Write Idea

Paganism: Ingrained in Culture, Both American and Christian

noreply@blogger.com (Publius) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:35:00 +0000

This is the second in a series of studies relating to the pagan practices prevalent in today's society, and religion. The first study is Hip! Hip! Hurrah: Jerusalem is destroyed.

Coins: Constantine & sun worship.

Our researching into Paganism has led us to the "days of the week." Following is a short analysis of the history of the "days of the week," followed by some Biblical considerations.

Sun-Day

From Latin, Dies Solis, the Day-of-the-Sun. Since Babylon was established, Pagans have worshiped the sun.

Sunday was the day set aside in the Mithra (Roman) cult as its official day to assemble together to worship its Sun-deity. Roman Emperor Constantine legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios (also see here). Constantine worshiped "Christos Helios" (see near the bottom of the page) which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." The Roman Catholic Church venerates Sun-day as its Sabbath even today, and has handed it down to Christianity.

Mon-Day

The Day-of-the-Moon. To the Romans, lunae dies. Also Anglo-Saxon monandaeg, "the moon's day."

The moon, like the sun, was an object of wonder in the days of old, and was worshiped almost everywhere in some form or other, but it does not play quite so important a part in story as the sun (see more here, and here.)

Tues-Day

Tyr’s Day: “day of Tiu.” Teutonic Druid idol. The Romans named this day after their war-god Mars: dies Martis (see here for more information).

Wednes-Day

Woden, Odin, Woden’s Day. Considered highly skilled in magic, this Celtic deity was, to the Teutonic Pagan, the husband of Freya, or Frigga. The Romans honored Mercury on this day; calling it Mercurii dies (Mercury’s Day) (for more information, see here).

Thurs-Day

The Thor’s Day. Thor was the god of thunder in Germanic paganism and its subset Norse paganism (see here for more information).

Fri-Day

Frey Day, or Frigga Day. Frigga was the wife of Woden, one of the principal gods in Norse mythology.

Satur-Day

This day was called dies Saturni, “Saturn's Day,” by the ancient Romans in honor of Saturn. In Anglo-Saxon: sater daeg.

For any more general information, see Britannica Encyclopedia
Sacred Texts, or
Encyclopedia Mythica.

Why does this matter?

Let us consider Exo 23:13

Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.

Literally, we are to make no mention of the name of other gods; we should not call upon them, swear by them, and make vows to them; and, we should not even UTTER THEIR NAMES for doing so shows honor and reverence to them. Whenever we hear their names, we must treat them with the utmost detestation and abhorrence.

Neither let it be heard out of thy mouth; not any of their names; the same thing in different words. By uttering the names of pagan deities, we are inculcating and impressing their names upon the minds of others, rather than showing vehemence and disgust.

We are told in Eph 5:15

See then that you walk exactly, not as unwise, but as wise

That is, carefully, anxiously, and solicitous lest one falls into sin. The word rendered “exactly” - ἀκριβῶς akribōs - means “diligently,” and the idea here is, that they were to take special pains to guard against the breaking of the commandments of Elohim (God).

So what exactly does this mean?

According to the Bible (not according to me), by uttering the names of pagan deities on a regular basis, in fact as an integral part of our society—we are blatantly disrespecting the Word of יהוה (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the Hebrew letters that form the name Yahweh, the personal name of our Elohim).

Positive results of heeding Elohim’s word:

Joh 14:15 “If you love Me, you shall guard My commands.
Joh 14:23 יהושע answered him, “If anyone loves Me, he shall guard My Word. And My Father shall love him, and We shall come to him and make Our stay with him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of Elohim, when we love Elohim and guard His commands.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love for Elohim, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy,

If we follow the Lord's commands, we will be blessed with success (Josh. 1:8).
If we follow the Lord's commands, we will be blessed with long life (Dt. 4:40; 5:33; Prov. 10:27).
If we follow the Lord's commands, we will be blessed with financial prosperity (Dt. 28).
If we follow the Lord's commands, we will be blessed with eternal life (Jn. 5:24).

Negative results of ignoring Elohim’s word:

Joh 12:48

He who rejects Me, and does not receive My Words, has one who judges him: the Word that I have spoken shall judge him in the last day.

Whose commands did Yeshua (commonly called Jesus) teach?

Joh 7:16

יהושע answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

Why is it that we have not been taught this before?

2Ti 4:3

For there shall be a time when they shall not bear sound teaching, but according to their own desires, they shall heap up for themselves teachers tickling the ear.

Rom 16:18

For such ones do not serve our Master יהושע Messiah, but their own stomach, and by smooth words and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.

Isa 30:10

Who say to the seers, “Do not see,” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right. Speak to us what is smooth, prophesy deceits.

Jer 5:31

The prophets have prophesied falsely, and the priests rule by their own hand, and My people have loved it so. And what are you going to do at the end of it?

Conclusion

Just do it. The Creator of the Universe says don’t say the names of other “god’s.” All my life I have disobeyed Him in this regard. Now, after doing my own study in the matter, I have concluded that I have been wrong all my life.

How?

