Without a clear standard set by our Supreme Court, the debate to allow or abolish the death penalty persists, almost monotonously. Contrasting itself from many other subjects of contention, however, the capital punishment question often succeeds in transcending party lines. Unfortunately, with no substantive partisanship or ideological outline to turn to, many Americans utilize rhetorical inconsistencies and argumentum ad populam in order to corroborate abolishing capital punishment. For legal and moral reasons, I stand adamantly in support of the death penalty as a just form of punishment, and I hope to, categorically, demonstrate why.

First, however, I find that a certain, quirky slogan requires response. “We kill people to show people that killing is wrong” has emerged as a contemporary treatise, intended to point out a deadly irony inherent in capital punishment. While deceptively simple, those who articulate this stance fall prey to the logical fallacy known as “equivocation,” the error of defining two technically separate words as one. In this case, the quote substitutes the verb “killing” for two words: “execute” and “murder,” respectively. “Execute” quantifies the punishment: a legally sanctioned and warranted sentence. “Murder” clarifies the crime, defined as “unjustifiably and maliciously taking the life of another.” Forcing the term “kill” to carry a negative connotation can easily incriminate a homeowner for clubbing a thief to death. Appropriately speaking, the quote should read, “We execute people to show people murder is wrong.” This version carries a radically different connotation.

In terms of legal issues, a plethora of death penalty opponents routinely point to Amendment 8 of the Constitution, and label capital punishment “cruel and unusual” to decry this “unconstitutional” practice. As a reaction, I present two points of rejoinder. First, I would issue an evidence check; only direct statistics proving the comparative anomaly and cruelty of death over, for example, life in prison without parole, can rationalize the “unconstitutional” claim. Thus far, I have not viewed any conclusive data to this end.

Second, I turn to the United States Supreme Court. To the initial chagrin of capital punishment proponents in 1972, Furman vs. Georgia established a de facto ban on the death penalty, as opposed to a de jure moratorium. In 1976, however, in what was supposed to be a seal of victory for opponents of the death penalty, the Supreme Court ruled in Gregg vs. Georgia that the death penalty, in and of itself, did not violate the Constitution. This, in effect, lifted the nationwide ban on the death penalty, while emphasizing a set of standards to limit the practice’s application.

Outside of immediately legal reasons, I support the death penalty on moral grounds. In my opinion, only capital punishment can bring full justice to those guilty of widespread, heinous crime, and present sufficient closure to those suffering from the tragedy. To be clear, I do not advocate the “eye-for-an-eye” approach, as some would contend. Indeed, I would support a clear set of boundaries for the death penalty’s applicability, such as in cases of mass homicide.

This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, http://www.joshuapondlaw.com.

November 11, 2011, 3:00 HST
(Recommended that you find a recording of this, and listen while reading my commentary. Or have watched the debate. lol)

0:00: The introduction speech-montage showed Huntsman speaking about 5 times, and Cain 2 times. And the others much more... Hmm.... (Sorry, couldn't help but notice.)

0:03: Introducing the candidates, and Gingrich has moved more to the middle, overtaking Perry. Not surprising, given polling results.
Rules: 90 Minute Debate, questions give 1 minute to candidate, and 30 minutes for any rebuttal, if necessary.

0:05: I'm not sure Mr. Cain was prepped enough for these questions... Hmmm....

0:07: The moderator just called Romney's time 30 seconds too early. Wow. Just... wow. Great way to give Romney some points, buddy. >.<

0:09: "The administration's skipped all ways to be smart." Gingrich's a genius.

0:10: Ron Paul: "It's not worthwhile to go to war (against Iran), because you would have to go through Congress to go to war." Uhhh.... wait, what?

0:12: Perry's being combative with the moderators. Again. Bah.

0:13: According to Santorum, victory against the Taliban means making them a neutered force, with no threat to America.

0:15: Santorum gave a really good exposition against Iran, but made the first time violation. *sigh*

0:17: Huntman advocating withdrawing all troops.

0:20: Gingrich saying that the solution is a "much larger strategic discussion."

0:21: Cain: "There isn't a clear answer to whether Pakistan is a friend or foe." To clarify their alliance, Cain would ask Pakistan "what commitments they would make to the US."

