The Arugment

In the book American Creation, more specifically, chapter three The Argument, Joseph Ellis describes the creation of our constitution.  In 1783, the war for Independence was finally over, but in a sense, a new battle was just beginning. To say it simply it was an argument over how much power should be in-trusted to the central government. Washington believed the central government should be fully empowered, this however, contradicted political values of the day. The gap created by this dispute was really over the personal definition of American Revolution. The vision that won over was federalism, and this was reached with not one, single mind, but through a process with many different minds and thoughts. In a sense the argument that was taking place WAS the solution. It was going to be a nonstop negotiation for supremacy, and it would never finish. 
James Madison was a main influence and top leader in the argument. The tension was high as the Shays rebellion, many protests in 1786 to 1787 that was started by American farmers against tax collections, had just taken place. Madison began to exposed the failures of a weak government and things began to fall apart. Washington, who swore he would not return as a leader after he left office, broke his own promise to come back and try to hold things together. Madison, Washington, and Adams spread out and went to countless different conventions. They went as sort of a 'trial and error' to find the perfect mix of decentralized and central government. Madison's main proposal, which was unheard of at the time, was republic actually works better in larger geographic areas. He introduced the Virginia Plan at the Philadelphia convention. The plan proposed a legislative branch with two chambers the bicameral legislature. The states would be represented in proportion to the number of inhabitant. Larger states would obviously have more say, so of course they were in favor while smaller ones were not as thrilled at the idea. Thus came a retaliation from the smaller states as they proposed, The New Jersey Plan. It states that each state regardless of size would receive one vote. Neither plan was appreciated by the other side so a compromise was in action. The Connecticut Compromise created a House of Representatives shared by population and the Senate where each state was represented equally. 

There was one "wild card" that upset any outcome perceived of this whole ordeal. Patrick Henry, the same Patrick Henry that made the profound statement, "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH", was back and ready to stir the water some more. Only this time he was the opposing view. Henry was prepared to oppose the ratification and his only regret? "That he found himself on the other side of the one man for whom he had 'the greatest Reverence." Henry was one of the most popular figures in Virginia and an opponent to be weary of. Madison and Jefferson were irritated at his entry into the argument and Jefferson said that the only thing to do when confronted by Henry was, "devoutly pray for his imminent death". Henry planted thoughts into the peoples head about what Washington and others were proposing. He asked where the idea that America was on the brink of anarchy and that the Articles were outdated come from? He used Jefferson's phrase against him saying that Virginia, from what he could tell, was getting along nicely and that it was practically an example of, "pursuit of happiness". Henry stated,
 "The Confederation... carried us through a long and dangerous war. Rendered us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses. And shall a Government this strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility for want of energy?" Madison "unfurled" his own argument making known all of the weaknesses of all the confederacies previously. He did his research and was not afraid to unload it onto Henry. He touched on the Achaean League, the German system, the Swiss and Dutch. Then asked
"Does not history of these confederacies coincide with the lessons drawn from our own experience?" 
Answering his own question he stated, "a government which relies on thirteen independent sovereignties for the means of its existence is a solecism is theory, and a mere nullity in practice."
The amazing thing about Madison's debate, apart from the way he beautifully argued, was that despite all of the conflicting interests in the Virginia Convention represent the 'Madionian' theory. Patrick Henry eventually stepped down from the argument, saying that, "they had lost, and now 'they had all better go home" Even though the Constitution may not be perfect and may indeed be faulty to some degree, it seemed that it was destined to become infused into our country. The whole point to Madison's Constitution, now our Constitution, was that it encased a never ending argument. So in a way the "final word" will never be spoken, and progress will never cease. 