The final question is how do we avoid saying the names of pagan deities? The answer is simple. Based on my research, I have found that throughout history follows of Yahweh have called the days of the week by the following names:

Saturday—Sabbath

Sunday—First Day

Monday—Second Day

Tuesday—Third day

Wednesday—Fourth day

Thursday—Fifth

Friday—Sixth Day

Or another method is simply to state a specific date: e.g., the 8^th of the month.

Finally

Just Do It

And remember:

Desire without knowledge is not good; And he who hurries with his feet sins. [Pro 19:2].

Even if your heart is in the right place…knowledge is required, too!

Senator Starr Proposes Redistricting Reform

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:33:00 +0000

From the Oregon Catalyst:

Press release from Senator Bruce Starr
Senator Starr proposes overhaul of redistricting
process. Broad support for a bi-partisan commission.
Salem, OR – State Senator Bruce Starr (R-Hillsboro) has proposed
a new plan to make the way Oregon draws new legislative districts bi-partisan,
objective and fair. Starr will introduce the plan before the 2009 Legislative
Assembly.
“This plan takes the politics out of the redistricting process
so neither party can play kingmaker with Oregon’s representatives,” said Starr.
“Past redistricting plans have been used by political parties to create grossly
gerrymandered districts that look more like Rorschach inkblots than legislative
districts. Our state has a great legacy of fairness, and our redistricting
process should eliminate any possibility for partisan games so that our elective
districts are drawn with the best interests of voters at heart.”
Starr’s plan calls for a commission of
five to draw new district boundaries every ten years. The commission will
consist of two appointees each from the minority and majority parties of the
legislature. The fifth member, a non-voting chairman, will be elected by a
majority vote of the commission members. No past or presently elected official
will serve on the commission.
The plan also stipulates fair and object criteria for drawing
the new districts. Each district will be nearly equal in population, compact,
and separated from other districts by logical boundaries such as geographical
features, artificial barriers or existing political lines. The map will be drawn
so as not to favor or discriminate against any political party or group.
The legislature is given power to amend the redistricting plan,
but only with a two-thirds vote.
“This plan puts voters first and politicians second when
it comes to redistricting,” said Starr. “That’s the type of politics that
represents the Oregon I know.”
The Public Commission on the Oregon Legislature, a bi-partisan group tasked with making suggestions for a more effective legislature, recommended the creation of a Redistricting Commission as a fundamental change needed in Oregon government. The Commission’s Blueprint for a21st Century Legislature recommended “a process that is staffed by skilled professionals, overseen by a state official with no political stake in the outcome, and may result in plans that are more fair and can be prepared more efficiently.”

Starr is submitting his redistrict plan for drafting and
introduction in the 2009 legislative session. Oregon is due to re-draw district
lines in 2011.

I think reform is a great idea, and something we really need to prevent partisanship in something like redistricting that should not be partisan. Commssions have been used in other states, and seems to have worked well. Lets hope that the Legislature will put the people of Oregon first and partisanship behind and vote on and pass this plan.

Starr also mentioned the possibility of putting it on the ballot saying:

“I hope that the Democrats in Salem see this as the public policy that's best
for Oregon. But if they don't, I can take it directly to the people. That's
happened a lot. And, if that's the direction we have to go, that's the direction
we'll go."

An Early Look at Oregon Senate Races (Pt. II)

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:25:00 +0000

Here is part two of the district-by-district look at the 2010 Oregon Senate races (this is part one):

District 15:

Moderate Republican Bruce Starr currently represents this district, which consists mostly of Hillsboro, also containing Cornelius, Forest Grove, and Norrth Plains. Starr should have an easy time winning re-election if he seeks it. If Starr decides not to run, the strongest candidate would probably be the winner of the State Rep election between Democrat David Edwards and Republican Andy Duyck. Also, Democrat Chuck Riley and Republican Jeff Duyck (if he lives in the district by then) could be good candidates.

District 16:

Incumbent Betsy Johnson has been mentioned as a possible Governor candidate, which would leave the seat open. She has also recently come under fire for ethics questions, and is under investigation by the FBI, making less likely she will run for Governor. This district is one of the oddest districts, it includes a lot of coastal areas, all of Clatsop and Columbia counties, and extends all the way into Multnomah and Washington counties. If Johnson runs for Governor, leaves because of ethics investigations, or decides not to run for other reasons, potential candidates include Democratic Reps Debbie Boone and Brad Witt and Clatsop county D.A. Ben Marquis. Johnson would probably win easily if she runs again, though her ethics issues certainly won't help. Republicans will need to recruit a very strong candidate to win in this liberal leaning district.

District 17:

Democrat Suzanne Bonamici was appointed to fill the vacancy left when Brad Avkian was named Labor Commissioner. She will probably win easily in the November special election, and it will be difficult for Republicans to defeat her in this Democratic district, which is comprised by a large part of Beaverton as well as part of Portland.

District 19:

This district is made up by the cities of Lake Oswego, Tualitan, and West Linn, spanning Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties. Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin, a Democrat, is likely to run again here, and shouldn't face much difficulty. If Devlin does retire, there are plenty of potential candidates; Outgoing Rep Greg Macpherson, as well as House candidates Chris Garret and Linda Brown are all potential Democratic candidates. Potential Republicans include: Rep. Scott Bruun, House candidate Steve Griffith, Tualatuin Mayor Lou Ogden, former Rep Bob Tiernan, and businessman Jim Zupancic. This district is a tossup between the two parties.

