted a piece of artwork to the online graphic arts community to which I belong -- DeviantArt (not what it sounds like). The piece was based on a satellite image of the Ganges River delta in India that I downloaded from a NASA website. When crafting the piece -- entitled simply, Ganges -- I decided to research Hindu legends and myths about the Ganges River. Many Hindus refer to the Ganges as "Ma Ganga" or "Mother Ganges." This epithet stems from a legend of a Universal Mother story in Hindu mythology. I thought, all in all, that this would be an interesting cultural piece. Not long after posting it, I received a comment from another member who, like myself, was a member of the "Christians" group on DeviantArt (called "DA"). He questions whether, as a Christian, I ought to be posting art of this type. When I questioned his objection, it was to my use of Hindu mythology. In my reply to his objection, I referred to my statement in the original posting that this piece was based on a myth -- a falsehood, and stated very unequivocally that I believe that "there is only one truth and that is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I further stated that by being knowledgeable about cultures and belief systems other than Christianity, I can better reach out to others -- like the Apostle Paul (see Acts 17). Last night, I began to think about being "in, but not of" this world. Can one be an effective Christian and an artist who draws inspiration from the whole of God's creation? So I began to think of any reference to artists in the Bible. There are very few such references that I could think of. The silversmiths of Ephesus rioted because of the effectiveness of Paul's witness in that city. King David wrote numerous songs and poems to praise God. But David's works of art were solely directed at praising God -- it was not a vocation for David. I have not made an exhaustive search, but there seems to be very little evidence of the arts in the Bible. So I began thinking, do I have to restrict my artistic efforts to strictly Christian themes because I claim the name of Christ? My answer is no. To do so is to withdraw from general society which is not what God wants. Just as God intended for the Old Testament Jews to be a light to the Gentiles, Christians are to be a light to an unbelieving world. How can we do this if we restrict ourselves to purely Christian pursuits and interests? We cannot. My interest and skills in the arts are a gift from God that I use for His glory in the world at large. So, should I use themes that refer to the mythologies of other cultures? I don't entirely know. My position is that I should not lift up such mythologies as being in any way true or worthy of belief or acceptance. I don't feel my "Ganges" piece does this. Take a look at "Ganges" and give me your thoughts on it. How would you handle this problem? Drop me a line.

P.S. If you would like to see my Christian-themed art, please look at my Typography Series and Sky Burn.

UPDATE: I have removed my Ganges piece from my online gallery. The responses I received were telling me that it was being interpreted in a way that I had not intended. I don't want to lead anyone to stumble in their faith, or lead them to believe anything other than the exalted Jesus.

I just recently finished reading Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. And, as my title implies, it was a mixed bag. I loved the way the author presented emotional content and motivations. There are sections where the author specifically writes: "This is what [character] is feeling now:." Since so much of Anakin Skywalker's fall into darkness is about unmanaged emotions and confusion of motives, it is helpful having the author give you insight into Anakin's thoughts and emotions. However, the author does not follow the movie. While no one has seen the movie yet, I do know that there are certain scenes that were not in the novel. If you go to the Star Wars website, you can watch video clips of various theatrical trailers and TV ads. From these video snippets I know that there will be scenes showing Kashyyyk -- the homeworld of the Wookies. However, these scenes do not appear in the novel. Other scenes not novelized include the (spoiler warning -- highlight to read:) clone troopers turning on and murdering the Jedi (end). These scenes are eluded to, but not detailed or fleshed out.

Despite these drawbacks, I enjoyed the book. It was a quick read (mostly due to my eagerness). You also get to find out why the Force is out of balance and how Anakin brings balance, as well as how Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda come back as "ghosts" whereas previous Jedi have not come back. Really cool stuff. But, hey, I'm a Star Wars geek.

Well, it's finally over. The Catholic Church has a new Pope -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger will be enthroned as Benedict XVI. Cardinal Ratzinger has been long been considered a very conservative influence within the church. So indiciations may be that the church will continue to be a conservative bulwark against calls for a lot liberal changes in the church.

While I am not a Catholic and I do not accept the Papacy or what it stands for, I am glad that the church has aparently chosen stand its ground against watering down theology.

