Rings of Benzene

AZ politics not as boring as I thought

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving holiday. I know I did, even after some rather defensive driving due to the fact that idiots are on the streets--where they do not belong. The pit-roasted turkey was great, the lima beans were plentiful, and sparkling cider was overflowing.

But with that said, here I was, thinking that Arizona politics are boring as ever--and UA issues, too--when I stumble across the headline "Arizona gay-marriage foes push for amendment."

Why aren't they happy with a law that prohibits marriage between people of the same sex? I guess having a state amendment is the only way to make these people happy.

But then, currently, there is only 49% of the state population in support of this amendment. Count me as one of the 43% who oppose it.

I oppose it as much as I oppose a federal amendment.

Call me paranoid, but the government has no right dictating who can marry whom. Yes, I personally oppose gay marriage. But no, I do not support the government's ability to tell me that I cannot marry someone because of their gender. (Have no worries, I don't plan on shacking up with another woman any time soon.)

But the point remains that this is outside the natural realm of government, to prohibit grown adults from "marrying" one another. Likewise, it is outside the role of government to say that this or that group is now allowed to marry.

That the state of Arizona wants to get in line with the other eleven states who passed the amendment is insane.

But, as the AZ Daily Star article put it, its more than about prohibiting same-sex marriage--its about politics: the drawing in of conservatives and conservative christians into the polling booths. It's killing two birds with one stone. Increase conservative turnout and outlaw gay marriage.

posted by Laura Keslar at 8:34 AM | |

I hate this post-election season

Is there nothing whatsoever to write about in the state of Arizona or in the news itself. Why doesn't anything hold much interest to me? UGH.

posted by Laura Keslar at 8:31 PM | |

Potential for homosexual dating a sure thing with APO

University of Arizona organizations and groups are at it again. In the footsteps of the condom olympics and the sex worker festival, Alpha Phi Omega has decided to auction off UA "bachelors" to raise money for charity.

Seemingly tame and innocent, APO will allow both men and women to place bids for the men.

Yeah, it goes for a good charity. I hear you. But must we sacrifice decency for the sake of staying culturally cool?

Being gay is all the rage now. Yes, everything from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy to Howard Dean the metrosexual is the greatest thing ever.

But what APO has done is isolate at least one member of the community from their activities (not as though I would bid on a man, how grotesque). And I doubt I am the only one.

And its their choice to isolate a few potential members. But what struck me as odd is as to why they go out of their way to auction off men as well. And made a point at saying it.

EDIT: So I spoke hastily. Dan from Jackalope Pursuivant had it right: it was a lot more innocent than I had made it out to be.

After talking to a few people a bit closer to the situation, they had indicated that the use of only men at the auction was to prevent anything from being read into. In other words, to auction off women would have made this small fund-raiser into something far more sinister, far more oppressive, and far more patriarchal than they wanted it to be.

Besides, they figured they could raise more money by opening it up to men and women.

posted by Laura Keslar at 1:36 PM | |

Laura made a big booboo

Uhoh, Laura made a really big mistake in today's column.

I said, and I quote while blushing:

"Ask any student and they can quote parts of the Gettysburg Address: 'We the people....'"

And poor Susan for not catching it either.

As I said to Brett in an email, "it's sort of like those people who say that the "separation of church and state" is mentioned in the Constitution."

Yes, I meant the "for the people..." quote, but alas, I botched it.

Someone kill me now for some gross negligence on my part.

But yes, I also knew I was going to get an email like this: "I think perhaps Laura Keslar nedds[sic] a civics lesson."

Oh well. Mistakes happen. But it won't happen again.

Well edit that: Something funny happened today. Well, not funny--more ironic. Lauren, fellow Wildcat columnist, also made the similar mistake. Just after I emailed someone else saying that, "Thank God, I didn't say the 'separation of church and state' was mentioned in the Constitution."

Well, I guess that why's there's that little phrase in the Bill of Rights that says "separation between church and state."

Poor Lauren.

posted by Laura Keslar at 10:14 PM | |

Will it ever end?

Oh, if anyone is wondering, here is the legal text-mumbo-jumbo of what the City of Phoenix passed on Wednesday.

