Stumbled across a very interesting article recently. A common flaw in foreign relations, or at least in the stated expectations of other countries' motivations from the babbling mouths of chicken-head pundits here at home is that of "mirror imagining" - where we expect others to see things the same way we do. But folks like Putin don't see things the way we do. DUH. Here's a taste:

"True to Putin's insistence that Russia cannot be judged in Western terms, Putin's new conservatism does not fit U.S. and European definitions. In fact, the main trait they share is opposition to liberalism. Whereas conservatives in those parts of the world are fearful of big government and put the individual first, Russian conservatives advocate for state power and see individuals as serving that state."

I recommend the whole thing: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141080/anton-barbashin-and-hannah-thoburn/putins-brain

What's 'appenin' with them 'yperlinks, Charlie?

Two minutes, Turkish.

What's missing here? conservative book business, conservative imprints, conservative literati, conservative publishing arena, conservative authors, conservative editors, conservative literature, conservative book market, conservative critic, conservative publishing evolution, right-wing works, conservative imprints... (I DID NOT SEE THE WORD 'NOVEL'.)

Why is it 'Shocking' that this 'Gold Rush' came to an end? A friend used to forever read and promote these polemics to me. The problem was I already knew the country had taken a wrong turn down the path of Socialism long ago, that we'd gone too far, and that it would be to find our way back. And I didn't need to shell out thirty five dollars for a hardback reiterating the same revelations and arguments. Maybe there were other folks like me who just stopped opening their wallets. Let's face it, we're up the creek and the Left has snatched our paddle. What to do? Let's start by 're-educating' our 're-educated' youth. How? By locking them in a room and making them read the latest Anne Coulter or Jeb Bush? I don't think so. Better to find, publish and promote novels, stories, LITERATURE, that ENTERTAINS as it makes our points and opens young eyes.

You grownups, look at the 'writers' mentioned in the article.

OUR WRITERS: Mary Matalin, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, David Brock, Jonah Goldberg, Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty.

Compare them to the writers I plucked from the Awards listings and the best seller (on Amazon).
THEIR WRITERS: Stephenie Meyers, Junot Diaz, Dan Brown, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Ken Kesey, Veronica Roth, Donna Tartt, Stuart Woods, Jeffrey Eugenides, Sue Monk Kidd, Jhumpa Lahiri, Harper Lee, Suzanne Collins, John Grisham, Mary Higgins Clark, David Baldacci.

It's a cold snowy night as you sit before the fireplace, your hot chocolate in front of you. Who you gonna read?

"No free man shall be arrested and imprisoned, nor desseised (have his property taken), nor outlawed, nor exiled, nor made destitute, nor shall we send against him, nor send others against him, except according to the legal judgment of his peers or in accordance with the law of the land..."

Under the Seal of King John, at Runnymede, 15th day of June, Year of Our Lord 1215.

You all remember John. He's been one of the villains in the Robin Hood story from Errol Flynn to "Men in Tights." Of course he was Prince John then, until his brother Richard got on the wrong end of a French crossbow bolt. John got into trouble with his barons trying to tax his way out of deficits (people did odd things in those days) and they made him sign what has come down to us as the Great Charter. Runnymede, by the way, got its name from the Anglo-Saxon words for holding a regular meeting in a meadow, a custom that came down from the days of our friend Alfred (see Part I).

It's had a rather checkered history - being subject to annulments, treated like ordinary legislation, or just plain ignored by various monarchs. It was not until around 1600, in part to counter the theory of divine right being tossed about by King James, that the Magna Carta began to be revered as ancient, immutable and fundamental law. It's history was cherry-picked and mythologized. What!? You gotta problem with that!? Look, a "just the facts, Ma'am" "warts and all" objective historian is useful. He's like a toolbox I rummage around in when I want to make a point. But we have entirely too many "just the warts" cynics out to take down the culture. Passing down stories that adorn truth with myth is one way a culture propagates itself. The Arthurian legends, for example, were used even back in the Middle ages to show how a knight should behave (and not behave). Any one heard of Homer? TELL THE STORIES.

It's been quite a while since I heard/read this historical tidbit, long enough ago that I don't even remember the source, and some of the details are a bit fuzzy. Still, it is liberty-related, and I've been thinking about it recently especially in regard to not understanding certain groups' concept of the roles of laws, government, and law enforcement, so I figured I'd share even though I'm not quite sure what the moral is... or ought to be.

Back in the 19th century, there was a bridge in downtown San Antonio that was designed for pedestrian traffic only. I can't remember now whether horses could be ridden across, but it certainly wasn't built to withstand the weight and stress of carriages, let alone freight wagons, and forget taking a herd of cattle across it. The city fathers therefore wisely passed an ordinance restricting use of the bridge to human pedestrians only, and a sign was posted to that effect in the three languages that were dominant in San Antonio at the time. But the three texts were not exact translations of one another; rather, they were phrased in the best manner to get the point across to their target audience:

English (and I paraphrase from memory): "Pedestrian traffic only. Violation punishable by $[x amount] fine."

Spanish: "Pedestrian traffic only. Violators will be punished by the police."