0:22: Mr. Perry, please, please, PLEASE answer the question. Foreign aid wasn't even mentioned in the question!
....Although, it was a really good spiel. He still didn't answer the question, though.
I think a great answer for Mr. Perry would be "Why are they being two-faced? Do I look like a Pakistani?"

0:25: Bachmann just gave an excellent pro-Israel spiel.

0:27: Gingrich just gave a great explanation of a beginning zero-dollar foreign aid budget, but stopped short of saying "No foreign aid, period."

0:34: Moderators are REALLY good at giving Mr. Gingrich incredibly straightforward questions. Basically giving him a shotgun.

0:35: Gingrich would adopt the Reagan/John Paul approach toward Iran and.... Pakistan, was it?

0:36: Cain would "surround himself with the right people, gather all the facts, and pick the option that makes the most sense," when it comes to overruling his generals.

0:38: Perry just made a great spike to the mod's question on the Department of Energy, using classic Texan self-depreciating humor to make light of the situation. Well done.

0:41: "I agree that Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique." Nice recovery, Mr. Cain.

0:42: Congressman Paul is going about his anti-torture stance. Oh boy.

0:44: Hunstman siding with Congressman Paul.

0:47: Perry: China will end up on the ash heap of history.

0:52: *sigh* Mr. Cain isn't doing very well at all.... >.<

0:56: Perry hitchhiking off of Gingrich's idea of "countries making their case."

Oh, darn. They're done with broadcasting on TV. XD

So, I just got home. And I'm tired. Which is why I'm glad I wrote all this earlier. XD

Anyway, here's my review on each of the Presidential Candidate's speeches at the Values Voters Summit.... It was SO fun. :-D

Rick Santorum: Santorum’s speech was very charismatic; he came across as a rather chipper speaker, and his speech appealed extremely well to the family-abortion-based voter, due to his heavy emphasis on these types of values. Former Senator Santorum divided his speech into two parts, one relying heavily on the value of traditional marriage, and the other on the weight of the abortion issue. In my view, his audience support built quite a bit throughout his speech, evidenced by the progress in the volume in the room each time he popped a clever, conservative one-liner. In my observations, the number of Santorum shirt stickers, initially a meaningless name, quadrupled during the break after his speech. He ended his speech with the epilogue of his wife’s book, (who, he added, sold more copies of HER book that HE did HIS…. :-D) and received a standing ovation. What I failed to hear, however, was something new and genuine. Unfortunately, the vast majority, if not all, of his rhetoric reflected things that he has articulated before. Granted, the forms in which he presented his ideas presented themselves as novel, such as how he brought his family on stage and told the story of his 4th child. They did not demonstrate any new views, though. Voters already know what he stands for, and Santorum failed to bring forth any new concepts.

Rick Perry: As a voter would expect from one who captured the hearts of Republicans in the first week of his campaigning, has stood as Texas’ longest-term Governor, and possesses the ability to recover well from any type of blunder, (and, as my Sister said, “He looks like Ronald Reagan!”) Perry’s speech to the audience of the Values Voters Summit reflected a wide prism of issues. Unlike Santorum before him, Perry focused his speech on American Exceptionalism, Economic Integrity, and Military Security. While he did touch on the family values and abortion battles, the latter of which he utilized his efforts as Governor to augment, much of his address directed itself toward the aforementioned tangible issues of money and defense. To Perry’s credit, I did observe a fairly solid view on military issues, a topic that I have found lacking in his previous discourses. Similarly, he reiterated his verbal belief in free-market economics; one of his memorable one-liners consisted of the idea that America “needs to get Government back into the free-market.” He did not fail to tout his ever-present job-creation record in Texas. Personally, however, I find myself quite wary of some qualifiers he inserted into his rhetoric. First, he stated, “We need a free, REGULATORY environment (for business).” (Emphasis added) Regulatory? That does not exemplify free-market principles. Also, he argued that, paraphrased, “Business regulation proposals for the next six months to be frozen.” Six months? What about everything before and after that period? Because of a horrible memory, I cannot recall any other exact sentences, but those soft spots in his economic views plant doubt in my mind.

