Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalism

About a year ago on another blog I read about this cool experiment in Washington D.C.: one of the finest classical violinists in the world played for the masses in a city metro stop. He played elegant classical music on one of the most valuable instruments in the world, while the morning commuters passed by. Would they stop to hear the maestro? Would they notice the difference between this man and the typical day by day subway entertainers?

The Washington Post set up this experiment and the resulting article was, I thought, incredible. That piece, Pearls Before Breakfast, earned a Pulitzer Prize--a well earned award in my opinion.

A Quote to Consider

In the wake of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s death, on February 27, there have been a number of post-mortem reviews of his life and work. This is not one of them, but discussions I've observed after his death have in part centered around his divide from libertarians on some issues, and his disagreements with the Ayn Rand Objectivist crowd in particular.

This prompted me to review and again consider a quote I have on my wall from Rand's epic Atlas Shrugged -- a quote I've often drawn inspiration from:

"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours."

Today this quote gives me pause as a Christian. It is from the character John Galt and comes toward the end of his famous 70 page speech. The language is empowering, particularly in my line of work fighting constant uphill battles. Given Rand's atheism, though, it also denies the Biblical truth that we as Christians will never fully prevail in this world until Christ reigns again. So the world we desire actually is not possible here...right??

Camping -- Barnett Style

So this past weekend, I had the wonderful opportunity to spend four days with my family in New Mexico. We all met up in Albuquerque and then travelled to Alto, NM (just outside Ruidoso) to stay at my dad's "cabin" in the woods.



It really is in the woods, but not so much a traditional cabin. It was VERY comfortable, with all the amenities us Barnetts prefer in our camping: The hot tub here is of course one of the key amenities I was thrilled to enjoy throughout the weekend. Nothing like the pure quiet of the mountains and the incredible view of the moon and stars while sitting in 102 degree water with jacuzzi jets massaging your troubles away...

I thought I'd include a few photos of the area so folks could see this really is in the mountains.

There were so many deer everywhere, I loved this sign.

For those Laura Ingalls Wilder fans, one of my dad's neighbors (if you can't read it, the sign says "Little House in the Big Woods").

My husband couldn't join us this time around, so my brother had the honor of all computer related duties. He spent several hours in this position Saturday morning, but he seemed to really enjoy it in the end. Besides, Dad is now set up with an iPod and Audible books, which is quite the accomplishment.

Finally, a picture of "the boys" -- Dad and Janet's dogs Divot and Bogey as they get ready for a walk in the cold mountain air. They're hilarious little guys.

I got away from the weekend without taking pictures of my brother and sister-in-law together, but they are such a great couple it was really fun to be with them. Even more exciting and fun for me, Kristin invited me to feel little baby girl Barnett as she moved one night. Kristin is about 5 months pregnant, and this little girl is already incredibly active, kicking away pretty regularly and I got to feel her doing little flips--pretty sure I actually felt her little head roll by! How cool is that?!

All in all, a fabulous family weekend and a great time of rest. This is the kind of "camping" I love.

For the good of the party?!

So if you're in the GOP, you're being inundated just now with what the media and many party players say is a fait accompli: John McCain is the inevitable GOP nominee. As a result, we are told that it is somehow our duty to get behind the McCandidate.

I can't possibly say strongly enough how much I disagree with this "for the good of the party" nonsense. We've all been making our decisions on the GOP nominee for 20 years, and it has served only to damage the party immeasurably, possibly beyond repair.

We've been doing this for 20 years now, coming together to support the lesser of the evils because we assume he couldn't be as bad as the opposition. I believe in doing so we've only damaged the principles the Grand Ole Party once stood for and proven ourselves unworthy of that mantle. This party is supposed to be, at core, one that supports a general principle of limited government; that's of course nothing more than a joke at this stage to all three of the main contenders for nomination.


John McCain is a supremely arrogant, untrustworthy, and bitterly angry man. He is incredibly well known on Capitol Hill to have a temper beyond reason--I'm told by insiders his staff has to be prepared on a moment's notice to issue written apologies to his Congressional colleagues because no one knows what will set him off into an expletive-laden tirade.

Beyond the obvious questionable judgment that would put such a person in charge of "the button" is his lack of principles. John McCain is not a conservative, he is not a libertarian...I'm not even sure he's a liberal, if you really want to know. John McCain is basically just King of the John McCain fan club, and that's about all he has to offer this country. We're less than 10 years out from a time when he considered changing parties--not because his ideals or principles changed but because he couldn't get enough adoration and attention in the GOP. Remember our good friend Jim Jeffords? Around the time he jumped ship, having been courted by Democrats to do so, McCain staffers were sniffing around to see what kind of play McCain could get for jumping ship...so he wasn't even being courted, he was out attempting to sell himself to the highest bidder.