District 20:

Incumbent Democrat Kurt Schrader is the favorite to win in the open 5th Congressional district (in large part because of Republican Mike Erickson's issues). If Schrader does win, Democratic officials will submit three names to the Clackamas county Commissioners, who will appoint a replacement. The likeliest replacement is probably Schrader's wife Martha, who is currently a county commissioner. Bill Kennemer, a former State rep, Senator, and current county commissioner, who is favored to win a open House seat, would be a good candidate for Republicans. House Majority Leader Dave Hunt is unlikely to be interested.

District 24:

Rod Monroe is the Democratic incumbent in this east Multnomah district that contains part of Clackamas county as well. Monroe, who served as a Legislator in the 90's, came back and won by a small margin in 2006. Monroe, who will be 68 , has a pretty fair chance of retiring. If that is the case, potential candidates include Democrats Rep. Mike Schaufler, Jefferson Smith, who is unopposed for a House seat, and Jeff Merkely if he fails in his U.S. Senate race. Potential Republicans include 2006 challenger T.J. Reilly, who came close in the Democratic year 2006, and Dave Mowry, who nearly defeated Schafler in 2004. This district has a definite Democratic lean, but is probably not out of reach for Republicans.

District 26:

Moderate Democrat Rick Metsger, who just lost a primary race for Secretary of State this year, is the incumbent in this district which is comprised by Hood River county, a large part of Clackamas county, and part of Multnomah county. This is definitely a tossup district. Republicans would probably have at least an even chance here if Metsger decides not to run again. The likeliest candidate for Republicans would be Rep. Linda Flores if she can survive this election, the idea of running for a Senate seat which only comes up every four years may sound appealing to Flores, who seems to be targeted each time she is up for re-election. Other Republican candidates could include Rep. Patti Smith, 2006 candidate Carol York, and very unlikely Matt Lindland, who is running to replace Smith. For Democrats, both of their House candidates, Brent Barton and Suzanne VanOrmann, who are running against Flores and Lindland, are potential candidates.

Hip! Hip! Hurrah: Jerusalem is destroyed

noreply@blogger.com (Publius) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:22:00 +0000

The origins of words and phrases hold the key to many mysteries that would otherwise never be discovered.

During the 135 AD siege of Jerusalem, so great and severe was the struggle, that Hadrian, in announcing to the Roman Senate the conclusion of the war, refrained from using the usual congratulatory phrase. The city was then obliterated. Its very name was changed, and it was renamed Aelia Capitolinus. For 200 years the city passed out of history, no Jews being permitted to approach it. So great was the relief which Rome experienced by this suppression of Jerusalem and the Jews, that the toast became common at Roman feasts, "Hierosolyma Est Perdita," "Jerusalem is destroyed," the guests immediately greeting it with the shout Hurrah. This is the origin of our "Hep! Hep! Hurrah," H, E, P, being the abbreviation of the three words, formed by their initial letters (on the principle known as Notarica, or Notricon). To this day Hep or Hip is said by only one person, the rest joining in the shout which greets it!

So...next time you're at a party, what thoughts will travel through your head when you hear, "Hip, Hip, Hurrah!"?

For more information see Bullinger, Numbers in Scripture.

An Early Look at Oregon Senate Races

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:07:00 +0000

Since it doesn't look like any if this year's State Senate races are going to be close, from my perspective it is a foregone conclusion that Republicans will gain one seat (27), I have already been looking towards the 2010 State Senate races. 15 seats, plus any vacancies that need to be filled, will be up. When incumbents retire, members of the House often run to replace them (22 of 30 Senators are former House members). Here is a district-by-district look at the 2010 Senate races (due to the length of this post, I will divide it in two, so be sure to check back tomorrow for part two):

District 3:

Allan Bates currently represents this swing district which consists mostly of the cities of Ashland and Medford. Bates will probably run for re-election, though he has shown interest in higher office. If Bates retires, potential Republican candidates could include Rep. Sal Esquivel or former Rep. Rob Partridge. Democrats would probably nominate Rep. Peter Buckley.

District 4:

This fairly Liberal district is composed by parts of Douglas and Lane counties, including a large part of Eugene. Democrat incumbent Floyd Prozanski will likely run for re-election without major opposition. Even if he does retire, it will be difficult for Republicans to win this district. Democrat Rep. Paul Holvey would be the most likely option to succeed Prozanski.

District 6:

Democrat Bill Morrisette is set to retire at the end of his current term. This district is made up by the city of Springfield, as well as part of surrounding Lane county and part of Linn county. Democrat Reps Phil Barnhart or Terry Beyer, though probably not both, will almost certainly run. The winner of the Dem primary will probably be the favorite in this Democratic leaning district, unless popular Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken decides to run, which is a possibility.

District 7:

Vicki Walker, a Democrat who was unsuccessful in a Secretary of State bid this year, will be up for re-election in this Eugene based district. Last election, Walker was nearly taken out by former Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey. Though this district has a Democratic lean, it could be close. Potential Republican candidates include Torrey, and former State Reps Debbi and Pat Farr. Democratic candidates, if Walker doesn't run again, could potentially be reps Nancy Nathanson or Chris Edwards.