Herman Cain: (Thanks to Ryan McDonald for actually remembering to take notes.) “Did I hear you say, “Yes, We Can?” Coming on the stage after an audience-wide satire on President Obama’s campaign slogan, Mr. Cain warmed the audience up well for a rousing speech on American Exceptionalism. Contrary to the dictionary definition of the term, however, the former Godfather Pizza CEO did not emphasize the fine political points of the doctrine. Rather, Cain emphasized how “exceptional” America is, through its value structure and rich heritage. Delving into the values portion of his speech, Cain wasted no time in clarifying his stances on both marriage and abortion, stating his firm beliefs in one man-one woman marriage, and life from conception to death. This placated the crowd, as the Susan B. Anthony survey passed out to the convention earlier portrayed Cain as a fairly moderate social conservative. He then transitioned to the typical conservative attack on the liberal Federal Government, stating that the Declaration of Independence allows for “altering and abolishing” of a tyrannical government. Upon reading this, Cain declared, “We’ve got some altering and abolishing to do!” This garnered deafening roars from a pleased Values Voters Summit audience. From there, the support for Cain escalated: he stated his support for a strong national defense, presenting a plan to build new ICBMs. Upon accomplishing this, Cain asserted, he would turn to President Akhmadinejad, and say to him: “Make. My. Day.” Needless to say, this also thrilled the already-enthralled audience, prompting a standing ovation. Continuing with his popular ideas, Cain presented his unique tax plan, which drew chants from the audience: “9-9-9!!!” With the almost fever-pitch support running through the viewers, Cain mocked a question that was posed to him by an earlier journalist: “Why are you running for President?” Cain stated: “To be President! Duh! I’m not running to go to Disneyland!” At this point, Cain presented his closing remarks: He called America “the shining city on the hill that has slipped off. We need to push America back to the top of the hill, and I need your help!” Cain presented perhaps the most rousing speech of the Presidential Candidates at the convention, and resonated well with the voters there. Every point he gave in the latter half of his speech received a standing ovation. His naturally evangelical stance bolstered his support, and after he spoke, about a third of the audience left to get a book signed; every book of his at the summit sold out right then and there.

Newt Gingrich: Kicking his address off with this comment, “I think this is the first time two Georgians have run for President, and have come up back-to-back,” Gingrich displayed a surprising amount of humor during his Voters Values Summit introduction. His wit, however, quickly made way for Gingrich’s trademark intellectual remarks. Now, I first expected that the controversial remarks would come solely from Congressman Ron Paul, who holds views that differ marginally from many traditional conservatives. Gingrich, however, proved this wrong to me when he stated that “Judicial Supremacy” equaled “Judicial Dictatorship,” and that “Judicial Supremacy” represented a factually and morally wrong concept. To clarify, Gingrich did not offer the idea that the courts hold no power. He instead pointed to the examples of the California Proposition 8 case, and banning of the words “God” and “benediction” from the school system. Personally, calling Judicial Supremacy “morally wrong” represents a faulty conclusion, based on Isaiah 22:33. Also, equivocating it to “dictatorship” exemplifies a slippery slope fallacy. This example, however, turned out to be the only “red flag” comment to me. In fact, the remnant of his discourse proved fairly entertaining, with Gingrich still lightly criticizing our court system, promising that he would challenge President Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglass debates should he receive the Republican nomination, and quoting Nancy Pelosi: “When the courts speak, it’s as if God himself has spoken,” to state that Pelosi’s party mentioning God represents a large step in the right direction. Again skillfully incorporating his apt intellect into his speech, Gingrich pointed out inefficiencies and current problems in our checks and balance system, while calling for votes to allow him to fix these problems. As he concluded his speech, Gingrich promised originalism, balance, and efficiency. His speech, in all, offered much critique, and much intellectual food for thought.