Ordinance S-31518 authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to defend and indemnify City employees who may be involved in legal proceedings as a result of Proposition 200, an initiative proposition adopted by the voters on November 2, 2004, relating to immigration matters, provided that City employees are in compliance with procedures and policies adopted by the City Manager relating to implementing the requirements of Proposition 200.

On November 2, 2004, the voters of Arizona approved the adoption of Proposition 200, an initiative measure which relates to immigration matters. The proposition will require voters to present identification when voting. In addition, the proposition requires City employees to verify the immigration status of all applicants requesting local public benefits. The Proposition does not define what constitutes a public benefit. The City Manager's Office and the Law Department are developing policies and procedures to comply with the law, but given the uncertainty relating to its requirements, it is possible that a court or others may have a different interpretation of the law. If City employees are acting in good faith in attempting to follow the law, and following City policies and procedures with respect to the law, they should not be required to defend themselves or pay the legal costs associated with implementing this proposition. Adoption of this ordinance will provide City employees the protection necessary to conduct the City's business as directed free from the concern that they may be subjected to liability for their actions.

The financial impact of this ordinance is unknown, but any claim arising under it would be handled as part of the City's Risk Management program.

Be aware though, that the State of Arizona also passed something similar.

posted by Laura Keslar at 5:37 AM | |

Someone remind me, why do I live in Tucson?

Is there anything to do in Tucson on a Friday night that does not include clubs, parties, alcohol or the typical college things to do?

I was planning on taking a friend to the Sonoran Desert Museum only to find out that they close at 5pm. Pfft.

And I was looking forward to that because, as the website says, there is over 21 acres with 2 miles of paths. Its a nice place to be able to go and chat and be alone.

posted by Laura Keslar at 10:59 PM | |

Just when you thought it was over

It looks at though the Phoenix city council has decided that it will do everything in its power to protect its employees from lawsuits that might arise from the enactment of Proposition 200. In other words, the city will use their tax revenues to defend its city employees against lawsuits that come about by a proposition that passed with 56% of the vote.

Tucson legislators and government officials have indicated that they would like to institute something similar here; but there is something in city bylaws that already gives some permission to defend city employees from lawsuits.

The point has already been made at AZ Watch that in any case, it is clear and willful unlawfulness conducted on the part of the cities.

But on another note, the Wildcat opinions board wrote an editorial declaring that the initiative process should be done away with because of Arizonans uneducated voting.

Anyone see the eye roll?

What was forgotten was that, oh, the Arizona legislature introduced a bill that would have *only* required that voters show an ID when voting.

But what happened? Why, Janet Napolitano thought it was racist and subsequently vetoed it.

Well, what does this have to do with what the editorial board had to say? Well, the editorial goes on to say that

However, here in Arizona - one of the few states to have an initiative and referendum system - we do not allow our legislators to do the jobs appointed to them.

Oh yes we did allow them to do their job. The purpose of the legislature is to represent the interests of its constituents.

Napolitano's action obviously did not serve the interests of the people she is said to represent.

We saw this at the ballot this past November, with a 56% majority giving it the thumbs up. The people of Arizona supported the idea of asking for an identification; therefore the legislators had been doing their job. It was simply Napolitano who wasn't.

Thanks to AZ Watch for the link.

posted by Laura Keslar at 9:32 PM | |

Social castigation punishes cheaters

For many years now, some groups of people have advocated a market-based society. A society where government regulation was either very lax, confined to its constitutional limits of protecting against force and fraud, or absent (the last being more appropriately called anarcho-capitalism).

The first example has received some criticism of being cruel, often in the light of the fact that many people in America and the world today take it as an individual right to be able to work, exist, and have a job (see Ludwig von Mises' Socialism. Such a society, they claim, does not insure the rights of the individual. Under such a society, individuals are not guaranteed food on their table or drugs in their body.

While most of the criticism for this sort of society has come from the American Left and Europe in general, criticism of the second has come from both the left and the right. Its detractors have claimed it to be anarchy at the highest. Because there are no government regulations to keep people in line, the individuals of that society will cause general chaos; in other words, they would rape, pillage, and destroy. (The very devils of society, by that description.)

In that society, so have said the detractors, false advertising would prevail. They ask what would happen if government regulations failed to exist. Without government regulations, they say, corporations, individuals, and others would take advantage of the common man. They could cheat, steal, and lie without much effort.