District 8:

Liberal Republican Senator Frank Morse looks like he will retire at the end of his term, likely setting up a partisan and geographic battle between Reps Sara Gelser, a Democrat from the mostly Corvallis half of the district, and Andy Olson, who represents the mostly Albany portion of the district. This may be the top Senate race of 2010, as this is a tossup district, having just a small Democratic registration advantage, and being represented by a moderate Republican for the last few terms.

District 10:

This district is made up of Monmouth, a large portion of Salem, and the surrounding rural areas. Moderate Republican Jackie Winters represents this district, which leans Republican but barely. Winters seems likely to retire, she will be 73 and will have served multiple terms. The best candidate for Republicans would probably be State Rep. Kevin Cameron. Also State Rep. Vicki Berger is a strong possibility. For the Democrats, 2006 candidate and former Monmouth Mayor Paul Evans is one potential candidate.

District 11:

Senate President Peter Courtney represents this Salem-based district, the district with the fewest number of registered voters. This district seems to be trending more Democratic, Republicans have lost both House seats in the last two elections, and Courtney should be able to win re-election easily if he seeks it, which seems likely. Democrats Betty Komp and Brian Clem are the State Reps in this district. Republican Kevin Mannix, former Legislator, party Chair, and candidate for multiple other offices, is a potential dark horse candidate, though it remains to be seen if he has interest in running for public office anymore after losing several times in a row.

District 13:

This district is solidly Republican. Incumbent Larry George should cruise to re-election. He may face a primary challenge, though that is probably unlikely. If George retires, it probably wouldn't even hurt Republicans chances here.

New Interactive Election 2008 Applications

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:39:00 +0000

Check out USA Today's new interactive application which lets you predict the election. My predictions came out as Obama winning 295 electoral votes, compared to McCain's 245.

Also, check out Slate's application which allows you to find which potential VP choice fits you best (unfortunately they don't factor ideology in).

Another Possible VP Choice for Obama; Lincoln Chafee

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:47:00 +0000

One choice for Obama's Vice-Presidential selection I haven't heard mentioned much is former Senator Lincoln Chafee. For several reasons, I think Chafee could quite possibly be a good fit for Obama.

Chafee, 55, is a former Republican Senator from Rhode Island. He was defeated in 2006 by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, despite having fairly high job approval ratings.

In the summer of 2007, Chafee left the Republican party and became an Independent. He endorsed Obama in February, a few weeks before the Democratic primary.

As a former Republican and Independent, Chafee could, as the VP candidate, help Obama's appeal to some Independents and liberal Republicans. And while Chafee would bring some more from the center, he would probably not offend many Liberals, as his voting record is to the left on almost every controversial issue: He was the only Republican to vote against the Iraq war resolution (which 29 Democrats voted for, as opposed to just 21 who voted against), he is a strong supporter of abortion and gay marriage, and he has opposed many of President Bush's policies and appointments, including Justice Samuel Alito and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Chafee went so far as to consider challenging him in the 2004 primary, and opting to vote for a write-in (George H.W. Bush, the current President's father), rather than for President Bush.

Having spent over seven years in the Senate, Chafee would bring experience, particularly foreign policy experience, to the ticket and he would be able to do that likely without contradicting Obama's message, which often emphasizes change and being an outsider to the government, since he is from a different party (change) and because he only spent seven years in the Senate (being a Mayor prior to that), and was then defeated (outsider). His years as Mayor of Warwick give him a small amount of executive experience. At 55, Chafee is a pretty good age, he is not young enough to accentuate problems people might have with Obama's age, yet he is certainly not too old either.

Chafee does not however, hail from a key geographical area as his home state of Rhode Island, as well as almost every state close to it, should be easily carried by Obama (I do think that the value of having a VP candidate from a swing state is overrated; when was the last time a VP was picked from a crucial swing state?). Also, liberal activists may be a little hesitant since Bush campaigned for Chafee in 2006, and the Republican Senatorial committee spent millions trying to defend him.

One interesting scenario would be if Obama picked Chafee, and McCain picked Senator Joe Lieberman, both of whom came from opposite parties as the Presidential nominees, then switched to Independents and endorsed Obama and McCain, respectively. This scenario seems unlikely, but then again, this election season has been pretty unpredictable....

Duyck Fights Back

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:03:00 +0000

A few days ago, I wrote about Oregon House District 29 candidate Jeff Duyck, who was told he probably couldn't run anymore because of an error by election officials. He was given a certain amount of time to respond.

Now Duyck is offering to move to another home inside District boundaries if he is allowed to stay on the ballot.

Duyck sent a letter (I definitely recommend reading the letter) Thursday morning to the Secretary of State's office making the offer. He also argues that even if he stays in his current residence, he should be treated as an inhabitant of the district because most of his farm is in the district and he has been voting in that district for seven years (not to mention they counted him as part of district 29's population when drawing the districts, or so I've heard). He also was certified as a candidate in district 29, and was certified as the Republican nominee in the district.

Although Duyck has been told for years that he lives in district 29, a local resident recently filed a complaint with the secretary of state, saying that Duyck's home was actually in HD 26. The state Constitution says legislators have to live in the district for a year before the election.