This is apparently the best we can muster as a party.

I am told that regardless of his flaws, he must be better than the alternatives on the Democrat side. To which I have two responses: first, how are we ever going to find the best standard-bearer when we are all too ready to accept this kind of ... person? Maybe if we all really started demanding more from politicians, expecting more from them, and holding them accountable at the ballot when they don't offer it, maybe then we'd see something really special happen.

Second, how can anyone possibly know whether McCain is any better than the alternative when no one really knows what he believes or stands for?

My hope for tomorrow, Super Tuesday is this: at the end of the day no one may be declared "presumptive nominee." Let's all take a little more time before once more submitting to that most pathetic and lowly urge to hold our noses and vote for someone just because we are told he is the most "electable" or some such nonsense. We've got SIX MONTHS until the nominating convention, maybe we could use just a bit more of that time to think things over and consider whether, once again, we really want to all band together and accept someone of such questionable worth and qualification.

Legislating Morality is BAD

Libertarians and conservatives find themselves at odds when it comes to questions of social policy and morality. More and more I've found myself to fall squarely in the libertarian camp--perhaps to the chagrin of the conservatives I grew up with.

To me, the issue of the government's role in enforcing moral codes, should be a no-brainer to anyone who claims to believe in limited government: keep the government out. Alas, that is not what conservatives have consistently said. Rather, the Mike Huckabee GOP types are generally happy to allow the government into virtually any corner of their lives--so long as that intrusion is consistent with their own moral principles.

The obvious problem is once you draw the line in the sand for allowing the government in, you don't always get to decide the moral principles at issue--whoever wields the power you gave them gets to make that call.

There's a great example now occurring in California to demonstrate what I mean. For many years, conservatives have supported zoning laws restricting where adult-oriented businesses, bars, or other businesses with which they agree may operate. This intrusion into property rights is wholly based on moral principles, on the theory that the others in the neighborhood shouldn't be forced to live, work, or play near businesses they find morally repugnant.

So take that theory to Berkeley, California where the activists are attempting to get a measure on the ballot that would restrict the location of military recruiting offices--a type of business many residents of Berkeley find morally repugnant.

Any conservatives opposing this measure yet supporting restrictions on the location of pornographic businesses are quite frankly hypocrits--though I don't expect that to stop them.

Hat Tip to Volokh Conspiracy where I first read about this issue.

Rights vs. Power -- How did we get this far?

One of the good things that comes out of a Presidential election season and the interminable debates, speeches, spin-doctors, and overactive pundits and columnists is this sort of national time of introspection. We sort of graze the surface of a question I wish everyone would take a little more seriously: What is the proper role of government in our society?

America is not actually a true democracy (and it's a pet peeve of mine when so many in power refer to it as such); we are a constitutional republic in which we elect representatives to govern rather than directly governing ourselves (which would be democracy). The importance of this fact here is that this means the United States Constitution is the source for answering the question I've posed.

The founders deliberately chose the words of our Constitution to set forth limits on government power--the document is not one setting forth the rights the government deigns to provide us with, in fact quite the opposite. We don't look to the Constitution to find out what our rights our, we look to it to learn the limitations on government power.

This question of power vs. rights is so incredibly important, and yet utterly misunderstood today. How many times, when talking about the "right" to do X or Y, have you heard someone say, "but where do the words of the Constitution give you that right? I don't see it in the Constitution!" (this last part spoken triumphantly usually).

What hogwash! I don't need a document to give me my rights, they are mine already, endowed by my Creator.

People today seem so ... suspicious and skeptical of this concept of natural rights. As though it's somehow arrogant to proclaim that I have these rights regardless whether some government bureaucrat has given them to me.

On the flip side, however, it seems no one ever asks the opposing question about government power--where in the Constitution does the government find the authority to exercise that power to that extent or in that manner? It's as though, as a nation, we have wholly bought into the notion that the government knows best and if a group of lawmakers proclaim some new limitation on our rights, we just go along as though the mere fact that lawmakers passed the legislation validates their actions.

My great hope is that one day we'll see two things: first a revival of citizen participation so that the public actually pays attention to what legislators do--and punishes those lawmakers who take action contrary to the Constitution's limits on their power. Second, that we'd have some Judges who are more interested in actually upholding the limits found in the Constitution (you know, the thing that is their sworn duty) instead of always so pathetically looking for every possible way to avoid having to make a real decision.

IT'S A GIRL!!!!

I am SOOOO EXCITED!!! for my brother, Frank, and his wife, Kristin. They are expecting their first child this June and found out yesterday it's a girl. You can read more about it here.