However, the counter argument has gone that there would be social castigation against those people who cheated and lied. There would be a decrease in business as soon as the potential customers realized that they were being had.

They say that this is obvious in human society. During the 90s, the two big issues were self-esteem and peer pressure. And neither of those issues were a one time thing. Peer pressure especially has been an on-going problem, where children become influenced by their peers' decision to smoke, drink, do drugs. On a more positive side, children and teens have used the concept of peer pressure to help out their fellow man, as with this Volkswagen commercial emphasizing buckling up.

But, likewise, what is the punishment humans deal out for lying and cheating? On a personal level, people end friendships and, thanks to the rumor mill, declare that said person is a liar or cheater.

At a more institutional setting, such as the university, we have people being kicked out of the university for a small infraction. For instance, in my chemical safety class, which counts class attendance as 50% of the grade, the professor has indicated and sent out a corresponding email declaring that several people had been caught signing in their absent friend's name; and, unless they go talk to the professor, both students would have had their names reported to the Dean.

While other methods of catching cheating exist, such as turnitin.com, all of these examples exist as means to prevent fraud without government intervention.

In other words, social pressures are known to induce behavior of one sort or another.

But even nature has documented cases where animals cheat and get punished.

Nature has published the research of a UA post-doc Elizabeth A. Tibbetts and James Dale at a British Columbia university. According to the UA's report on the study,

The wasps established dominance hierarchies, but in the cases where one wasp had a dishonest face – one that didn’t match its original face – the fighting was more intense. [...] Even if the dominance hierarchy was maintained, the unaltered wasp was much more likely to continue to harass the altered wasp.

Wasps, the social creatures that they are, punish other wasps for their physical dishonesty.

It appears that this necessity to punish and weed out the dishonest members of a social group is not just among humans, but other animals as well. Part of this might come from the fact that it is a bane to the group when its members are dishonest.

In other words, it is for the necessity of the survival and passage of genes that dishonest members are either removed or stopped.

While it looks as though in the wasp community, this dishonesty and continual fighting means something bad for the immediate community.

"That kind of aggression has lasting repercussions," she said. "They have less time to feed and to take care of their offspring."

But, why then does the fighting occur?

The social dominance and hierarchy of wasps are established by these duals, which means that the wasps who win will be able to spread their genes. By discouraging the cheating, the wasps, in the long run, reduce the likelihood that average wasps will be able to reproduce and spread their genes. This, in part, insures that only the most fit survive and pass off their offspring, thus making the colony a better, healthier one.

In a human context, it would be imperative for the humans of a society where there was little or no government regulations to weed out the dishonest members. After all, it simply isnt healthy for the group to have them continue.

Not only do you have unfit members, as is the case with students cheating and graduating from college to enter the work force, but you also have indiviauls wasting resources because of some misrepresentation.

As such, it appears that in the long run, humans can operate under a society of limited government, much unlike what socialists and big-government advocates claim.

posted by Laura Keslar at 1:43 PM | |

I am frightened

I think Pete Seat, CR has a blog. Highly frightening in the first degree.

posted by Laura Keslar at 10:14 AM | |

Do I really write all that badly? Obviously I did especially in my last column. True, I could probably have called up some people and asked why they supported the proposition and so forth and so on. I will admit that that was sloppy, but my goodness, was it really that awful?

I will also admit it wasn't one of my better columns, but everyone has their off days, right? I have a few that I am ashamed of admitting to writing.

According to Keren Raz it was. Last year she was the editor in chief (I believe that was it) for the Wildcat and this year she was acting as a columnist until her work load got too overbearing.

Well, there are always rumors of other reasons, but I am not going into those. They are only rumors.

But as that she sent me her letter, I have all right to post it, and here goes.

Dear Laura,

I don't know if you remember me, but I was writing columns earlier this semester.

No, I remember who you are. I remembered that you were always a little snotty and a bit uppity. But hey, it takes all kinds to populate the world. I am a bit of Balaam's ass myself, on occassion.

[cut out some proverbial garbage, required niceties, and necessary disclaimers]

As someone who has written and edited extensive news articles about prop 102 and had numerous conversations with those involved in prop 102, I can tell you that your column came off as yet another ignorant stance on an issue you really know nothing about.