Duyck's campaign manager, Shawn Swearingen, said Jeff probably has "a 1 in 5 chance" of prevailing. Still, after previously thinking he had no recourse, Swearingen said Duyck is now getting legal advice and may go to court if the secretary of state rules against him.

"We don't want this [campaign] to be over," Swearingen said

If Duyck is not able to finish the race, it is unlikely that Republicans will win the seat (which makes it more likely that Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, a partisan Democrat, will not grant the request). Republican precinct committee people will have to decide on a new candidate. It will be difficult to find a candidate as good as Jeff.

I admire Jeff for not only giving his time and money, but even being willing to go through the annoyance and expense of moving, so he can serve the people of his district and state. We really need more people like him in office.

The Fundamentals of Logic: What You Need to Know for Your Everyday Argument

noreply@blogger.com (Publius) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:14:00 +0000

Every argue with someone and know that their argument was not logical, but could not explain why? Here are five common logical fallacies. Next time you’re having an argument and you here one of these used…just pipe up “you just committed the fallacy of….”

The fallacies of Improper Conversation

1. The Fallacy of the Pharisee. Because holy men bow their heads in prayer, and say “Lord, Lord!” those who bow their heads in prayer and say “Lord, Lord!” are holy.

2. The Fallacy of the Patrioteer. Since all who love their country should be willing to publicly profess their loyalty, therefore, all willing to publicly to profess their loyalty love their country.

3. The Fallacy of the Bohemian. Artists live in an odd fashion; therefore, those who live in an odd fashion are artists.

The Fallacy of Equivocation

The attorney for the defendant wins the consideration of the jury when he argues that a person who “steps into the path of a car” has only himself to fault for his injuries. He then proceeds to show that the person injured “stepped directly into the path of the car” in the current case. The conclusion, “Plaintiff (the person injured) has only himself to fault,” seems to follow unavoidably. However, the plaintiffs attorney rebuts this argument by showing that in the first usage of the term “steps into the path of the car” it is assumed to mean walking in front of an oncoming automobile, say, 20 or 30 feet away. However, in this case plaintiff “stepped into the path of the car” only in the sense that he began to cross the street when the car was 300 feet away. Hence the fallacy.

The Fallacy of Composition

A man reasons that if he bought and traded for the top ten basketball players in the NBA, he would have the greatest team ever assembled. However, actual experience shows that even though he has more individual talent than any other team, when combined his players form a bad team. Just because he had many individual A players, does not mean he has an A team. This fallacy consists in arguing that something is true of a whole which can safely be said only of its parts taken separately.

The Fallacy of Division

The Democrat party is controlled by corrupt unions. Mr. Donald is a member of the Democrat party. Thus, corrupt unions control Mr. Donald. This of course is a fallacious argument, as what is true of the whole does not follow as true for the part. Of course, neither does it follow from what was stated above that corrupt unions do not control Mr. Donald.

The Gambler’s Fallacy may also be considered an example of the fallacy of division. The gambler knows that the probability of getting heads four times in a row is rather small. Therefore, after three heads have turned up, he bets heads turning up on the fourth throw is now considerably less than ½. But this is foolish, for although the probability of getting heads four times in a row is 1/16, the probability of getting heads on the fourth throw, taken by itself, is still ½.

The Fallacy of Accent

“What a free country this is,” growled a man. He was promptly arrested by the dictator’s police, but managed to get himself off by pleading that all he said was, “This is a free country to live in!” Of course, the accent on the words was different in each case.

For more information on Logic, see A Handbook for Logic, Second Edition, Joseph Gerard Brennan, Harper & Row, Publishers.

Oregon has lost 6,700 jobs in the last 3 months

noreply@blogger.com (Publius) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:20:00 +0000

From the Conservative Majority Project News Blog

University of Oregon Index of Economic Indicators Shows Fewer Jobs for Oregonians

“Oregon's economy shed jobs for the third consecutive month in May as nonfarm payrolls fell by 3,700, pulling job growth down to just 0.3 percent compared to May 2007. The three-month job loss total now stands at 6,700; consistent with incoming housing data, construction is the hardest hit sector, suffering from a decline of 9,400 jobs since last July. Initial unemployment claims continue to hover around a weekly average of 8,000, indicating continuing weakness in labor markets, while Oregon help-wanted advertising continues to decline.”
(University of Oregon Index of Economic Indicators, May 2008 Analysis, Oregon Economic Forum)

Yet just last month Democrat Majority leader Dave Hunt said:
“We have been fiscally smart… and conservative. We’ve made the right investments and our economy is holding steady.”
(House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, Statement: Hunt Responds to Republicans: The Sky is Not Falling, 6/27/2008)

By the Numbers: Democrats’ Fiscal ‘Conservatism’ in 2007

20 Percent - Increase in state government spending
$620 Million - New taxes and fees (despite record state revenue)
$923 Million - New state debt (again, despite record state revenue
1,178 - New state employees added to state payroll
$12 Million - Pay raises to Gov. Kulongoski’s political appointees
$20 Million - Pay raises to appease the unions—who were upset about the political appointees’ pay raises

And don't forget that Dave Hunt thinks he is going to get a three fifths majority in the House.