Michelle Bachmann: “Michelle, I love you!” “Well, I love you too!” These lines represented the first audible words after the pre-speech applause subsided. Even before the political rhetoric started, Bachmann captivated the audience with her charming smile and amicable demeanor. Audience members did not feel the daunting aura along the lines of Gingrich, nor quite the immense patriotism of Cain. In fact, the Congresswoman drew a fine line between the two, to the point where her attitude mimicked that of a cross-table conversation, and her tone voiced that of a seasoned public speaker. Through a brief recourse of America’s rich heritage, and review of wasteful and inefficient present legislation, Bachmann set the stage for her own unique brand of Americanism; many would term it “tea party rhetoric.” Pointing to the successes of our Founding Fathers, and her past congressional triumphs, Bachmann promised that she would lead the “fight” to take back Congress and the Oval Office. In all, Bachmann’s speech covered all of her normal talking points, including loyalty to the military, grassroots efforts, and attentiveness to the examples of Churchill and Reagan. Her discourse, however, communicated two weaknesses: first, her slight lack of civic understanding. Among other promises, many of which legitimately fall under the duties of the Executive Office, Bachmann promised to create a filibuster-proof Senate. While this idea holds appeal, the President cannot amend nor reform the rules of either houses of Congress; this duty falls to whichever house wishes to amend its rules. Attempting to influence the makeup of a separate branch of Government, short of bombing and reconstructing the entire organization, violates the system of checks and balances, and opens up the door to a mightier executive authority than our Founding Fathers intended. Also, Bachmann painted a picture of a broken Government, one which completely ignores our roots and our legislative documents. Whether or not this truly represents the case remains to be seen. Even with this image of a fractured bureaucracy, unfortunately, the Congresswoman did not offer any comprehensive solutions to any of the major problems she highlighted. She DID mention a repeal of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, about 10 times in her speech, and an abolishment of the EPA, the DoE, and more departments, which she did not name. Mere destruction of certain sectors of Government, however, does not amount to reform, just deform. To her credit, though, she concluded her speech with a lengthy discourse on her faith in Christ Jesus, which resonated quite well with the audience at the Values Voters Summit. This summit, however, promotes a purpose of political issues, not altar calls. (Much as I like altar calls.) Without a clear proposal to substantiate her claims of improved efficiency and accountability, the Congresswoman presented a speech with a lot of icing, and little to no cake.

Ron Paul: (Thanks to Ryan McDonald and Jonathan Monroe for taking excellent notes on this speech in my absence. I slept in.) Never failing to inspire awe in the audience, Congressman Ron Paul’s mere presence drew deafening cheers from a sizable chunk of the Voters Values Summit audience. His opening alluded to Samuel speaking to the people about the dangers of a king, how a king would tax them heavily and how he would take their sons for war. Without hesitation, Paul linked this to our current government, asserting that the actions of our current government fulfill Samuel’s prediction. In a thorough exposition, the Congressman assailed the Federal Government, emphasizing his famous anti-war stance. This topic formed the first half of his speech, decrying war as “family-destroying,” a cause of soldier suicide, and a violation of the golden rule. Unsurprisingly, Congressman Paul spent much time after this attacking the irresponsibility of the national debt. In an evident effort to garner support from his overwhelmingly Christian audience, however, Paul strayed from his normally pure political elucidations. This time, the Congressman sought to incorporate the Bible into his points. In one of the most memorable parts of the address, the Congressman termed the national debt “unbiblical.” (From here on, I work from hearsay; curse my sleep deprivation.) While Paul’s attempt to cater to the values of the audience come across as commendable, he failed to adequately cover many of his more controversial beliefs; prostitution legalization, federal marriage standards, and foreign aid come to mind. In fact, even though the Congressman called the debt “unbiblical,” he failed to support this bold claim with evidence from the Bible itself. All in all, the address came across as a normal Ron Paul libertarian appeal, with a bit of scripture mixed in, and a skirt of the more contentious values. As always, though, Mr. Paul began and ended his speech with thunder from the audience.

Mitt Romney: With biting satire, Governor Romney stated “I’ve been to the Values Voters Summit for six years, and this is the largest crowd yet… President Obama really is the conservative movement’s biggest supporter.” Not surprisingly, the bulk of his speech consisted of the failures of the Obama administration, such as Solyndra, the stimulus, and even reiterated a statement that he partially recanted earlier in the year: “Obama took the recession, and made it worse.” In typical Romney charismatic fashion, he utilized his characterizations of the current administration to highlight initiatives the Romney administration would take. Predictably, his first example underscored the inefficiency of Obamacare, which led up to the Solyndra example, Chinese patronization, collective bargaining, and defense budgets. His deep baritone voice resonated through the crowd, promising free trade, venture capitalism, stronger national defense, and abolishment of many pieces of legislation. Later in the speech, though, Romney started to balance his emphasis on economic problems with a focus on the family issues of marriage and abortion. Among these ideals, Romney offered the tangible solutions of holding fathers financially responsible for children, and calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Concluding his speech, Romney labeled values the “strength of our nation,” and urged the audience to refrain from “poisonous language” which does not assist our cause. Personally, I found Romney’s speech to adequately, perhaps monotonously, cover the talking points that he has put forth before, with a greater emphasis on family issues.