Ah, the requisites for someone's argument. Yes, an editor must know so much more than anyone else.

It's sort of this logic that is used to justify the belief that, "Oh, you haven't done [insert activity], therefore you don't know what its like." We hear that in the form of, "You aren't a woman. You don't know what giving birth is like. How can you condemn abortion." Or something of the like.

BS. Eric Spratling wrote something marvelous on this very issue a while back.

But anyway, yes she might have edited and written such news pieces, but does anyone else notice a trend in the news pieces? Most of them tend to offer solely the favorable side of the proposition. Its a wonder the citizens of Arizona didn't pass it. After all, with the favorable press that it has gotten from the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star, you would think it would have passed with flying colors. But then again, it must have been the uneducated voters, the illiterate citizens who voted against it.

I will admit that it was likely that the papers featured a smaller portion of their articles concerning the opposition to the proposition simply because it didn't have much opposition in the first place.

But if the papers are going to devote so much time to representing this issue, you would think that the paper would try to get a different angle other than the one they were covering constantly. But no.

So, with this in mind, it would seem that there is a natural bias in the editor and writer of such columns, whether it is because that has been where the sole amount of news is coming from or whether it is from the fact that the writers are biased. Either way, the author of such pieces are entitled to their biases. No complaints there.

But to use this as a reason for being qualified to critique whether my opinion was valid or not seems rather far-fetched. Its nice to see some people on an ego trip.

I could pick apart your article graf by graf to tell you how uninformed you make yourself sound, but I don't have the time for that.

I use that phrase when I really don't have evidence other than my own natural opinion or when I have only a few reasons but not enough to build a solid case with. But its nice to see someoen who doesn't do this. Now, to examine her one example:

Instead, I'll give one example. This statement: "The proposition would have given state entities, including Arizona universities, the ability to own a portion of a private company in exchange for technologies invented at the university." Who said this? Where did you get this understanding of 102? What do you mean "in exchange for technologies?

I don't know who said it. I thought it went from my brain to my fingers. To answer her questions, this was from my understanding after having read the proposition, from reading the opposition, from reading the proponents. It was a compliation of what I had gathered.

But I shall admit one thing, my terminology was poor when I said "in exchange for technologies." What would have been appropriate would have been "in exchange for the right to use university-originated technologies and innovations." Or something along those lines.

But I assume that was the worse thing I did?

With this in mind, I ask you...how much time did you spend exploring
this issue? Did you do any reporting as informed columnists should do? Or
did you just rely on the Goldwater report for your research?

Oh yes, I just relied solely on the Goldwater report.

True, it was open when I was writing, but so were other pieces including both the opposition and proponents of the bill. I am not that ignorant to base it off of only one source. To do so would be disasterous. I have learned from that mistake early on.

Oh. And why did you not mention when the railroad fiasco went down? Cause it's archaic and outdated? Or did you not know? Or did you just forget? And how carefully did you choose your words?

The date wasn't that important. To claim that it is archaic is to ignore the history of the event. To ignore history is to doom ourselves. After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

Are you telling me that government's ability to be corrupted has changed since then? Has government's innate nature somehow changed that it no longer is subject to corruption, or has humanity simply gotten better?

Talk about an ignorance of human nature, madam. To say that government can no longer become corrupted from having a stake in a private business is presumptious at best.

On an honest level, the problem with the railroads have not been the only problem that Arizona has suffered from in response to government ownership and involvement. The expansion of government, no matter what, always causes problems. Always.

(You wonder why people voted no on Proposition 100?

Well, it wasn't because all of us cared so very much about nature and wildlife. Some of it was because we knew that the more power government gets, the more its going to abuse it.

That's not an exception to the rule: that's the rule.

Government has misused its right of imminent domain. If it has misused that, what makes anyone think the government wouldn't misuse its newly founded ability to own stock to enhance someone's pocketbook. It happened with the alternative fuel scandal, didn't it?)

Governor George Ryan from Illinois (or former, I need to watch my language) recently got in trouble on federal charges for corruption involving the exchange of government contracts and loans for favors, money, and such.

