I feel a bit sad today. Maybe it's the overcast weather and my sleepy, slightly allergy-inflicted head. Of course, it's also that it's been almost a year since I lost my Jeneen.
However, what I'm thinking about right now is the death of Osama bin Laden. Am I sad that he's dead? Not really. As far as I'm concerned, he was dead a long time ago--his soul was already lost. But I don't feel any joy over the news, either. While I may approve of what has happened, that doesn't mean that I should be happy about it.
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23, NIV).
When something needs to be done, the Lord will see that it's done. But why would he rejoice in it? He will rejoice in the salvation of His people, but how could He rejoice over the death of His son whom He created? Osama bin Laden was made by God--His son. Jesus died for him when He died for the rest of us. How it must've broken His heart as Osama went farther and farther away from Him and released his terror upon God's other loved ones!
David's reaction to his rebellious son's death comes to mind: "He went up to the room over the gateway and wept. As he went, he said: 'O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you—O Absalom, my son, my son!'" (2 Samuel 18:33).
Are we no better than our enemies, America? We rejoice and have big celebrations over a man's death? There is nothing wrong with being glad about this. But I find the idea of partying over it sickening.
That said, please don't get me wrong; I am extremely proud of our troops! They have worked hard and done our their job, protecting us. THANK YOU!!!! I love you!
I don't understand the great victory people claim this to be, either. For years, people have speculated that bin Laden was probably dead already. To me, it doesn't really matter if he's dead or not--just that he is no longer effective. Bin Laden is not all there is to al Qaeda--in fact, in recent years most of the terrorists' attempts have been made without any orchestration from Osama.
Still, it is a victory....I know I sound like I'm contradicting myself. This is a great accomplishment on our part. It is good that we tracked this guy down and got him. But I guess it just seems to me like so many people are taking as "It's over! Yay!" or that to them it's about vengeance rather than justice. I am not ashamed to admit that back in 2001, when I heard the announcement that we were going into Afghanistan, this then-13-year-old girl cried. Did I believe that we were doing the right thing? Absolutely! But I cried and I prayed that if there was the remotest chance that any of these terrorists might be saved, that God would spare their lives until they gave their hearts to Him.
The closure is good...and it is good for us that we see that we have accomplished one big thing that we have been striving for for nearly ten years. I guess I just have such mixed feelings.... I stopped really thinking about getting bin Laden a long time ago. I accepted that we probably would never know if we got him or not. It's strange to suddenly know that we have.
And I guess the issue is...I can't...I can't like that he's dead. I don't exactly dislike it, but I can't like it. I do like that he has been STOPPED and that we got him. But I don't think I could ever like death....
Now that I've probably made myself out to be a self-righteous good-two-shoes holier-than-thou moralistic freak...haha Let me just say that I am not judging anyone else's reactions--they are your own reactions and I will not judge you on them. I respect them and I respect you. It is not my place to judge anyone.
Let's Play
INTERPRET This LAW!
By Brietta Kiele
A lot of time, money, and effort is put into interpreting the law all the time. Let's see how we can do on it.
In each of the following, please choose the best interpretation. Only go by what the words actually say. Do not add meaning in where there are no words. If none of the choices appropriately represent exactly what the rule says, please write in your interpretation in the space provided.
Mom's Rules:
1. Don't hit
a. Don't hit the dog
b. Don't hit anyone with a stick
c. Don't hit anyone who might hit back
d. Don't hit anyone with anything
e.
2. Wash your hands before you eat
a. Wash your hands before you eat if they look dirty
b. Wash your hands before you eat meals (snacks don't apply)
c. Wash your hands before you eat
d. Wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap and hot water, and scrub them for 3 minutes before you eat
e.
3. Wipe your feet before walking through house
a. Wipe your feet before walking through the house if they have mud on them
b. Wipe your feet on the mat before going through the house if the carpet was just shampooed
c. Wipe your feet before going through the house if you have time
d. Wipe your feet before going through the house
e.
4. Don't eat in your room
a. Don't eat messy things in your room
b. Don't eat anything in your room ever
c. Eat in the kitchen
d. Eat with the family
e.