Sorry, Trig reference.

To "honor" (sorta) the official release of PRo's New Album, "Dying to Live" today, (For which I shaved $10 out of my pocket,) Ima blog on a topic that's been on my mind for quite a while: The Legitimacy of Rap as a Conduit for Worship.

*Now, what the heck does that mean?*

Thanks for asking. Saves me the typing.

................

Wait....

................

:-)

There's so much I want to write, but I'll sort my arguments into three main categories: The similarity of rap to contemporary worship tunes, the potential for rap to have insane impact beyond modern worship, and certain misconceptions regarding hip/hop.

Now, just FYI, "hip/hop" and "rap" are commonly used interchangeably. So, if I give you one of them, and utilize the other right after it, I'm referring to the same genre.

So, my first point: A comparison of worship and gospel rap.

Take a gander at the following excerpts from a couple of tunes, and tell me what song they're from.

Chorus 1: "Angels surrounding His throne and
Worthy is the Lamb who was slain!
The whole earth is filled with his glory,
All nations bow at his name!"

Chorus 2: "Angels gather ’round Your throne...
Elders bowing at Your feet
And at Your feet they bend their knees
All creatures on the earth below."

Can't tell? Yes, I wouldn't be able to, either.

In fact, although the lyrics look incredibly similar, the style in which they're presented is quite different. The first is from FLAME, an excellent Christian Rapper, off his hit song "Joyful Noise." The second is from Rita Springer, a female contemporary vocalist, from her song "Holy is Our King." The genres present quite a bit of a contrast, yet the message stays the same.

Now, if you actually take a listen to both songs, you'll notice that that excerpt from FLAME is actually sung by John Reilly, a male vocalist. The context is the same, but for a little more solidification, here's another excerpt from Lecrae's "God is Enough:"

"The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want/
Takes away my fears, You restore my soul/
Off into the sky, To dead and Christ arise/
To be with You forever, see with the clearest eyes!/"

Look at that, and tell me that can't appear in a contemporary worship song. Prime lyrics, right there.

The point is, even if the genre is a little more than you're used to, the TRUTH remains the same.

This leads me into my second argument: Rap's outreach potential.

First of all, I understand that many "city/urban" churches wouldn't bump this stuff in their pre-service stereos. And I understand that. To each Church her own taste in music.

Let's get a couple of things straight, however: First of all, gospel rap allows us to reach those who wouldn't bat an eye at your favorite Chris Tomlin song, or your Chuck Colson podcast. (Is he that updated? :-P) For example, your NYC homeboy, or your city hood in the alley won't care about the reading of the book of Colossians in Greek. (I'd love that stuff, btw. Well, maybe not the "Greek" part...)

But Lecrae's beats, Tedashii, J'son, THAT'S the stuff that they'll give an ear to. And I know that you probably won't understand the lyrics if you're fresh to rap, but for those who have tuned their ears to that frequency, I guarantee that they'll hear the words, loud and clear. And from there, we let the two-edged sword do it's cutting.

Second, the deep, unconventional content that can be inserted into rap. Trip Lee's song, "Cash or Christ," exposes the blasphemy behind Joel Osteen's "Health, Wealth, and Prosperity gospel." Tedashii's "Need it Daily" emphasizes our dire need for daily Bible Reading. PRo's "Full Court Mess" details how messed up our life can be without Christ. Lecrae's "Jesus Muzik" sets down a standard for the music that we feed ourselves, and his "Fall Back" beat warns us against the worldview of secular media.

The pure amount of "stuff" that you can put into a single rap verse, as opposed to 4 perfectly symmetrical lines in "Blessed Be Your Name," allows for the content to address deep theological issues. The varying flow in a single beat keeps things fresh. And, quite honestly, you can put lessons into rap that just won't fit into contemporary worship.

For those who have put the milk in the fridge and are reaching for the meat, I would contend that gospel rap serves their purpose of study better than songs that focus on praise and adoration.