Lord Help Us

The start of the biggest debate was initiated  tonight. The polls are close and the stakes are high in this upcoming election. Trump, though considered a womanizer and a bully, is loved for being real and out spoken. Hillary has a very fluid campaign but struggles to relate to everyday people. In the debate they discussed achieving prosperity, mainly about jobs. Hillary immediately tried to relate to people by bringing up her grandchild and how she wants her to grow up in a prosperous future. She says we need to invest in us, the people. Invest in innovation and in small businesses. She wants to raise minimum wage and equal pay for work. Start profit sharing and start supporting struggling families. The question turns to Trump and he immediately starts blaming the immigrants, like anyone would expect anything else. He brings the attention to the fact that our money is losing its value and that our country has become the "piggy bank" to the rest of the world. He supposedly has a plan saying he will cut taxes from 35% to 15%, though it is reported this plan will only hurt, not help. Hillary, in response, calls his plan the "Trumped-up, Trickled-down". Her aim is to mostly help the middle class, where as Trumps stance more helps the wealthy. Trump was posed with the question, "how are you going to bring back the industries that have left?" Trump, though seemed to argue forever, never got around to answering the question fully. His main point was on taxes that other countries have when we sell into their country. His main point is we don't have a tax that is similar for other countries and how we should implicate one. I see where it may be an in-convince for businesses to leave the country with the tax, but I doubt this one action will cease industries leaving America. At this point in the debate the argument began to shift from the question being asked to arguments about each other. Hillary brings up the fact that Trump was rooting for the housing crisis, despite the fact that 9 million jobs were lost and 5 million homes lost, because it would profit him. His comment, "that's just business". Donald replied to these statements with a seemingly endless rant without any conclusion. Their biggest opposing view on the job debate is taxes. Again, Hillary wants to help middle class by increasing taxes on wealthy, while Trump wants to lower taxes on wealthy.

Trump brings up ISIS and mocks Hillary for trying to have a plan to fight them, saying generals would be offended, yet Trump has openly said he knows more about ISIS than the American generals. Trump, at this point in the debate, has said the same thing in a thousand different ways, somehow without making any profound statement. The debate turned to a more sensitive subject bringing up racial issues. Hillary starts off by saying race determines too much. She says we must restore trust between the communities and the police. She wants a reform, wants to give police the best training and get guns out of the wrong hands. Trumps biggest wish is to restore law and order, to stop violence. He continues to say "law in order" as if that would be a sufficient enough answer.  He brings up the 'stop and frisk' epidemic and spins it in a good light. He defends it even though it was deemed unconstitutional. The only agreed upon view points were better relationships and anyone on watch list and or no fly list should not be permitted to have a gun. On the issue about securing America the main point made, that stood out to me at least, was about Trump. Hillary brought up a time when Trump become hostile about a tweet. Hillary said, " a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers near the nuclear codes". Trump gets angry saying that he hasn't talked rude of Hillary, implying he was the bigger man, though most of his campaign strategy seems to be putting others below him. They ended the 'discussion' with a question about the people, if the candidates would support the peoples choice even if it wasn't in their favor. Hillary said she proudly supports democracy and that is really up to the people. Trump, of course, ends his speech with a dig at his opponent saying he doesn't think Hillary would do a sufficient job as a president, though he would support it. Throughout the debate Hillary was noticeably more organized and prepared while Trump might have started out organized but soon fell into his pattern of interrupting and unnecessary digs towards opponents. Overall Hillary started to connect with the people and remained calm and prepared. Trump, though loved for his rants and for being "real", doubly brought any new voters to his side with his vulgar charm. Although not all the points were raised yet,tonight was the ground work of the final leg of this intense race.

Keep on Trekkin'

http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/09/08/briefing-09-08-16/  


In the article, Star Trek at 50: The Worldview Behind The Enterprise, Mohler discusses the milestone that Star Trek has set and how it has impacted the entertainment world. Star Trek wasn't always the hit it is today and many are surprised that it lasted. But what is Star Trek besides a whimsical show/movie set in the future where there is a glimmer of hope and peace? Some Christians are viewing the now classic series in a less than positive light.