5. Finish your homework before you play
a. Do some homework before you play even on the weekend when you don't have any
b. Finish all of the homework for the week before you play ball
c. Finish all of the homework you currently have before you play
d. Help your sister finish her homework before you play.
e.
6. Brush your teeth before you go to bed
a. Brush your teeth sometime before you go to bed
b. Brush your teeth for two minutes with Crest toothpaste before you go to bed
c. Brush your teeth immediately before you go to bed
d. Brush your teeth with a toothbrush before you go to bed
e.
7. Feed the dog before you eat breakfast
a. Feed the dog before you eat each meal
b. Feed the dog DOG food before you eat breakfast
c. Feed neighbor's dog before 10:00 each morning
d. Feed the dog (whatever dog that may be) before you eat breakfast
e.
MY THOUGHTS:
While we can all guess what the intent of the author of the rules was, only the author really knows. The only thing we can do is take the author at her word and believe that she put thought into the writing of her rules.
It would get you in big trouble if you chose to eat in your room just because you weren't eating messy food in there. It is not your business to interpret Mom's reasons for her rules. It is your job to follow them.
Technically, rule 6 does not say that you must brush your teeth before you go to bed each day. It only says that you must brush your teeth before you go to bed. If you brushed your teeth yesterday, you brushed your teeth before you went to bed tonight.
Technically, rule number seven does not require that you feed the dog if you don't eat breakfast.
Thankfully, in the case of Mom's Rules, the mother who wrote them is usually close by to clarify any confusion or misinterpretation. This is why she wouldn't spell everything out completely. Also, she may waive a rule whenever she sees fit. Also, Mom's Rules only apply to her children as long as they are children or whenever they are under her roof.
But when laws are written in our government, they are meant to be lasting, not only for a few people as long as they are minors (approximately 18 years), but for ALL the people for all time, for every generation. For this reason, lawmakers are as specific as possible in their words. Also, they will often give definitions of the words they use.
It is the lawmakers' job to say exactly what they mean in the laws and it is our job to not read things into the laws that they write that are not there. Most laws are debated and worked on over a significant period of time; they did not haphazardly vote in a half-baked idea as law.
If for any reason, we believe that the law is not well-written and should be changed, we can do that by debating it, writing it, and voting on it. But we cannot go forward by simply saying that the previous lawmakers didn't write the law the way they meant to.
What is Cap & Trade?
An example with cookies.
Congressman Noah Tall notices that his children are getting fat and doing badly in school because they're eating too many cookies. Oh, no! What should he do?
He takes it to congress and a law is passed that no company can make more than 150 cookies a month.
Company A only makes 20 cookies a month, so this is not a problem.
However, Company B makes 200 cookies a month, so it must cut down on its production.
Or must it?
The government in its wisdom has put into place a program known as "Cap & Trade." Through this program, a Cookie Equalization Agency is started.
The Cookie Equalization Company helps Agency A sell 50 of its "cookies" (or cookie rights) to Company B.
So everybody's happy, right?
But there's a big problem (more than one, in fact).
1. Q. Why was the government limiting cookie production in the first place? What was the purpose?
A. To reduce cookie production.
Did this happen? No. Everybody is doing exactly as they were doing before; company A is still making 20 cookies and company B is still making 200 cookies. The production is the same.
2. Q. So who is benefiting from this?
A. The Cookie Equalization Agency
Q. What product are they selling?
A. Company B's nonexistent cookies.
Is this worth it? Is Cap & Trade a legitimate policy? You decide.
Please set aside your beliefs on global warming/climate change. I believe that Cap and Trade is a separate issue. We can debate the cause, the existence, etc. of climate change somewhere else.
In fact, I would like you to approach the issue of Cap and Trade as if you do believe that CO2 emissions are causing significant and dangerous climate change (whether you really do or not.)
Will this policy help? And do you believe that helping is the motive of those proposing the plan?
If you have read any of my recent posts [on facebook where this was originally posted] concerning the Alaska senate race, you may be a bit confused as to where I stand. This is because over the last few days I have come to a different understanding of the situation.