Now, don't get it twisted: I have absolutely nothing against praise and adoration. I dunno about you, but I need my fix every day. All I'm saying is that rap can get much deep into topics regarding the full character of God, the truths about Christianity and the Bible, and Christ-like living, that the vast majority of worship tunes can't adequately address.

Finally, I'd like to address some of the common misconceptions regarding this particular genre.

First: The origins of rap are not glorifying to God.
Actually, that's not quite true. The origin of rap and hip/hop actually finds itself in the saxophone, and pure instrumental beats. No voices. Absolutely none.

What happened was, fallible man took the gift of music that God gave to us, perverted it with trash talk, deceit, self-glorifying rhetoric and blasphemy against the Lord Almighty, and presented THAT as "genuine rap." It would be my contention that Creezy, Trip, T-Dot, and all these other Christian artists hit the mark of "genuine rap," much closer than those along the lines of Eminem, 50-Cent, and Lil' Wayne.

Second: Rap makes you think of bad thoughts.
Ummmmm..... Yeah. Sorry, but I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. In my case, when I understand the lyrics to a particular song, I close my eyes and meditate on the truth in the words. And if I don't, I look them up. The pure love and adoration behind some of these beats has brought me to tears on more than one occasion. Notably, Trip Lee's "Why Me?"
(If you haven't already, I HIGHLY recommend that you listen to that one while reading the lyrics.)

Third: Rap gives you a headache.
Actually, that's probably my maxed-out bass. My bad. *Turn it down*
:-P

The Bottom Line: Rap isn't necessarily evil. In fact, when used the right way, it can glorify the LORD as much as any other vehicle of worship can, musical or otherwise.

If you don't like it, fine. All I'm saying is, don't start saying stuff like "Hip-Hop is bad stuff." It ain't true. Simple as that.

:-)

Yes, I did say that I would post this about.... 2 weeks ago. And no, I'm not making any excuses. It's me and my wretched procrastination again.

Anyway, since I really don't remember the events of GenJ summer camp on a day-to-day basis, I'm gonna write about what I remember.

(btw, one of the little tidbits I picked up during the camp, courtesy of Mr. Grewe, is that emotion invokes memory. So you can assure yourself that whatever I post here, I felt quite strongly about.) :-)

So, the first thing that comes to my mind: the Trials Simulation Game. Basically, the layout went like this: Take turns running around a field 4 times, then go to the middle where Mr. Lorrig, the "Cost of Discipleship" was waiting, where he would give you a number of pushups and situps to complete. (Supposedly, he gave you a number according to your age.) After that, we would walk down a path where Mark, my dear brother in Christ, would stand with a pitcher of water and a cup, saying "drink! Drink! You're thirsty, you need water! Come off the path!" Thankfully, a brother had warned me that if I took the water, I would have to do it all over again. I was like "heck no, I'm not doing that again!" so I just waved Mark off.

Then, I came to an area where Samuel, another one of my big brothers, (a REAL big brother,) was standing over a narrow wooden beam supported by three bricks. We had to walk over that beam without falling off. The problem? Samuel had pillows in each hand.

Ooh boy.

When it came my turn to cross that bridge, Samuel, labeled "Pride," started shouting off a bunch of taunts to me, saying stuff like "You think you can do this on your own? You think you a big shot? Huh?" I only found out afterwards that if I had only said "No, I need God's help," he wouldn't have hit me. As it was, I was stuck pondering what to do, when Mr. Grewe, labeled "Really BIG ego," started walking up to me with a stick.
Now, I dunno about you, but I prefer to get hit with a pillow in the chest rather than a stick on the behind. So, I ran across the beam as fast as I possibly could. I absorbed one HUGE pillow blow to the chest, but I got to the other side without falling. I was quite proud of myself.

I was told to walk back to the porch where we had started from, and wait for everyone else to finish. As I was walking along the same path that I had traveled before, however, Mark splashed me with a cup of water. Come to find out later that that was a lesson in the price of resisting temptation: you get bit.

So, why did this invoke an emotional response? Well, after the camp was over, I heard that the whole thing was RIGGED AGAINST ME. For one thing, Mr. Lorrig gave me a 30 pushups and double the number of situps, 60, just because he wanted to. It had nothing to do with my age. Then, Mr. Grewe started walking toward me when I was contemplating how to get across the wooden beam, just because he wanted to wallop me with the sticks.