Ever since the pilot, some have thought that the opening episode it suggests an alternative begining than what the Bible says. The "beauty" of Star Trek was the rationality of it all. It was a utopia ruled by human reason and logic. The purity of the show fed into what most people want, a peaceful society. The show was popular mostly likely because it spoke to a future we all desperately want and pray for. A place where there is little war, no debt, nothing but adventure, all because the human race finally worked out their differences. 
Star Trek was originally used as a way to call out the issues of the 1960's. The characters and trials were all too relatable. But the issue that is being addressed now is the lack of a God in the society. The image of Christ is mentioned very little in the show but other religions are mentioned, implying religious activities are still prominent. The Christian church is mentioned a few times and a church was seen in a couple of the time travel episodes. So though Christianity wasn't seen prominently throughout the series, it existed in that "universe".What would people think if people saw and loved the show that doesn't call for a need of a higher power? Maybe they would start to wonder if that would work?

We should of course try and put aside our differences but you can't completely remove God from the picture to receive it. You cannot reach the peace that was reached in Star Trek without some sort of higher agreement, in the Sci-Fi universe, human reason was that agreement. The show became popular not because humans were the ones, "calling the shots", though I'm sure that had some appeal. It became world famous for the way it challenges the rationality of the viewers, and how it made people crave for a similar world. Mohler said,  
"Christians need to understand that there will always be a story that’s dominant in the culture. Star Trek is just one of them. It wasn’t the first, and it won’t be the last".
Star Trek had serious morals, amazing lessons and made the viewer think. Though there was not a prominent sign of God doesn't mean it has had a negative impact. It taught how to accept, love, and defend our fellow man and even an enemy. It may not say, "hey this is God and his story", but it doesn't promote anything evil either. You can love Star Trek without necessarily denouncing the church. And most importantly, you can, "live long and prosper."

Not Your Cup of Tea

"It's about respect, and listening," Kraft said in his speech. "We have to make this cool." This is how we are now handling our sex education, by making it cool? Why does teaching a child, teen, or young adult about basic boundaries have to be cool? It shouldn't be. In the article, To Prevent Sexual Assault, Schools And Parents Start Lessons Early, different ways of teaching about not only sexual education but also how to prevent sexual assault are suggested; though some of them seem to be insulting the ones being taught intelligence. For example, some of our youth is now being taught about consent using an analogy about a cup of tea. Why did we have to change it to be so light hearted? Are "no means no" and "yes means yes" too gory for people these days? When given the analogy kids were laughing, not because they found the cup of tea story clever but because they found adults trying to be "cool" humorous. Obviously, the older a child gets the more serious the talk about sex and abuse should be given and taken. But at what age should we begin to talk about it? Boundaries should begin to be taught at a young age. As soon as the child understands, "yes" and "no", the lessons on personal space should start. The subject of rape and of sex itself should wait to a later age when they begin to develop. Some may believe teaching kids about it at such a young age can be helpful, but why take away their pure innocent thoughts and replace them with "adult content"? Teach them no and yes. Teach them that people can change their minds and that its ok and they should respect others wishes. As children mature into young adults, so should their education mature.

 By young teens, even pre-teens, educators should stop teaching with lighthearted things, such as the tea example given before. They need to relate to the kids, say something like, "what if that was your sister/brother, or mother/father getting assaulted?". Let that sink in, let them think about someone they care about getting hurt then ask them the question, "what if it was you hurting someone's brother/sister or mother/father?" Why would someone do that, and how can one tell the signs of an abuser? Ask them the hard questions, stop beating around the bush, they are smarter than that. Society needs to promote learning self-defense to women and men, so if the time comes they can fight back.We need to teach our generation that there are consequences to these horrendous actions and then society needs to actually enforce them. Not just, "oh kids will be kids", or the infamous, "boys will be boys". Sexual education is not one person's job to teach. It is all of ours. It's the teachers and the board of education to implicate a more serious and realistic way to show the dangers and signs of a predator and it is the parent's job to continue teaching them boundaries at home and in a day to day life. We need to stop knocking the way we educate down and peg and start raising the people being taught up a level. We need to start teaching respect for one another as soon as possible so that when someone falls into an unthinkable, horrible situation, they know the signs, know what to do and how to get out. Or even, recognize the danger in time, and save another.