But that’s not to say I’ve given up TV completely. I’ve been following a few shows – Law & Order, of course – and American Idol. This year’s American Idol has been surprising for me for one fact. It's anecodotal, of course, but has anyone else noticed a preponderance of social conservatism among the contests on the show so far?

Here’s just a few of the contestants that come to mind when, through yesterday’s episode which some would say exhibit a kind of conservative “innocence,” as some of the judges have termed it:

• Kristy Lee Cook, a wholesome Oregon log cabin dweller who sold her horse to get to the show
• Beth Stalker, who made an album of church hymns as a kid
• Brooke White, who has never seen an R-rated movie
• Drew Poppelreiter, a young farmer with “yes-mam” mores – and the sign of the cross at grace before meals
• Bruce Dickson, who has never kissed a girl – and won’t till his wedding day
• Amy Catherine Flynn, dance team leader at a Catholic HS who also teaches kids abstinence

Of course there is more Idol to come, so I’m sure the list will grow. The question is it just be coincidence that more socially conservative participants are among those selected to be seen on TV from among the thousands of auditions? Is the make-up simply reflective of the ideological makeup of the audition locations (two in the South – Texas and South Carolina)? More importantly, does this reflect a wider reversal among America’s youth towards traditional social responsibility? After all, statistics bear out declines in teenage drug use, abortion, as well as teenage pregnancies. If so, American Idol could be a barometer of social change among American youth.

Subsidiarity in our government is dead. And both political parties are to blame. Ever since the New Deal and the Great Society, our entire concept of how government should function has changed - and for the worse. While it was Democrats who initially advocated stripping the power to care for the unemployed, sick and meek from ordinary bands of citizens - who used to care about each other - and more importantly from the Church, Republicans have bought into the philosophy over the years. It seems like they gave up on giving real power back to the states or to ordinary citizens years ago. Take a look at the Presidential candidates offered by both parties. Do you see any of them (with the exception of Ron Paul) talking about returning power to the states in a meaningful way?

Democrats are an obvious no with their talk of expanded federal health care programs, which are well intentioned, but still strip away communities. Their talking points make it obvious. If I have to hear the phrase "global community" one more time, I think I'll scream. I don't want a "global community" - I want my neighbors back. I want the old borrow a cup of sugar days. Republicans, it seems are no better. While they are better about empowering families, with personally managed solutions to problems like health care, they still strive to use the federal government mechanism to accomplish them. Tax breaks through the federal IRS, federal health bureaucracies to disburse and manage personal health care plans, federal oversight to make sure no one breaks the 15,000 pages of regulation on these "personal" accounts.

A little subsidiarity would do the government good. As I hear a lot of people saying, folks who like that principle are an instant lock for Ron Paul in the voting booth. But I can't vote for Ron Paul, because he takes subsidiarity to over application. Look at abortion or prostitution. Both of these social vices are items from which Ron Paul wants to remove federal governance. That is the essence of subsidiarity - remove the regulation from the higher power to return it to the lower. However, the assumption that this federalist position on abortion or prostitution is a good thing, is misguided, because it neglects proper understanding of the just role of government.

As Americans, we tend to focus on the the role of government in defending the rights of the individual. With good reason, of course, this understanding is also the understanding behind subsidiarity, as anyone can see. However, while it is important for government to make it possible for free men to choose to do the right thing, giving the good a right to exist, it is important to note that evil does not have a right to exist - and government has a role in completely eliminating evil. Therefore, a position which passes the ability to eliminate evil passes the buck at best and is truly negligent at worst. If you support the proposition that all power comes from God, even the power of government, then this is also an easy principle to understand.

Suppose Roe were overturned or federal courts were denied jurisdiction to adjudicate abortion cases - as has been widely talked about, the power to regulate abortion would revert to the states. Then predictably, several states would move quickly to eliminate this great crime in our world and several others would be quick to open it up even wider, perhaps even overturning the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. Instead of a clear enemy, an eight-headed Hydra would emerge. But at least the folks in Alabama would be doing the right thing, even if New Jersey didn't follow suit. Let's ignore the obvious moral contradiction here for a minute simply to examine the lack of charity in such a sentiment. True charity is not respecting the ability to do as one pleases, charity is showing what ought to be pleasing. And yet, in a world with state-decided abortion, this sentiment would be rampant. Now back to the obvious. GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee sums it up well:

If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong.