There is a big dispute over what should be counted as a vote for Lisa Murkowski. My initial reaction was that as long as voter intent is clear, a vote should count.
Voter Intent
However, this still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and who is it who gets to interpret? I realized that if there were a vote for "Lisa Malancholiowsky" it shouldn't count. But I was torn on this because voter intent is still pretty clear here. If a voter had voted thus, I would be 99.9% sure that they had intended the vote to go for Lisa Murkowski. Still, I reasoned that as long as the spelling was phonetic, such as "Mercowsky", it should count.
I suppose I have been gracious because I am aware that others are not always as sensitive to or as good at spelling things correctly as I am.
Picky Cheaters?
While I am an adamant Miller supporter, my reaction to the ballots his people are challenging was the same as a Murkowski supporter's reaction might be. I was disgusted that people would try to throw out someone's vote on a technicality.
I was confused and wondered if I had been wrong about Mr. Miller's character.
But today I had a kind of an epiphany.
What the Law Says
Alaska state statute 15.15.360. states that:
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.*
Interpretation of the Law
Yesterday, I looked at this carefully and it occurred to me that perhaps the crafters of this statute only intended to prevent acceptance of votes that were for initials (LM, JWM, etc.), for nicknames (The Governator, The Gipper, Princess Lisa, Joe, Leelee, etc.), or first names alone (Joe, Joseph, Lisa, etc.).
Today it occurred to me how foolish I'd been. It is the job of the lawmaker to debate and consider what should be covered in a law. No matter how ill-conceived a law may look, it is our duty to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their job and made the law to be exactly what they desired and saw fit.
The law must be implemented the way it was written. If someone does not like the law the way it is, he ought to work to overturn or amend it through legal means. It is never acceptable to simply ignore what the law says because you do not like it or believe that those who wrote it didn't know what they were doing. (Lest you think that I would never engage in "civil disobedience," let me clarify. There is a difference between defying a law and ignoring it. If you defy a law, you acknowledge its existence and humbly accept any consequences or punishment for defying it.)
The Law, Whether You Like it or Not
The law says that a vote for a write-in candidate must be written "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." Therefore, unless Senator Murkowski put her name as "Markovsky" or "Murkoskie" on her application, such votes should not be counted.
Is this fair? It doesn't matter; it's the law. I do believe that there are higher laws than the ones put into place by man, but we are a nation of laws. If we go against a law, choosing to interpret it as we see fit, it gives license for every other law to be broken, as well. A law is meaningless if we allow it to be "interpreted" at will.
Laws are not meant to be interpreted, they're meant to be followed. Contrary to popular belief, a judge's job is not to interpret the law, but to determine if someone has broken it. A judge sits in judgment of people and proposed laws, not in judgment of the existing law.
Once again, if you believe a law to be flawed, by all means, work to change it! Ignoring it is not the solution.
Voter Responsibility
Should the law be as it is or should it be changed to accept minor misspellings? Initially, I thought that it should be changed. However, I have since changed my mind. I'll tell you why.
Whether the law stays as it is or not, a voter has a responsibility to know what that law is and to make sure that he follows it when he votes. I did not feel inclined to vote for Lisa Murkowski. However, if I had, I know that I would have looked up the law and then when I was in the voting booth, I would have looked over my ballot multiple times to be certain that I had done everything properly:
1. Filled in or marked the oval for the write-in candidate for the correct office? Check.
2. Wrote the candidate's name on the line for a write-in for the correct office? Check.
3. Spelled the candidate's name correctly? "M U R K O W S K I" Check.
If I thought I'd have trouble with the spelling, I would have included at the top of that list: Wearing my "Murkowski" bracelet for reference? Check.
It is my responsibility, not the government's, to make sure my ballot is filled out correctly. If my vote is thrown out because I wrote "Lisa Mercowskey", failed to fill in the oval, inanely filled in the ovals by the names of all of the senate candidates, or decided to "fix" a mistake on my ballot rather than asking for a new one, it is no one's fault but my own.
It was not Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski, volunteers, or election officials who made the decision to throw out my vote, it was I who made the decision by being careless.