Sorry that I haven't been able to post recently. I have been swamped with work for my Management class. I'm presenting tonight on Innovation at Nike. After tonight, only 2 weeks until my final and a month-long breather. My final shouldn't be too difficult -- a case study essay. Then the aforementioned breather. Over the summer I'll take my final class before graduation -- Consulting. I'll get to consult with a local business. I'm really looking forward to it.

I should be posting more after tonight. Thanks for your patience.

It never ceases to amaze me when I see some new Liberal expression of hatred towards President Bush. Drudge recently highlighted a t-shirt (see below) that featured artwork saying "Kill Bush." Thankfully, some saner minds prevailed. CafePress.com, an online marketplace for those who wish to independently seel products via the Net, has pulled the "Kill Bush" shirt because it has policies against "hate-related materials." Good for them!

This should come as no real surprise, but the Democrats are being critical of a Republican political consultant who happens to be gay. In particular, former President Bill Clinton made comments this weekend about a conservative political consultant, Arthur Finklestein, who had created an organization ("Stop Her Now") to oppose Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. Instead of attacking the organization or the motivations for such a movement, the ex-President launches an ad hominem attack at Finkelstein, saying his announcements among friends of his recent civil union with his long-time partner was a sign of "self-loathing." Clinton said: "I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious, and is totally Machiavellian in his position, or there's some sort of self-loathing there. I was more sad for him."

The article goes on to compare the former President's remarks to similar remarks made by Sen. John Kerry. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry made remarks about Vice President Dick Cheney's gay daughter. It would seem that it is entirely proper for Democrats and Liberals to make disparaging comments about Republicans who are gay, but God forbid that a Republican/Conservative should make similar comments. When a Republican makes ANY comments regarding homosexuals or homosexuality, it is the height of bigotry and prejudice. Regardless of what is said. To the Left, Conservatives have no acceptable grounds on which to make commentary about gays.

It's the same way with practically every other minority group in the U.S. If you are a Conservative minority (Black, Hispanic, Gay, Woman, etc.), you must be out of your mind. Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez, Arthur Finkelstein, and Condi Rice (among others) must all be somehow deranged -- mentally unhinged because they're all Republicans.

I just hope that, despite the predominance of Lefties in the MSM, the American electorate sees this for what it is -- duplicity of the worst order.

Well, here it is -- the new design. Please let me know what you think. I'm going to leave it up over the weekend, at the very least. Your comments are much appreciated.

I'm currently working on a new design for this blog. It's taking me longer this time around because I'm starting from scratch instead of modifying an existing template. I think you'll like what I'm putting together. If you're a webhead or someone who knows their HTML, and are interested in lending a hand, I could use it. But for now, I'm pushing along nicely.

If you're interested in a sneak peek, check this out. This is an identification piece for the online arts community to which I belong. Let me know what you think.

The other night, I had stayed late at the office. As I left the office and walked to my car, I paused and glanced to the West. The sun had just recently set and was setting the western sky ablaze. My breath was taken away. The low-flying clouds were alive with color -- oranges, reds, maroon, purple, and upward into deep blue. I stood there for several minutes and watched the fires die out and night complete its encroachment.

Even now, it was a very touching moment. In these times of partisan wranglings in government, the continuing criminal unrest in Iraq, the malaise that is my job, and the pomp and circumstance of a papal funeral; it is absolutely necessary that we remember to stop and see the beauty that is all around us. If you don't see it, you're not really looking. It's right in front of you. The hundreds of shades of green in the grass. The way the sun reflects off a rain-filled puddle. The abstract harmony of a discarded chewing gum wrapper set against the patterned relief of a sidewalk slab. If you really look, you will find beauty everywhere.

When I see such things, I have no doubts that there is a powerful God who has created the universe. The complexity of how beauty is interspersed throughout creation can only be accomplished by an Almighty God. So, when you're tired, when you're busy, when you're distracted -- take a moment.

There is no possible way that you cannot have heard about the death of Pope John Paul II. Both cable and broadcast networks have been showing little else. In case you haven't been paying much attention, this morning I received a piece from the WSJ's Opinion Journal that was posted on Saturday after the Pope's death. The piece is entitled A Man for All Seasons. Go and check it out.