Now is the time to help the Conservative Majority Project with our targeted help for some solid conservatives.

Help us raise $200,000 from the grassroots and we will take back the Oregon House of Representatives.

We have made it very simple to donate online and to refer a friend the Conservative Majority Project's efforts.

Iraq Prime Minister Suggests Withdrawal for U.S. Troops

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:56:00 +0000

Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, said yesterday that his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal Iraq is currently negotiating with America.

Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. However, many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.

"The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.

According to Iraqi national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

The opinion of Write Idea:

The U.S. should get out of Iraq as soon as the Iraqi Government can provide competent security without our help. Regardless of the overall mission achievability, we simply cannot keep sacrificing our brave young men's lives indefinitely, as well as billions of dollars (or 600 billion, to be exact). Even if it is somewhat chaotic after we leave, we should not overstay our welcome there. Moreover, we should not continue to have a presence in Iraq, if the Iraqi Government wants us to leave. Let's put it simply: we are currently fighting in Iraq in support of the "new" Iraqi Government. Thus, if the Iraqi Government asks us to leave, should we not leave? After all, is this not the very reason we are fighting? To establish their government as legitimate? To create a "democracy in the Middle East," in order to, "stabilize the region"? We cannot ask the world to recognize Iraq as sovereign, if we are not willing to do so ourselves.

The People of Oregon Likely to Lose a Great Candidate

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:42:00 +0000

As a lot of you probably already know, State House district 29 candidate Jeff Duyck was told that he did not live in the district after being told for seven years that he did live there.

A few weeks ago, I did a post about Duyck, who was running a strong campaign in the district. Also, his cousin Andy Duyck, a County Commissioner, was nominated to run in district 30.

It now looks like Jeff Duyck will not be able to run this year. Jeff spent huge amounts of his time campaigning, raised thousands of dollars (including $4,000 of his own money), and held several blitz walks in which volunteers gave their time to help get him elected.

All this was rendered vain however, because of the mistakes of the County Clerk's office and the Secretary of State.

The money and time that people gave will be wasted if Jeff is indeed forced to withdraw. The Republicans chance at gaining a majority in the House will be significantly reduced. The time that Jeff spent away from his family campaigning can not be replaced. The County should return the money spent because of their mistake.

But the real losers in this situation are the people of Oregon and particularly district 29. They would have enjoyed an exciting, but at the same time honorable, campaign between Duyck and incumbent Chuck Riley. They will miss out on having Jeff represent them in Salem, where he would have done a great job. Jeff would have been a great representative, he would always put the people first, not politics or special interests. He decided to run because he wanted to give back and help his district, area, and state.

I am personally very disappointed by this whole situation. It is another example of Government ineffectiveness. It also adds to the long history of Secretary Bill Bradbury, who has made many questionable decisions.

I really hope that someone can work out a way for Jeff to legally stay in the race this year. If not, I hope that Jeff runs again soon. He is a great person and we need more people like him in office.

Voting Genetically

noreply@blogger.com (shafer) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:45:00 +0000

Over at Twice Infinity, Matt Shafer writes about new research suggesting that whether or not you vote is connected to your genetics:

The hypothetical dystopias resulting from this are fascinating (and frightening) to ponder. .... As prenatal genetic testing becomes more common, it is easy to conceive of a political system based on biology: the government could simply calculate the genetic data and determine who will win. Voting? Bah! Waste of time!

Thoreau: Routine War Degenerates the Army

noreply@blogger.com (Publius) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:46:00 +0000

But when war too, like commerce and husbandry, gets to be a routine, and men go about it as indented apprentices, the hero degenerates into a marine, and the standing army into a standing jest.

--Thoreau, People, Principles, And Politics, Journal Entry, December 1839

Thoreau then goes on to state in Civil Disobedience:

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,

               "Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,

                   As his corse to the rampart we hurried;

              Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot

                   O'er the grave where our hero was buried."

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:

               "I am too high born to be propertied,

               To be a second at control,

               Or useful serving-man and instrument

               To any sovereign state throughout the world."

Victims Ignored and Justice Denied, Because of Supreme Court’s ‘Evolving Standards’

noreply@blogger.com (Publius) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:40:00 +0000

By Landon Webber,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Convicted child rapist Patrick Kennedy has now successfully avoided his death sentence approved by the jury in his trial in 2003 because the Supreme Court has again found that yet another class of convicted criminals- this time, child rapists- are not eligible for the death penalty. In a controversial 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded with the majority that state laws allowing for the death penalty in extreme rape cases, including those involving child rape, simply don’t cut it when it comes to constitutional standards. Louisiana, where Kennedy committed and was convicted of raping an eight year old, and five other states have the death penalty option for criminals convicted of rape. The case comes as one in a long line of Supreme Court opinions on the Eighth Amendment that have substantially limited death penalty options in criminal cases. “We conclude,” Kennedy wrote, “that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other.” There is indeed a distinction between a homicide and child rape, and yet one that the Court utterly failed to recognize.