You might be asking what the heck that has to do with this. But it has a lot. Whose to say that it won't happen in Arizona, once government entities and not just the universities or ABOR has the right to own stock?

All government is the same. Lord Acton said that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

What we have here is a case where the government has been given an ability to step in, without oversight, and own stock.

If you ask me, that constitutes a case of aboslute power.

I'm disappointed, Laura. I've been reading your columns, and they were
getting better. But this column was so sloppy, so incredibly sloppy. No reporting, no facts, no carefully chosen words--just unsubstantiated assertions that fail to establish credibility. You give me no reason to believe you.

I will say that Susan was right. It would have made a stronger column to have included more examples. It could have done with some quotes, but hardly ever do I find quotes that I like. Even when I go and interview people personally, which I have done on several cases, but that their quotes just have never worked out nicely.

I hope you make more of an effort in the final few weeks of this semester to make yourself sound more credible. Maybe you're not a reporter, but even columnists are journalists and need to do some reporting so they don't come off as yet another ill-informed, ranting student.

What is it with the "educated" wanting to denounce everyone else as ill-informed and ranting? Get off that high horse and you migth accomplish something.

Anyway, she did have some valid points, which I will consider.

posted by Laura Keslar at 1:09 PM | |

They just don't get it

and they probably never will.

If something doesn't pass, the best thing is to blame it on the ignorance of the voters. Yes, that's right. Let's call them ignorant, stupid, uneducated, Evangelicals, or whatever derogatory statements that can apply.

In other words, now that Prop 102 didn't pass, let's say that everyone who voted against it "didn't understand it" or lacked the "time nor the will to educate" ourselves.

Excuse me and call me retarded then.

What neither the opinions board nor UA's Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies understood is that, despite what you think, many of us read the ballot, read the proposition and still didn't want the government to be intruding into the board room.

We didn't want the government to have a reason to favor one company or another. We didn't want the government to have a stake in a company's financial future.

Nor did we want the government squandering money on shady business ventures.

Arizona already has a way to sell and license its universities' discoveries. Its already there.

Or, even if we did, heck at least give Arizonans a right to know where the money went and how it was spent. But because ABOR would not be required by law to disclose that information, someone tell me when it would ever show up, unless a court demands it. No way in hell is it going to be shown to people.

No, it wasn't because we were a bunch of ignorant louts who have no clue about what is going on in the state of Arizona or what her needs are. No, it was because we understand it all too well.

We know of the scandals of the past. We know of the scandals of recent past. Tell me about the Keating Five and anyone with a little bit of Arizona history will tell you about the savings and loan scandal in Arizona involving our very own Senator McCain.

Tell me of the alternative fuels scandal just a few years back, and we all know it was a mismanagement of government funds. It was mismanagement at the highest.

So who is to say that this constitutional article is old. Who is to say that it no longer is necessary.

Less oversight means more shady deals. More government in the economy means more giveaways, more regulations, and more taxpayer burden. To deny that is a case of pure ostrich-syndrome.

And that is why I voted no on Prop 102. And I am sure many other people voted no for that very exact reason.

So, come now and get your heads out of your butts; it seems the only ignorant ones are those who blindly supported the proposition.

posted by Laura Keslar at 11:46 AM | |

Fighting the good fight

This election had some mixed results for myself. I was excited to find that President Bush was re-elected, and that many of the propositions on the state ballot were rejected by the public, including the pay raise for legislators.

But it seems that not everyone is pleased by the election results. In fact, many people in the state of Arizona want to re-introduce the propositions next fall. In other cases, they have declared that they will continue to fight the new measures.

While I am not pleased with the passing of Proposition 200, it comes as no surprise that Arizona passed it, with 56% of Arizona voters favoring it.

After all the problems of illegal immigration, you would think that Arizonans are sick of it. Sick and tired of the federal and state governments not doing what they have said they would do: protect the country.

When potential terrorists invade the border, when illegal aliens destroy the environment, when undocumented immigrants destroy private property, you think that Arizonans want this to continue?

Even if the legislation will do nothing (which, is true), its the spirit of the matter that is important. All this means was that Arizonans are sick and tired of being put second place to illegals.

But no one else gets that.

These people who wish to fight the legislation, good for you. I don't like Prop 200 either.

But you don't get it. You really don't get it.