While I am neither a Catholic nor an appreciator of Catholicism, I do have an appreciation for Pope John Paul II. As has been rightly said by many, John Paul II is as responsible for the downfall of Communism in the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact as President Ronal Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. John Paul II also stood up for the sanctity of life -- sometimes maddeningly (as in the case of the war in Iraq). For these two things, I will honor the man, Pope John Paul II.

UPDATE: I wanted to extend my remarks regarding the death of Pope John Paul II. And I will do so by directing you to Albert Mohler's recent comments on his blog entitled -- Pope John Paul II -- The Man and His Legacy. Enjoy.

I just read this article about how someone has vandalized the Medal of Honor Memorial in Indianapolis, IN. Someone has spray painted insults to President Bush and IN Governor Mitch Daniels on the memorial, broken large glass panels engraved with the names of war veterans, and sprayed general grafiti over much of the memorial site. Some speculation has been pointed at students on spring break (college? high school?).

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor and heroism that the United States can bestow. The men who have received the Medal of Honor are the very best our nation has to offer. These men have (often) given their lives to defend freedom and to protect the lives of their fellow soldiers, sailors and marines. All you have to do is to read the Medal citations to understand the level of heroism, galantry and honor that have been displayed. There are none better!

Terri Schiavo is dead. Now what will you do? To my mind, this life lost requires action. Not only because of the life unjustly taken, but also because of the injustice of the system that her case has exposed.

So I ask again, what will you do?

(HT: Drudge)

Recently, I have been having a vigorous inner debate over civil disobedience; particularly as it applies to the Terri Schiavo situation. It has been a very conflicting situation for me. As many of you know (or at least have guessed), I'm a strong believer in the sanctity of life -- be it life in the womb or life in the hospice. I believe that life is a gift from God and should not be taken lightly. After spending a great deal of time thinking about it, I have come to a number of conclusions.

I do not believe that civil disobedience should be practiced in the case of Terri Schiavo. Throughout history, civil disobedience has been practiced when laws have been unjust. In a recent posting by Sue Bob, she tells the story of a group of French Huguenots in the village of Le Chambon who hid and protected Jews from the Vichy government and their Nazi allies during World War II. The Vichy government was cooperating with the Nazis in rounding up Jews for internment (and eventual extermination). The Huguenots of Le Chambon actively resisted the Vichy/Nazis, but without violence. During the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. engaged in numerous instances of civil disobedience to protest the injustice of American law in not providing equal protection and opportunity for blacks. In both cases, civil disobedience was practiced in defiance of unjust laws. Most commentators have made the point that there is no unjust law in Terri Schiavo's case, but instead the injustice comes through the misapplication of the law and the intransigence of the judiciary.

The question can then be asked, why can't civil disobedience be practiced in defiance of any law unjustly applied? Who determines what unjust application of a just law is? We would have little problem with this question if we had a shared system of morals. With a shared system of morals we can then stand on common ground when making decisions about the justice of a given law. But today, a vocal minority of society is rejecting the current moral basis for society. It is well proven that our Founding Fathers used the principles of Christianity and Judaism to create the foundation of American society and government. I won't debate that here. But, of late, these founding principles are now being eschewed in favor of a system of relativist values. Therefore, there is no longer a shared system of values (or at least that system is being continuously degraded). Despite this, America is a society founded on law. In order to secure our society from chaos, the Founders established a system of laws to establish order in society. If we state that civil disobedience can be invoked in a society without a shared moral system, then we are opening the door to the breakdown of an ordered society. If any one person can decide to disobey the law because they feel it to be unjust (based on their shifting sense of moral judgment), then we are passing society over to a future of chaos and institutional disorder.

Instead, I think we who still share a common system of morals must practice Civil Obedience. When a growing portion of society is erring on the side of personal morals and holding them to be relative, those of who shared the desire for an ordered society must stand up for those values which will ensure that ordered society. Many of us are looking at our government and seeing that is rapidly going astray from its founding principles. The judiciary is running away with power that we are giving it. When society allows a judiciary to misapply the law and act with powers that have not been given to it then, as a matter of civil obedience, we must bring that judiciary back into conformance with its founding principles. The same goes for the executive and legislative branches of our government. "We the people" is the opening phrase of the Constitution of the United States. The power to form a government and order society was, and is, derived from "We the People." Therefore, "We the People" are solely responsible for our government's performance. "We the People" are responsible for the runaway judiciary. I ask you, when will "We the People" take this responsibility seriously and reestablish order in society?