Kate Bartholomew, an assistant district attorney in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, who deals with cases much like the one before the Supreme Court, discussed Louisiana’s reasons for having the option available in cases of child rape. “A lot of people think there should not be a death penalty because the child survives…In my opinion, the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide.” In cases of child rape, the assault, “takes away their innocence. It takes away their childhood. It mutilates their spirit. It kills their soul.” While the Court seems preoccupied in digging up reasons why states can’t simply give juries the option of using the death penalty, it has ignored the helpless victims, like the one in this case, who suffer for years as a result of an irreprehensible crime against their person.

Justice Kennedy was forced to concede that child rape causes “more prolonged physical and mental suffering” than most homicides, but yet overruled the jury’s decision to sentence Kennedy to death for his extremely violent crime, because, “we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.” The Court seems deeply intent on protecting the ever-growing rights of the violator, while denying the determined justice to the violated. As Justice Alito, disagreeing with the majority, wrote, the majority of the court has made a blanket judgment against capital punishment, “no matter how young the child,…no matter how much physical and psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s criminal record may be.”

The Court used a series of legal tests and mechanisms to figure out if the Louisiana law violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits all “cruel and unusual punishment.” In Justice Kennedy’s decision, he repeatedly used the language from the 1958 case, Trop v. Dulles, which prohibited the removal of citizenship for deserters during wartime, which stated that the ‘cruel and unusual’ clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Ambiguous language such as this places the Court in a perfect position to narrow or widen the scope of this part of the Constitution to basically any degree. According to past interpretations of this legal jargon, the Court discovers what the nation’s ‘evolving standards’ with regards to the death penalty are, by looking through their crystal ball of what they term ‘objective indicia’ of the ‘national consensus’ with regards to the death penalty. Indeed the Court’s journey through the history of the Eighth Amendment is riddled with past cases which continuously echoed, but variously applied the ‘evolving standards of decency.’ Most recently, using the infamous language from Trop, the Court decided the landmark case Roper v. Simmons which prohibited the death penalty for juvenile offenders. In this case, however, the Court drew national attention when they decided what this case’s ‘evolving standards of decency’ were based on international standards from countries randomly selected by then-Justice O’Connor, who wrote the majority opinion. In Wednesday’s decision, Kennedy v. Louisiana, Justice Kennedy at least decided to stick with determining national consensus based on the laws of U.S. states, however, the attorneys representing the State of Louisiana pointed out just how flawed this standard was with their arguments.

In oral arguments, Louisiana contended that even though a majority of states across the nation leave out the death penalty except in cases where the victim is murdered, more and more states are considering expanding where the death penalty applies- including, applying it in cases of child rape. The Court rejected basing their judgment of national consensus on proposed state legislation, as well they should have. But the argument goes to show just how unstable and flimsy the standard is. Using the ‘evolving standards’ test means that now, any time a capital punishment case comes before federal judges, the courts must again measure the ever-changing thermometer of national opinion about the death penalty. If in ten years, 25 states have added child rape as a capital crime, what should the courts do then? Well, judging by how Eighth Amendment law has been conveniently shifty, they will probably invent a new standard. The problem with a standard that makes a test out of whether or not something conforms to ‘evolving standards’ means that that part of the law is, well, evolving, ever-changing and never consistent. The Court’s decision hammers yet another nail in the coffin from ever having a clear interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. It is opinions that conform to subjective standards like these that mock the very nature of the Constitution and the grave and serious suffering that young victims like the one Patrick Kennedy raped in 2003 undergo each and every day.

Vice-Presidential Brackett

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:11:00 +0000

It is your last chance to play CQ Politics' VP Madness! Voters earlier chose fmr. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as McCain's VP, and now are deciding between Sen. Joe Biden and Gen. Wesley Clark for Obama's. Currently, Biden leads by just 1%. Tomorrow is the last day for voting, so head over there soon!

County Commisioner Andy Duyck to Run in HD 30

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:26:00 +0000

Rep. David Edwards may be in trouble State House district 30.

House district 30 is formed mostly by Hillsboro, and also some rural areas. It is a moderate district in terms of voter registration, but Edwards won his first term in the Democrat year of 2006.

According to sources, Edwards' current opponent will withdraw, leaving GOP Precinct Committee Persons to select a challenger. Commissioner Duyck has decided to step in, and according to sources, will be the nominee against Edwards.

Duyck will be a formidable opponent for Edwards. He has high name recognition as a County Commsioner and deep roots in the county. Republicans have tried to recruit him in the past. Duyck felt he couldn't because of his responsibilities with his shop, Duyck Machine. He now feels that he has enough good people there to take care of it.

Andy Duyck currently represents Commsion district 4, including Banks, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro, and North Plains. He also serves on the board of clean water services. His cousin, Jeff Duyck, is already running a strong campaign in neighboring HD 29.

Current opponent Andy Meyer was not expected to be a strong challenger to Edwards. Duyck's entry will give the House Republicans more hope in their uphill climb to win the majority back. Edwards will have a head start on Duyck, as he has already been running for months. Republicans will make the official pick on June 30th.

Duyck will not have to give up his seat on the Commission until he wins. If so, a new Commissioner will be elected next year.