Abortion and the like cannot be simply left for lower governments or individual conscious to decide. It is morally wrong, as we are taught. Like all evil, must be eliminated - not even given any right to exist. A federalist position on abortion is not the correct position, even if it does come from the mouths of Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. What are we to do? Who are we to vote for? I don't know ...

Their argument is based on scriptural literalism which speaks of the resurrection happening "on the third day" (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:22, Matthew 20:19, Mark 9:30, Luke 9:22, Luke 13:32, et al.). But the exact verse as quoted by my positor was Matthew 12:20:

For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

The traditional calendar suggests that Jesus was crucified on Friday (which is why Catholics continue to observe, particularly during Lent, special penance on Fridays) and then rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, two days later. If Jesus was crucified Friday night and then discovered risen Sunday morning, my Bible literalist contended, then the Scripture is not fulfilled. To reconcile this, the literalist suggested from their own hubris not that there must be another explanation, but rather that the traditional teaching on the tridiuum was wrong - and that Jesus was probably actually crucified on Thursday night.

A brief digression - Let me first stop here to say that the reaction in this particular circumstance shows an underlying bias against tradition. Perhaps this is because as scientific people we are taught not to respect the scholarship of historical prior people. For instance, demonic possession never existed - that was just an intellectually inferior people trying to explain epilepsy. In this circumstance, we suppose our superior scientific knowledge today invalidates a historically prior conclusion, because of course they didn't know. Consider the pride in this sentiment. The diagnosis today always trumps the diagnosis then. I'm reminded of the words of Brennus, the great general of the 4th century, who lead the Cisalpine Gauls to a rare sack of Rome. Vae victis. Woe to that pitiful vanquished history.

To continue my digression, we could suppose that the conclusion that the traditional teaching on the tridiuum was wrong because of an apparent contradiction illustrates an inherently present, but not obnoxiously so, anti-Catholic bias still evident in many evangelical Protestants today. Before the barrage of Protestants jump in to say they aren't biased against Catholics, consider as a former Protestant I say this. Protestants still don't quite get Catholics and the y don't really even waste their time thinking about them, so I doubt there is a conscious bias there. Today's evangelicals tend to think of themselves as just Christians with personalized theology - without realizing that this whole notion is Protestant. It's for this same reasons they don't even recognize their own genealogy back to Luther and Calvin - break-aways from the catholic faith. In other words, if you ask a Baptist if they are a Protestant, they will say no. So it's not surprising that all they know is that Catholics are a slightly weird bunch of Christians who are with them on the abortion issue, but whose theology seems a little arcane since the common man was finally allowed access to the Bible in the vernacular. That three-day thing is another goof by a Church that restricted the people from reading the clear text of Matthew 12:20, which says Jesus was in the tomb for three days and three nights. At this point the Catholics are just clinging to a tradition we probably know is wrong.

Still, understanding the cause of the reflexive reaction of our Protestant protagonist does nothing to answer the concern, so back to our conundrum. Let's break it down - from Friday to Sunday is two days, everyone knows that. But something not everyone knows is that the Jews, like the Romans and many others in the classical time counted inclusively. That is to say if you were to ask a Jew living at the time of Jesus how long of a time there was between Friday and Sunday he'd look at you funny and say 'three days - of course, everyone knows that.' After I pointed this out, our protagonist recoiled again. Paraphrasing: Okay - if that's right then that explains the 'on the third day', but that still does not explain Matthew 12:20, which says three days and three nights. If Jesus was crucified on Friday night, then he would have be in the tomb at least until Sunday night - even counting inclusively. Except that the Jews - even the Orthodox Jews to this day - count segments of a day as a full day. Therefore, the portions of Friday, all day Saturday, and the morning of Sunday constitute three days. Naturally, all of this could have been explained by simply trusting the footnote on Matthew 12:30 from the Douay version:

"Three days"... Not complete days and nights; but part of three days, and three nights taken according to the way that the Hebrews counted their days and nights, viz., from evening to evening.