Postscript: I want to thank the following people for helping in my inner deliberative process: Hugh Hewitt, Jerri Ward, Don Waddell, Matt Heidt, and my wife.

Ready for a chuckle? According to a report posted in The Guardian (HT: Drudge), we naughty humans are living beyond our means. A report endorsed by over 1300 scientists is saying that we've used up 2/3 of the Earth's resources. The Scientists say that "In effect, one species is now a hazard to the other 10 million or so on the planet, and to itself." These are probably the same scientists who are telling us that the Avian Flu could kill off over 25% of the population of Great Britain.

Don't you just love the world's scientific community? When the world begins to get stale they come along with a real knee-slapper. Thanks guys.

It's bad enough when the United States allows (by one means or another) millions of Mexicans into our country to seek their fortunes. I'm not here to spark an immigration debate. But do we have to stand by when Mexicans disrespect our national soccer team? the U.S. National Soccer team was greeted with boos, thrown objects and chants of "Osama" when it arrived in Mexico City to play the Mexican National Soccer Team in a World Cup qualifying match? It used to be that despite national passions for traditional sporting events, a certain amount of respect was given for competing honorably. But never mind me. I'm just an old-school gentleman who still believes in giving honor and respect where they are due. Even when it is not returned. And sometimes when it is not due. It's the principle that matters.

There have been several things that have recently tweaked my ire. Some of them you will no doubt guess. Others you have probably have been able to see in retrospect.

Terri Schiavo is on her last legs. She has been given a second set of last rights in preparation for her passing. There is still a desire within me to call for more vocal opposition to the acts of Terri's estranged husband. But I won't. I still feel that Michael Schiavo is acting without regard for Terri or her family. Michael's only concern is Michael and his own bank account. We cannot allow this incident to pass us by without doing something to keep it from happening again. We must try to establish laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Whenever we have such a case, we must ALWAYS err on the side of life.

Last week, here in Louisville, a 17 yr old young man shot a policeman and then turned the gun on himself. Officer Peter Grignon will be buried today after a funeral at Southeast Christian Church. The community has been rocked by this senseless act of violence. The 27 yr old Grignon celebrated his first wedding anniversary only two weeks ago. He loved being on the Louisville Metro Police Department -- it was a life-long dream to be a policeman. We must not let this tragic event pass without attempting to prevent future occurrences. We must take steps to teach our youth that murder is never an acceptable answer to any problem. Human life is too precious to be treated this casually. Parents, retake control of your children's upbringing! You can reshape the future of our society by retaining possession of your children's education and by grooming them for a responsible adulthood. You should not leave the training of your children to people like Tupac, 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg. M-TV should not be the source of your children's morals. We can change our society, but only if we are willing to take responsibility for that society.

Last night, as I was watching television, I watched commercials by the United Church of Christ. While I know that these commercials have been around for a while, I have not yet taken the opportunity to make my commentary about it. The commercial shows a church where velvet ropes has been position at the church steps and is manned by bouncers. The bouncers are selectively admitting people to the church building in the background. Among those who are prevented from entering the church are a male homosexual couple, a young black man, and an hispanic woman. The United Church of Christ is trying to say that they will accept homosexuals where other churches will not. The commercial says that Jesus accepted everyone. But what the commercial doesn't say is that, while Jesus did accept everyone, he required them to change from their sinful ways. The religious leaders of Jesus' time tried to trap Jesus by bringing him a woman caught in adultery for his judgment. Jesus told her accusers that the one without sin should "cast the first stone." But, after her accusers left, Jesus told her "Go, and sin no more." In the same way, Christian churches should welcome homosexuals, but should also require that they give up their sinful lives. The Bible is entirely clear about the sinful nature of homosexuality. But it does not say that homosexuality is any more sinful than stealing pens from the office or murdering a crippled woman. The United Church of Christ is merely trying to increase their attendance at the expense of Biblical truth. They are willing to diosregard certain truths (sometimes painful truths) in order to maintain or increase attendance, and offering levels.

Thus endeth the rant.