I felt loved. REAL loved. XD

Second memory: the "hot seat" prayer time. Overview: sit in a circle, and take turns praying for one guy who was sitting in the middle of us. Seems simple. But it was far, FAR from it.

I can't remember most of the details of the prayers, but all I know is that near the end, I had to walk away from the circle. Not because I was sick or anything, but I was crying so much that I couldn't stand it. My emotions were a stew of sorrow, repentance, regret, pain, and almost every other negative feeling one can think of. For the first time in my life, I was forced to lay prostrate on the ground, crying out to the Lord in repentance. When there is nothing else on your mind but God and you, you can't help but cry in self-helplessness.

After the tears of sorrow and repentance for my sins and shame flooded out of me, a whole new well sprang from my eyes, this time of joy. Of love. Of pure adoration for my Savior. For the first time in my life, I really felt his hand. The whole experience was something you absolutely cannot put into words. I now know the true meaning of "words are insufficient."

My third memory: The worship time in the attic. I guess this was originally supposed to be a campfire time, but for some reason or the other, we went up in the attic instead of to the campfire. And I think it was all for the better.

One of the things we learned was that "worship" literally means to "make higher." And make the LORD higher, we did. I had my viola with me, and Luc had his piano skills with him. Together, we made a heavenly melody for the LORD and for the campers, playing and singing songs of pure praise. Tears flowed like wine, voices were raised as high as they could go, and every hand was outstretched to God. Communion was taken up there, and so was the practice of writing your sins on a piece of paper, and nailing them to a wooden cross. But those practices took on a whole new meaning for me, personally. And I'm sure it did for everyone else up there, as well.

Fourth, and last for this post, the legislative simulation. If you've ever been to GenJ's iGovern Camp, you know what I'm talking about. I learned, firsthand, how different what you mean to say in your words, and what is actually conveyed can be. Case in point: a bill that I really like, a banning euthanasia bill, was introduced and passed. Problem is, the bill also prohibited our military from killing their enemies, for a reason that I cannot remember. The action to pass the bill was quickly recalled, and the bill was sent back to committee. Sooo.... I'm looking forward to camp next year, so I can learn from my mistakes this year and take more precautionary measures. :-)

There were so many more memories that I had during my camp. But I can only write so much at one time, and I hate leaving a blog post in "draft mode." So, I shall leave this at that.

Catherine, Andrew, Kepa, Samuel, Ana, Christiana, Hannah, Julia, J Kim and Sweet, Q Woo, Mark, Halley, Ricky, Luc, Jimmy, Bethany, Chelsea, Nathan, Ian, Jordan, Jon, and all my other Brothers and Sisters I got to know so well during camp, God Bless You All.

Ima be blunt in the first sentence: I'm probably gonna get a lot of mental flak for this post. But, I have to solidify my position on this before it's too late. (How do I define "too late?" Well... August 2nd.)

Anyway, here's my opinion on this whole fiasco: Don't raise the debt ceiling. Period.

"B-b-b-b-b, if we hit the debt ceiling, then we'll default! And that's a BAD thing, isn't it?"

Well, yes. Default IS a bad thing. We'll be stuck, basically, with a non-working credit card, investors will flee faster than geckos when they see my dog, and our political capital will.... not be quite capital anymore.

However, the problem is here: If we hit the ceiling, it DOES NOT mean that we will default.

Hah?

Allow me to explain.

This is the solution that I, PERSONALLY, would enact had I divine fiat over the Federal Government. My ideal solution. Instead of starting to talk about debt default, which scares people sockless, I would take the "revenue" (a democratic word for TAXES...) that we make, (which, as I remember, is about 4 Trillion Dollars.... a LOT of money) and use that to pay off our debt interest, social security entitlements, and military responsibilities. In that EXACT order. Why?

Well, paying off our debt interest consistently would avert any fear of default and remove any concerns about the ceiling. This is because paying off the interest will keep our debt to our lenders at the same, stagnant amount, until we stabilize our economy enough to start paying off the actual debt. It won't rise, so we don't need to worry about passing the ceiling.

Paying off social security because... well... we gave our seniors our promise that we would take care of them. (A FOOLISH promise, given the fact that social security is MASSIVELY insolvent--In Plain Terms: it wouldn't be able to do what it's supposed to do) It's also our single biggest expenditure, which means that if we that and keep it in control, a large chunk of internal cost will be curbed.