Blazers Draft Night Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:00:00 +0000

Although this isn't a normal topic discussed on this blog, there is just one day left until the NBA draft and I have been thinking about it. Here are my thoughts on the Blazers prospects a day out:

First off, the Blazers should NOT trade Travis Outlaw. I believe Outlaw (pictured) has All-Star potential, besides being one of the more exciting players and my personal favorite. Here are a few more reasons not to trade him. There have been rumors of a few deals involving Outlaw, and I don't think any of them would be worth it.

The Blazers have the thirteenth pick as well as three second round picks. I don't believe that the Blazers need those four rookies in addition to Greg Oden and Rudy Fernandez, who will both be rookies next season.

In my opinion, the Blazers should trade using a pick or picks, in addition to a veteran or two, to get a quality point guard. They already have great players (and I think, potential All-Stars) at four positions. They have a few decent Point Guards, but they could use someone with more experience and maybe a little more talent.

I think perhaps they should trade for Kirk Hinrich of the Bulls. The Bulls are expected to take Point Guard Derrick Rose with the first pick, which may cause them to trade Hinrich who is also a Point Guard.

A few Blazers mentioned in trade rumors include Jarrett Jack, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, and Joel Pryzbilla. Leandro Barbosa of the Suns and T.J. Ford of the Raptors have also been mentioned as potentially being traded to the Blazers.

If the Blazers do not trade their pick, a few good potential picks would be Joe Alexander from West Virginia, D.J. Augustin of Texas, Russell Westbrook of UCLA, and Anthony Randolph from Syracuse.

I am anxious to see what GM Kevin Pritchard, who will be the one making most of the decisions, ends up doing. I think he is probably the smartest GM (think back to the 2006 draft, when he got the better of three other teams to get both Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge).

Besides the Blazers, numerous other teams have also been talking about potential trades. I expect a very busy draft night, and will look forward to it!

Draft night coverage begins at 4 PDT on ESPN.

Results for Write-in Contests

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:15:00 +0000

Last month, I made a post of possible write-in candidates. The results have now been certified and write-ins counted. Here are the results from Legislative write-in contests:

Senate District 25: The write-in campaign for businessman Dave Kim was successful. Kim ended up getting 979 votes. He could mount a serious campaign against incumbent Laurie Monnes-Anderson.

SD 30: Republican Ted Ferrioli won the Democratic nomination with 318 votes, despite a drive for 2006 House candidate Democrat Jim Gilbertson.

House District 13: Write-in efforts for Dr. Bill Young where not successful. Incumbent Democrat Nancy Nathanson won with 53 votes.

HD 14: Democrat Chris Edwards won the Republican nomination with 135 votes.

HD 31: Incumbent Democrat Brad Witte won the Republican nomination with 163 votes.

HD 32: Local business owner Tim Bero won the Republican write-in nomination with 83 votes in a district where he could be competitive.

HD 33: Republican Precinct Committee Person Jim Ellison won the nomination with 30 votes.

Congressional Candidate Mike Erickson Should Drop Out

noreply@blogger.com (AJ526) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:54:00 +0000

Despite allegations of paying for an abortion for a former girlfriend in 2000, businessman Mike Erickson still managed to win the Republican primary for the open fifth district Congressional seat. Erickson, however, lost the support of Oregon Right to Life, even for the general election, and is not supported by his primary opponent Kevin Mannix, leaving him a weakened candidate against Democrat Kurt Schrader.

Today, the Oregonian had a detailed account of the accusations against Erickson. Reporter Jeff Mapes had this to say on his blog:

"If Republican Mike Erickson were a typical congressional nominee, he'd be under terrific pressure to drop out of the race...

... The Oregonian's account clears up any lingering doubt about whether there was an abortion and provides further corroborating evidence for the woman's story. In addition, the woman, who agreed to be identified only by her first name of Tawnya, told the paper that she pointedly asked Erickson if he wanted to have a baby and went ahead with the abortion only after he said no...."

Mapes goes on to explain that Erickson, since he is rich and is willing to self-finance his campaign, can stay in the race and cause problems for Kurt Schrader and the Democrats.

I disagree. Just because Erickson can self-finance his campaign shouldn't give him a pass on the pressure to get out. To me, it looks like the accusations are true, meaning Erickson lied about it. Also, many social conservatives will be a lot less likely to support him knowing that he once paid for an abortion.

It would not have been such an issue if he would have admitted to it to begin with, saying he had changed his position since then, and apologizing for any harm he had caused.

Erickson SHOULD drop out RIGHT NOW. Republican leaders and others should pressure him to get out. If Republicans want the seat in Congress back, they need an ethical candidate without the amount of baggage Erickson carries. We the people should also pressure Erickson to get out: you can contact Erickson's campaign at 503-367-5505, or info@ericksonfor congress.com.

There are several good candidates who could replace Erickson, Mannix might be willing to step in, there are three current State Reps who were mentioned before, but who are in their own races now. Fmr. State Rep and radio-show host Jeff Kropf could also be a good candidate if he stepped in. Yes, it would be a challenge for a candidate to win after joining four-and-a-half months from the election, but I think it would be less difficult than it would be for Erickson to win.

I have already emailed Erickson's campaign. I believe that dropping out would be the best thing for him to do, not only for the good of the party, but for his own good and the good of his family. It will be tough for them to undergo more of this for several months, only to see him lose in November.