If there was another plausible, better solution to the border issue, people would have gone for that.

if you want to get rid of Prop 200, find another alternative. Find one that will satisfy this angst felt by Arizonans.

posted by Laura Keslar at 11:29 AM | |

A little cheese with that whine?

Whine whine whine. Bush won the election. Poor women, minorities, and other oppressed groups. We re-elected the liar. Oh but no. Kerry never lied to anyone. Shush. Everything he says is god-given truth.

posted by Laura Keslar at 4:50 AM | |

Serious Swoonage

I think I am in love. Honestly. Someone has taken my words right out of my mouth: "education is not a right."

*swoons*

posted by Laura Keslar at 10:42 PM | |

Its all our fault

I need to ask Susan about writing letters to the editor. Yes, I know. It should be more than enough just writing a weekly column, but sometimes, some things get me rather riled.

Like this letter to the editor that is titled "Religion has no place in politics, even for faithful":

How can people condemn Evangelicals for voting the way they do? How?

Voting is an inherently selfish act. You know what's best for you, therefore you make a chice as for which politician will best represent your interests. Voting "for" someone else is irrational and highly uneducated, particularly because you have no clue what's in their best interest.

So why condemn people who voted for what they thought was best for them and their children. If they think that a rather socially liberal government will create a bad environment for them and their children, whose to say that they are wrong for voting the way they did. They voted in their best interest.

Whose to say that they are wrong?

Not I.

Likewise, how can you determine that economics ought to take a bigger role in politics than religion? Just because you think economics is more important for the future of America doesn't mean that it is. Just because you think religion should have no bearing on politics in America doesn't make you right. And it definitely doesn't make Evangelicals wrong.

If you believe that abortion is wrong, don't have one. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, don't have sex with those of the same sex, and don't flatter yourself. Contrary to what they told you in church, every gay person is not really dying to "recruit" you.

My last post on the church's worldly view is re-inforced by this christian school attendee. These are the people growing up in the church. And this is their view. "As long as it doesn't directly affect you, whats the harm?"

The harm is enormous. It affects society and consequently affects the lives of our children. Our offspring. The perpetuation of our genes.

Even the soon-to-be Canadians realize this: after all, why don't they like what has happened with this election?

They fear the social change.

Evangelical Christianity seems to remove one's ability to grasp the complex

Heh, here are the charges of manichean perspectives.

Sadly, this young lady has not educated herself appropriately. Doesn't she know that Jerry Falwell isn't in vogue anymore? Its Dr. James Dobson. *wink*

But honestly, folks: bitch and moan all you want. People voted for Bush on more than just religious issues. True, that helped. But let's get real. When only 22% of the population (or those who voted) is evangelical, and 80-something percent voted for Bush, that means that only 18% of the something odd million peope who voted for Bush were evangelical.

Let's get over this. Please?

posted by Laura Keslar at 10:06 PM | |

Wordly mindset infecting church youth

I haven't talked about religion in a long time. And though I should be writing my column instead of this entry, I am going to rearrange my priorities for a while.

My mother reported to me this afternoon that she was teaching Sunday School when one little boy (about sixth grade) brings up the question about why he can't watch rated R movies. The discussion eventually evolved into a comment about homosexuality, to which the junior high kids (mostly girls) asked why it should matter to the Christian what a person does in their bedroom.

In other words, they had stated that as long as they don't sin, why should they care if others commit the same sin.

Flabbergasting (is that a word? *wink*), if I do say so myself. How could children come to such a perspective?

I know their parents. They wouldnt have taught their children such a worldly viewpoint. So obviously the answer has to come from the world (duh): school and the media.

As a child, I never thought that it was correct to have such relations (this might have been due to the fact that as a child, I didn't know what sex was until I was in the 11th grade. heh. That's what happens when you get your parents to write you a letter to get out of mandatory health class). I knew that the Bible said it was wrong; therefore, I knew it shouldn't be practiced.

I knew the results of homosexuality, of abortion, even if I didn't commit either sin.

How could so much have changed between when I went to junior high to when these children went to junior high. It is only a difference of about ten years (more like seven).

What they didn't understand was that sin is sin. No matter who is committing what where. Wrong. Sin. Bad. For everyone. The end.