We can trust that tradition got it right, but biblical literalism can be dangerous because it takes a contextual statement out of that context and inserts it into our contemporary assumptions. Just another word of caution for those who believe you can have inerrant words without an inerrant interpretor.

That's right. I got the iPhone. It's awesome.

O God, my Redeemer, so much Thou
hast given me - So little I deserve.
What hardships born away - sailed away
with Thy love.

So surprise - surmise what gift
is this You now doth bring -
enveloped,
in this lovely Spring?

For now I feel a pitter-patter,
a rappin rap rap-tap-a-tater
a longing naught - wrought
with love.

O how I long to her to tell
How I feel - but lest, lest only
if tis Thy will.

Will this, O Lord - be the spring
from wince henceforth my life be sprung?

O Lord, I sigh - and wait, wait for Thee
to show me Thy way - as everyday.

Dear Beloved, It is by the grace of God that I received Christ, having known the truth; I had no choice than to do what is lawful and just in the sight of God for eternal life and in the sight of man for witness of God & His Mercies and glory upon my life.I am Mrs. Mary Parker,the wife of Mr.Robert Parker,both of us, are citizens of the united state of America. my husband worked with the Chevron/Texaco in Russia for twenty years before he died in the year2003.We were married for ten years without a child. My Husband died after a brief illness that lasted for only four days. Before his death we both got born-again as dedicated Christians. Since his death I decided not to re-marry or get a child outside my matrimonial home which the Bible is strongly against. When my late husband was alive he deposited the sum of 7.5 Million Pounds (Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Pounds) with a Bank in Europe.

Presently, this money is still with the Bank and the management just wrote me as the beneficiary that our account has been DORMANT and if I, as the beneficiary of the funds, do not re-activate the account; the funds will be CONFISCATED or I rather issue a letter of authorization to somebody to receive it on my behalf (note that you need to activate this account) as I can not come over. Presently, I'm in a hospital in Russia where I have been undergoing treatment for esophageal cancer. I have since lost my ability to talk and my doctors have told me that I have only a few weeks to live. It is my last wish to see this money distributed to charity organizations and NGO anywhere in the World in helping human race.

Because relatives and friends have plundered so much of my wealth since my illness, I cannot live with the agony of entrusting this huge responsibility to any of them. Please, I beg you in the name of God to help me Stand-in as the beneficiary and collect the Funds from the Bank.I want a person that is God-fearing who will use this money to fund churches,orphanages and widows propagating the word of God and to ensure that the house of God is maintained. The Bible made us to understand that blessed is the hand that giveth. I took this decision because I don't have any child that will inherit this money and my husband's relatives are not Christians and I don't want my husband's hard earned money to be misused by unbelievers. I don't want a situation where this money will be used in an ungodly manner. Hence the reason for taking this bold decision. I am not afraid of death since I know where I am going to.

I know that I am going to be in the bossom of the Lord. Exodus 14 VS 14: says that the Lord will fight my case and I shall hold my peace. I don't need any telephone communication in this regard because of my soundless voice and presence of my husband's relatives around me always. I don't want them to know about this development. I await your quick response to this mail as this is my last wish to see this funds transferred before my Death. Please my beloved for further communication on how we are going to conclude this, reach me on my private mail: maryparker087@yahoo.com

Remain Blessed
Your Sister in Christ,
Mrs. Mary Parker

It is profoundly interesting to see people's greed appealed to via their "born again" Christianity - or perhaps more accurately, profoundly disturbing.

In considering the history of the Passion, we much, as much as possible, pass in review not only the chief events, but also the subordinate occurrences, even minute details narrated by the evangelists...The various outward circumstances are often full of deep mystery, and, when we penetrate into their meaning, they heighten interest in the chief event itself.