While these people must deal with thousands upon thousands of ballots, you have ONE ballot to worry about; yours. Make sure your intent is clear. It is not the job of the election officials to spend hours trying to decipher if you meant to be voting for Lisa Murkowski or Liza Minnelli.
Intent is not the issue. It is not the responsibility of election officials to make sure that your vote counts no matter how bad they feel that your vote for "Josephine Miller" is being discarded when they believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that you intended to vote for Joe Miller.
It is sad if your vote doesn't count because of a little mistake, but it is also sad when the neighbor's cat dies because you accidentally ran over it. It is still your responsibility, not the responsibility of the car, the car manufacturer, the car salesman, or your driving instructor. While we may accept that your intent was definitely not to run over the cat, the cat is still dead and you must face the consequences. It is not anyone else's job to "fix" this for you.
In the same way, when a teacher grades a research paper, he still has to take away points for misspelled words and improper grammar and punctuation, even if the content is good and he understands the author's intent. This is far from a perfect analogy, but it is enough to get the point, I believe.
Instead of insisting that Daddy Government checks your work for you AFTER you turn it in (at the expense of the tax-payers, most of whom filled out their ballots correctly), check your work BEFORE you turn it in and there won't be any need of special favors.
It has occurred to me since I originally wrote this and posted it as a note on facebook, that any time a ballot is not filled out exactly as the voter is instructed to fill it out, voter intent is NOT clear.
For instance, if someone wrote in the name "Lisa MurkyCOWsky" and filled in the oval next to it completely, who would you say the vote was for? It is quite close to "Lisa Murkowski", so some would say it should be counted for her. However, it is also quite possible that the voter wrote this as a protest vote, meaning "None of the above, especially Murkowski!" (An inappropriate jab at the senator, in my opinion, but I know there are people who would do it.)
While voting should not be a spelling contest, sadly, there is no way to tell what one's intent is unless the spelling is correct.
On the other hand, of course, those who choose to cast protest votes such as the example above should realize that their votes could easily be misconstrued by those who would take an extremely liberal interpretation of the law. However, we must give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they did this knowing that by law, their votes would not count for Senator Murkowski. Anyone who tries to make such votes count is doing these votes an injustice.
_______________________________________
*To read the entire statute for yourself, go to: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title15/Chapter15/Section360.htm
I have to write a revision to the last blog. It has come to my attention that there is a significant movement to vote for Lisa Murkowski as a write-in candidate in the general election. Miller's race against her may not be over yet.
With this in mind, I think this makes it even more important that we make sure we do not let any disapproval of Senator Murkowski or her actions come out in slander or bashing. We want to convince people to vote for Joe Miller, not to hate him on account of vengeful, hateful supporters.
Most people are turned off by negative campaigning. As it is, I know some people who chose not to vote for Miller because they thought he was attacking Murkowski. As for me, I do not believe he was attacking her, and I believe it was necessary for him to point out her record in order to show that his voting would be different from hers. Without him pointing out Murkowski's record, most people would look at what they each have to say and think they were the same.
However, there are some who see anything but running on where you yourself stand on the issues as attacking your opponent. If we are to win such voters over, we are certainly not going to by actually attacking Murkowski. Keep it clean--please!
The primary election was held here in Alaska on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010. I believe the biggest victory in that was the passage of ballot measure 2, which makes it illegal for a minor to get an abortion without parental consent. I was very impressed with this measure--it was well-written, building a system that makes it very hard for abuse to take place on the parts of the court, the physician, the patient, or parents.
In my opinion, this law is not about abortion, but protecting our kids and putting parents back in their proper role.
I have heard the argument over and over again that requiring parental consent could endanger a girl if her parents would become abusive if they were aware of her pregnancy. I have to respond: So your solution is to force her to make the decision of aborting based on fear, have her go through a major medical procedure, then go back to a potentially abusive home to be treated as if nothing has just happened? This hardly seems right or safe. If a girl has to make the choice whether or not to abort her pregnancy based on what others will do to her then she has lost her freedom of choice. I am at a loss as to how someone can argue in favor of this "solution" and still call himself "pro-choice."