No, I don't advocate that the government should forbid someone the right to marry; but then again, I don't think the government should go out of its way to make something sinful like homosexual activities, marriage, etc easier for the masses.

But it is important for the Christian, even a Christian who has no interest in the federal or state government getting involved in private lives, to care that sin is being committed from several levels.

First as being brothers and sisters in Christ, it is imperative that we help each other through the hard and difficult times. It is important to know if a brother is struggling with homosexuality; with a sister struggling with the concept that she is pregnant and unwed. It is important. And just as important as it is to love them, it is even more important to tell them that their sin is just that: sin.

No where in the Bible are we told to turn our eyes away from the sin of our Church family. Rather, we are admonished to council, to seek help, to lift our faltering brothers up in prayer. Christ never turned his eye. Never.

But on a different level, it is important that we know what is going on people's bedrooms, so to speak. It is important to evangelicize. In order to be saved, we must realize that we are sinful creatures. Fallen.

If we fail to acknowledge that our sin is sin...how can we confess our sin and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?

The view that those children took was a view that everything was relative. A view that as long as they are upholding their own morals, they don't need to care about the morals of others. That those following a different set of morals might be wrong to them, but who is to say anything different.

That mindset is infecting our church. It has seemingly gripped our youth. Sadly. They no longer accep that some things are utterly correct and right and true.

If I had only one prayer, it would be that they would see how error-prone their view of sin was. Hopefully, as they grow, they will realize that view for what it is: wordly.

posted by Laura Keslar at 9:20 PM | |

Look what my editor said about me

Susan to me: "So, what does our token conservative have to say about this?"

Heh. Cool. And this is after all those liberals who were so pleased to have a "liberal voice" at the paper. Yeah.

posted by Laura Keslar at 7:14 PM | |

Abortion is still murder

I am female and I am pro-life. In fact, to be specific, I am anti-induced abortion in all instances. (I bet everyone who reads this blog already knows this, but whatever.)

I don't care if you were raped by your date, a stranger, your dad, or the President of the United States; abortion is still murder.

I don't care if the baby will have some fatal disease; abortion is still murder.

I don't care if the baby will be blind, have a cleft palate, will be missing arms, legs, or other body parts; abortion is still murder.

I don't care if you forgot to take the Pill, your condom broke, or you got caught up in the moment; abortion is still murder.

I don't care if you don't have enough money to take care of this child or you don't think this child will grow up in a loving environment you wish he could be raised in; abortion is still murder.

I don't care if you are caring multiple children in your womb and that, unless you eliminate a few of them, they will all die; abortion is still murder.

I don't care if its a toss up between the mother's life or both the mother and child will die; abortion is still murder.

It is plain to see. Abortion is murder; and there are only to reasons to ever murder/kill someone. And those are in self-defense (which includes war) and as capital punishment. Otherwise, you have committed murder. Someone tell me, when is abortion self-defense or capital punishment?

posted by Laura Keslar at 4:24 PM | |

Updates a-coming

Though it seems as though I don't pay any more attention to the blogosphere, especially that in Tucson and Arizona, you are quite wrong, my friends! Its just that school has sucked up so much of my free time, and I to keep up those grades, you know?

Anyway, I was cruising around (actually, looking at the search phrases that brought people here) and I happily stumbled upon some more Arizona bloggers.

So enjoy.

Oh, likewise, Vessel of Honour is back. Excitement. Especially considering how much faster his website loads.

posted by Laura Keslar at 3:28 PM | |

Best. Thing. Ever.

The best thing I have heard all week. I was in the library and I overheard a young man talking about current events. He said,

"That would be the best day ever with Bush elected and Arafat dead."

posted by Laura Keslar at 9:00 AM | |

Election Night Blogging

Its official. I hate living in a district not my own. I hate national television.

I want local coverage and I want it now!

And the local coverage that I am hearing includes only that of Pima County.

Hello!?

I am *so* not Pima County.

But what is good, is that we do have the news on Prop 200. Currently, with some precincts not in yet, the state of Arizona looks to have passed it with 61%, so far.

posted by Laura Keslar at 8:28 PM | |

Still Playing Hide-and-Seek, I see

So, where is Osama, Ms. Heinz Kerry

posted by Laura Keslar at 11:15 AM | |