With that setup, there is then an interesting through examination of the threefold circumstances of Christ's agony: place, time, and persons. I offer you a delightfully intriguing portion an examination of place:

Christ began his passion in a garden, more precisely, in an olive-garden. When the Redeemer felt that the hout of His capture was drawing nigh, He left the Cenacle. He would not cause discomfort to the good man who had generiously opened his house to Him for the institution of the Most Holy Sacrament. He wished to spare this friend all annoyance which might come to him, were the Lord to be seized in his house. He left the city all together. Beyond its walls, in God's open country, He decided to begin and to end His Passion, to show that He shed His blood not for Jerusalem alone, but for the entire world. For the beginning of his Passion, He chose a wonderfully beautiful garden. How significant this choice was! In a garden the first Adam had committed the first sin, the sin of disobendience; therefore it was in a garden that the second Adam should say to His Father, "Not what I will, but what thou wilt." In a garden Adam, by an abuse of liberty, had plunged the entire human race into the most shameful captivity; in a garden, therefore, by the bonds of Christ our fetters were to be broken. In a garden, God had pronounced the death-penalty upon Adam; hence, in a garden Christ would take upon Himself this judgement and curse...The garden of Gethsemane was furthermore an olive garden, at least it contained quite a number of olive trees, and according to several interpreters of Holy Writ, the oil for the use of the temple was obtained here. This circumstance, again, is full of significance. "Oil illumines," says St. Bernard, "it nourishes and heals." All these effects were to be produced by the blood of Christ in the Christian temple, and that in an infinitely greater degree than by the fruit of the olive-tree in the Jewish temple. For Christ is the great olive-tree, on which the heathen were grafted, according to St. Paul the Apostle

The foregoing thought has dominated my meditation this evening both the intricies of the Sacred Scripture and the omniscience of Christ knowing the intricate symbolism in every one of his simple actions. Certainly, I had never thought before of why Christ must have left the place where He had just dined - if it was just prayer he was after, he could have accomplished that in the home itself. Instead, the foreknowledge of his coming demise and caring for his friends even through that demise adds a whole other appreciation of this subtlity.

Update: The cookie goes to Ben for isolating the problem. Internet Explorer really, really doesn't like nested divs. By the way, the problem was an inhereted line-height property.

Simple enough. Besides, I had already made up my mind on everything except the seniors tax freeze intiative before I even walked in the building. Ah...simple ballot. "Blah ... blah blah ... review your ballot ... blah blah" Hey, I thought - it's probably a good idea to review my ballot this time, because there were lots of names in the Governor's race.

Big mistake. Being some what impatient with computer, I kept hitting the back page button assuming it would stop when I got back to the beginning of the ballot. Instead, you can imagine my horror when I ended up on a voter preferences screen that allowed me to adjust the darkness of the displays on the new digital machines and select the ballot to display "en espanol!" Heh, I thought, who knew you could change the language of the ballot? I paused half a second more with the thought that some anti-illegal immigration groups would probably be pissed that you can change your ballot preferences to display en espanol. Then I started looking for an out of this preferences page. Get me out of here.

I vainly pressed the English button, hoping that would pop me back to the first page on the ballot - instead it did nothing. Then I tried to press the "Cancel" button. An alert: "WARNING: By press yes you will void your ballot! Are you sure?" Um...no. I don't want to do that! Oh no, I thought - I might actually have to ask for help ... voting. I mean come on, that would be such an insult to my pride. I write a politics blog.

You can figure this machine out, Adam, really it's not that hard. Finally I noticed a small scrall in the corner of the screen: Next Page. Click. There it was - the first page of the ballot with my X still in place. Ah good. Through the straights of Charybdis. Next page. Next page. Confirm vote. Okay. Finally, the red lights come on and cast my ballot. At least I think I did. It seemed to go through.

So now I'm wearing the obligatory "I voted" sticker, I just hope I'm not broadcasting a lie.

SiteMeter average visits per day and Technorati ranks for Tennessee's "political" blogs - at least the ones included in A.C.'s poll. Couldn't get a lot of the Site Meter information. Put Site Meter on your page. Get with it people.