I am pro-life, but it seems to me that this should be a uniting issue for both proponents and opponents of abortion. If a girl must fear for her life or well-being in her current home, then we need to work to get her placed in a home where she can make her choice free of that fear, and where she will have loving guardians who will be her advocates to give her the support and guidance she needs.
This law is an excellent start to that.
Also significant in this primary was the race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. It was so close between incumbent Lisa Murkowski and challenger Joe Miller that we had to wait a week for the results. Joe Miller has now been declared the winner in that race.
I would like to make a statement on this. I am very glad that Miller won--as anyone could guess from the Miller banners placed on my site. However, I am getting really tired of the hatred and attacks aimed at Senator Murkowski that I have been seeing from some. I am as passionate about the issues as the next Miller supporter, but I do not hate anyone, least of all, Murkowski. I am very disappointed and even angered by many of Senator Murkowski's votes and legislation, but I still have a lot of respect and affection for her.
Murkowski has done some good things that I will be forever grateful to her for. She voted against Obamacare. She voted against the confirmation of Elena Kagan as a justice of the Supreme Court.
I spent a lot of time in prayer and study leading up to this primary and have tried to watch the candidates carefully. I believe that Senator Murkowski is sincere. She believes that she is doing what is right. I vehemently disagree with her on some of those things--thus my Miller vote--but I respect her. I will not slander her. If Joe Miller is the worthy candidate I believe him to be, there is no need to slander his opponents in order for him to succeed.
I have no problem with a little negative campaigning--that is, pointing out how your views and votes differ from your opponent's. But when it goes into slander--name-calling, presuming to know your opponent's motives, lying, villifying, and otherwise obsessing over your opponent's flaws to the point of running on his lack of credentials rather than on your own merit, I draw the line. Wrong is wrong. Besides that, to use an old cliche', you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. We are not going to win over Murkowski-supporters by slandering her. It is one thing to state the facts of what Senator Murkowski has said, done, or voted. That is not slander. Go ahead and argue the facts 'til the cows come home; I don't care--that's great!
But I would like to propose that you put yourself in the shoes of a Murkowski supporter. Imagine that Joe Miller has been in the senate for some years now. You are a strong supporter of his. You believe in him and have seen how he has come through on fighting against many of the Democrats' bills that you hate. Suddenly, an unheard of candidate comes along to challenge Senator Miller. She says that he might as well be a Democrat, that he is voting along with their agenda. How would you react? You would immediately protest, saying that he has been one of our only advocates in a Democratic congress that is intent on shoving its agenda down our throats. Am I wrong? I don't think so, because that is how I saw Senator Murkowski until I started doing more research during the primary. There really are honest, good people who believe in Murkowski as much as Miller supporters believe in him. Why did I give Miller a chance and look into his claims about Murkowski? Because he was respectful of her. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of some of his supporters.
One more thing to say: THE PRIMARY IS OVER!!! Stop campaigning against Lisa. Joe is not running against her anymore. He is now running against Scott McAdams. Miller only won against Murkowski by 2,020 votes. Don't alienate Murkowski's supporters. It's time to unite. Be kind and reasonable in trying to win them over. And for goodness sake, they know who won the primary; stop rubbing it in!
Sitting at my computer, campaign flyers scattered around,
Want to do what’s best for Alaska the Great Land,
So many faces, so many words and opinions abound,
Where should I take my stand; where should I stand?
One looks like a good guy, could be my neighbor,
But the other guy says he’s a crook and could be true,
What is truth? There’s no way to really be sure,
Maybe they’re all liars; that’d be nothing new.
Wish I could meet every man and look him in the eye,
Wish I could shake his hand, stare him down as he gives me his word,
I’d tell him, “Sir, I’m watching you; you break your word, your political career will die.”
But to think even that would give me assurance is absurd.
I pray, “God, give me guidance”, but the answers still aren’t clear,
We can’t trust any of them, but God, I trust You,
You know who would best serve this country I hold so dear,
Open my eyes; help me to see what’s true.
Copyright 2010 by Brietta R. Kiele. All rights reserved.
|
RSS Feed