German: "It is forbidden to drive animals across this bridge." (No 'or else' involved, just "Es ist verboten"!)

One of my brothers worked for about twenty years down in the Amazon. While he certainly appreciated the place (after all, where can you go out and cut down your own mahogany and cedar trees and then mill them yourself?), he detested the culture of bribery that existed. Most encounters with the government tended to result in the bureaucrat du jour demanding their coin.

At least the Brazilians are honest about it.

Here in California, bribery is woven seamlessly into our laws and regulations. My job has me frequently interacting with various levels of government. Invariably, fees are required to do anything. Want to build something? That'll be 32 different fees, including fees for archaeological studies, biological studies, seismic studies, noise studies, traffic studies. One wonders, with so many studies, why the various planning departments of California do not hand out college degrees with their permits?

Recently, I was required to pay several fees for a permit. Business as usual, of course. The galling thing, though, is that the money paid does not equate in any way to man-hours worked by some government Joe on my behalf. The money merely disappears, vanishing in the direction of Sacramento with a great raspberry noise that sounds suspiciously like someone yodeling "Sucker!"

Having visited my brother in the Amazon, I feel somewhat nostalgic for that jungle. There, at least, the snakes don't pretend to be anything else. They bite you in complete honesty. In California, however...

So aside from the fact that Rick's last line at the end was pretty damn cheesy, the episode was great. I think everyone knew Terminus was something bad but the question is how bad now.

I'm thinking cannibals.

Your thoughts?

So I've just started watching House of Cards and aside from how good the show is, I'm amazed by something.

They're Democrats.

Lying, whoring, coke snorting Democrats.

I don't know Kevin Spacey's politics but his business sense is keen. Liberals will watch the show because the main characters are fight for liberal causes. So there's no need to take gratuitous swipes at the half of the country who voted for Romney.

Of course, there's still time for some evil Republicans to make an appearance.

Check out this fabulous endorsement of Liberty Island from bestselling novelist Brad Thor: "Congrats on your launch! Liberty exists when there are more voices, not less. It is terrific to see brave, bright players coming up with innovative and engaging means with which to break the cultural stranglehold of the left. Kick ass, take names, and entertain the hell out of people. Our ideas are better and so are our storytellers!"

Our Lenin is the fierce one. According to Wikipedia, the sculptor "intended to portray Lenin as a bringer of revolution, in contrast to the traditional portrayals of Lenin as a philosopher." But that's not what the freedom-loving people in Czechoslovakia wanted. Erected in 1988, they pulled it down as soon as they had the opportunity in the Velvet Revolution of 1989.

Would that the LPCSs (liberal-progressive-commie-socialists) of Seattle had as much sense. This piece of propaganda has been disgracing our city since 1995. The owners claim that "Art outlives politics." They also congratulate themselves for evoking "very strong reactions" and launching dialogues.

I would argue that Seattle's Lenin is not art. It uses an art form--sculpture--to express a political message. The owners of the statue are also sending a political message through their choice. Would they allow a statue of Jefferson Davis, such as the one standing in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, to stand on city property? No, that would offend African Americans. How about one of Mohammed? Again the answer is no; they'd get their heads cut off. Or how about Ronald Reagan? Or a creche at Christmas time? All of these choices would evoke very strong reactions, launch dialogues--and more.

To the owners' credit, they do dress up Lenin in silly outfits for the holidays. And this year, someone painted his hands red--a long overdue statement of the one essential fact about this tyrant.

I wish this site would allow us to post photographs so I could show you a photo I took of two young people bent over at Lenin's feet while his bloody index finger points down at them and the cold concrete beneath them.

Compassion is an individual mandate given in the New Testament. The New Testament is the covenant given to individuals to bring them back to God. In contrast, The Old Testament is the covenant given to nations to guide them in the path of justice, law and duty.
To embrace the mercy of the New Testament and ignore the justice of the Old Testament is to receive a squishy, mushy form of Christianity that has no spine to stand on its own. In this instance, mercy and tolerance become the watchwords that guide day-to-day interactions in an increasingly selfish world. Evil is tolerated because judgment is intolerant.
How quickly man forgets that law was given to guide man in the path that he should go. If there is no law, there is no punishment. If there is no punishment, there is no fear of doing wickedly, and men go according to their own hungers. Lawless men do not moderate themselves, and they do not set expectations for those around them to behave moderately.
Without the law to govern life, compassion may be easily swayed by the tides of public sentiment. Each individual must, therefore, obey the given Law, and require that representative government do the same.
The Law was given to establish a system of government where justice prevails. An individual rendering of the Law established more and more systems to create obedience. Down through the years, this expansion of simple law resulted in the New Testament Scribes and Pharisees, who touted their own righteousness through obedience to the complex system.
New Testament is for individuals. Old Testament is for nations. The nation is not required to conform to the individual mandate of compassion and loving our neighbors - that is the duty of every follower of Christ in their daily walk through life.
Governments at every level are required to administer the law in justice and equity and to preserve freedom

A version of this article was published on Thoroughfare of Freedom (http://thoroughfareoffreedom.blogspot.com)