Military, because.... well..... it's no good if we have our money under control, and we're all dead. :-)

btw, those THREE costs TOGETHER equal.... about 500 Billion, liberally. We've got plenny money from "revenue" to pay all this off. It would hold off default, fulfill our promises, and protect us. Our bare essentials to preserve the US.

Now, why is this only IDEAL? Well, honestly, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. Representative Pat Toomey presented a plan to do something similar to this, called the "Full Faith and Credit Act," and it has been basically ignored. I do not know why. If anyone can explain this to me, please do. Because I am absolutely befuddled.

We WILL, at the rate we're going, hit the debt ceiling. But, that DOES NOT necessarily mean that we will default. If we enact Toomey's plan, we won't need to worry about "Giving the Alcoholic the Bottle," as Mr. Will Estrada called it. To me, this is the best option. No fear mongering. No red herrings. No straw men. Just GET THE PROBLEM FIXED.

Bottom Line: We can't be playing around with extra costs that will make our life "nice." Rail and Public Healthcare is warm and fuzzy. But we HAVE to sacrifice those things in order to preserve America's economic security intact. Prioritize our spending to what WE NEED to spend it on: Interest, SS, and the Military.

Goodbye, debt ceiling debate.

In the lifestyles imposed on us by the dictates of modern society, we do not often take the time to pause, to reflect on our surroundings, to "stop and smell the roses" as it were. To my surprise, I found such an opportunity during an event which usually blends right in with my hectic life: serving in the front of the house at the River of Life homeless outreach.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely do not wish to imply that the hustle and bustle during RoL represents a negative aspect. Scurrying back and forth from kitchen to table allows a server, such as myself, to interact with many a person.

During my past experiences at RoL, this usually represented the scenario: stand at the door to the kitchen, wait for a signal from the doorman/woman to let us know how many "customers" were walking in, hustle into the kitchen, grab a plate or two, and try to spot where the "customer(s)" in question sat. Often, I only had the chance to exchange brief pleasantries with the person to whom I gave a plate, before I had to run back to the kitchen to grab another meal for a guest.

This time, however, we had quite a bit of time in between kitchen runs, that much of our time "working" was spent standing, waiting, and singing along to the songs over the speakers. (Pastor Peter found time to ask me what band was playing on the stereo system.)

Our team had quite a bit of hands out in front, so we kinda rotated who grabbed plates, and who served who. This resulted in even more waiting for each individual waiter. Basically, it was a really slow night.
(I'm told that it was because most of the working homeless had just received their paychecks, and their motto is "if can, spend.")

During the off-times in between runs, I was able to the sheer diversity of the people coming into the room to get a meal. Most obvious was the way they looked. Some had long dress pants on, some had short jeans on, some tank topped, some T-shirted, some rugged, some looked like they had just taken a shower. (I even saw one that looked kinda like Elvis. XD)
Less evident, but still prominent, were their attitudes. On one hand, a few possessed the confidence to walk right in, unhesitatingly take a cup and fork, and sit right down where they wanted to. On the other hand, most people walked in shyly, took their cup cautiously, and walked to the nearest open seat. Even when conversing with them briefly, a simple "hello, enjoy your meal" from me received a "howzit, brah?" in return from some, from others it was "how are you, my brother? Praise the Lord," and still others said nothing at all.

Through all of that, however, one thing really impacted me: the closeness of the community. If a person could not find a seat, he or she almost always received an invitation from the other side of the table to occupy a vacant seat. When a meal was not finished, the full customer asked the person next to him or her if they wanted the leftovers. Laughter and talking echoed throughout the room.

Serving this group of people, who could grasp what real fellowship and unity was, came to me as a real joy. If the homeless community has one thing going for them, it's their comradeship. For some, it even extends to other people, regardless of who he or she is or where they are from. One man asked me to pray over his family, which really touched me. (In the end, I called Pastor Peter over to pray, because it would have been... a little awkward for me to do it with a Pastor right there. XD)

It was an absolutely fantastic experience. Many would view it from the outside as an "extracurricular activity," but I view it as much more than that. It is a chance to serve the Lord by serving his people. Even if I am not blessed with the gift of helps, it bring me great joy to do something like RoL.

Although, I am hoping for a little more activity the next time I go. :-D