Thursday, January 22, 2009

Inauguration Day

I saw this slide show of people around the world watching as Obama made history on Tuesday and thought it was interesting. The world was definitely watching...

But what I think is much more interesting is what Revelation 1:7 describes - something that will FAR surpass what happened on Tuesday:

"Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him..."

Grades Update

I DID do better on the other exams than I thought. :)

Monday, January 12, 2009

January 12 already? and Miscellaneous News

I don't how this happens, but somehow it's January 12 already, and I'm getting ready for a new semester to start (next Tuesday, January 20). I kind of dread going back, as always, but this time I'm going to do what I can to change that attitude. I have some ideas up my sleeve...

So it's been awhile since I've blogged about anything substantial, other than re-posting a news story. I figured it's time for an update on me. Me, me, me, me, me! ;) I'm guessing not a lot of people read my blog anymore, since there hasn't been much to read, and I'm also guessing that most of you know what's up with me, so a lot of this will be obvious, but just to get it out there...

Me and 1 1/2 years' worth of law books

I'm officially halfway done with my J.D. Law school is 3 years long, I have done a year and a half, so I have a year and a half to go. I'm "half a lawyer." Some things about it have been exactly as I expected, whereas other things have been completely different. I expected it to be competitive; it has been. I expected it to be difficult and overwhelming; it has been. But I also kind of thought I would just somehow really excel and end up with my dream job by the beginning of my second year; that has not happened. I came out of the first semester in a pretty competitive position grades-wise, thanks to a surprise A+. But I didn't do as well the second semester. I did a little more average on the whole. At the end of my first year, I was in a pretty good, but not super competitive, position. First year grades are very important, because interviewing for second-year summer jobs happens in August right before the second year starts. So that obviously happened this past August. I did get some of those interviews, but I didn't get a job out of it. In reality, few people in the class will get jobs through that process (called on-campus interviewing - OCI)...but I was hoping I was going to be one of them. The jobs interviewed for in OCI are the most prestigious and highly paid, and they almost always turn into full-time after-graduation positions. I'm not saying that's the type of job I would want for the long term, but it is a way to get great training and get your loans paid off quickly - and then you can go wherever you want from there. Anyway, as I've said, that didn't happen for me. I trust that God has a plan. I don't know what it is yet, but I'm excited for it...but at the same time, I can't help thinking that if I just would have worked harder, I could have gotten one of those jobs...I know there's something wrong with that way of thinking, but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what...just being honest. :)

So I'm currently job-searching. I do need to find a really great job for this summer - preferably one that has potential for after-graduation employment. People usually ask me what area of law I want to practice. I still really don't know. I kind of thought I would be able to cop out if I got one of the "BigLaw" jobs (the ones I mentioned earlier), because they have certain areas of practice, and you just rotate through those groups and figure out what you like best. Now I feel like I have to really figure out what I want to do so that my search can be a little more focused. So, as for my practice interests: constitutional law is really why I went to law school in the first place. I was a political science major as an undergrad, and First Amendment issues really attracted me. However, you can't just get a job at a Minneapolis firm doing "First Amendment work." The kind of stuff that interests me is done by, for example, the Alliance Defense Fund or the American Center for Law and Justice - or for that matter, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), although I'd obviously be fighting them, not working for them. ;) I just don't see myself doing that right out of law school. I'd like to get some law firm experience first (and pay off my loans before I start working for a non-profit!). So I need to find a practice area that private firms do that interests me and that I can get into...and I don't really know what that is. One other area that I know I'm interested in is international trade. There are opportunities for lawyers in international trade both in the U.S. government (e.g. the Department of Commerce) or in private firms...but all of that is done in either D.C. or New York...I don't know 1) if I would be able to get any of those jobs or 2) whether I would be willing to move if I did get one. My immediate action plan on the job searching front is to apply for all of the U.S. government positions that look interesting (it's too late for the private firms that have international trade practice areas) and to also pursue as many opportunities as possible with all of the Minneapolis-based firms that haven't done their hiring yet. I'd really like some direction from God right now, though...

Quick footnote: I don't know that working for a non-profit doing First Amendment work is my ultimate goal - I may never do that full-time. I don't know that I am called to that. It's just an area of interest, just an idea. I think getting some experience will help me figure out where I'm going...and again, I know God will be guiding me. Ultimately, the only thing I want for my life is His will. But I still have to take some concrete steps while I wait for the guidance.

One more thing about last year is that I ended up working over the summer as a law clerk to a solo practitioner...that was great! I was able to get some income (!) and get practical experience. It was a very helpful experience for a first-year law student. However, I am aiming for a bigger firm job for this summer. I also did research for a professor over the summer, which was both a rewarding and difficult experience.

One final thing about law school, since people might be wondering: how did this semester's finals go? Well, it was harder than either of the first 2 sets of finals, because I had finals 3 days in a row (and then the fourth one the next week). It was really quite exhausting - the most exhausting set of finals yet. I thought the first one went the best, the second the next best, and so on in descending order, strangely enough. I've only gotten one of my grades back (for the one I thought I did the best on), and I honestly was not too impressed with it! So I'm hoping I did better than I think on the other ones. Either way, I can't change it now, so I just want to focus on gearing up for this new semester.

OK, I know this post is already getting long, but what can I say? It's all been pent up inside for so long! :) Switching gears from the law school stuff, I wanted to give a brief report on the onething conference.


The focus of the conference was, as Mike Bickle words it, "the coming eschatological revolution," which refers to Jesus coming back to the earth to overthrow all of its governments (every single one!) and setting up His kingdom. So we talked about the book of Revelation. We basically got a broad overview of the sequence of events, went into detail on some of them, and talked about the signs of the times and the church's place in these end-of-the-age events. The point of the conference wasn't to do a comprehensive study of the book (not enough time), but to awaken people's hearts to the reality of what is in this book and get them stirred up to study it. I came away from the conference with two life-changing revelations (no pun intended):

1) We are in the end-times. Jesus said that although no one would know the day or the hour of His return (Matthew 24:36), we would and should KNOW the season (Luke 21:31). We do need to be ready. A lot of people will be offended over Jesus when He comes. I don't want to be one of them. I've had a desire for a long time to understand the times (Jeremiah 23:20; Daniel 1:4; 1 Chronicles 12:32) so that I could equip others, but although I've believed for awhile that we were in the end-times, somehow Revelation and end-time prophecy in general has always seemed foggy and confusing. But the reality is that it's not too confusing, and it's not just for Bible scholars. We can all read it, and we will understand it (Jeremiah 23:20), as the Holy Spirit gives us wisdom and revelation. So I'm excited to study and understand it.

2) The best part of the conference: a renewed passion, zeal, fire for Jesus. A deeper hunger. The realization (again, and in a deeper way) that He is BEAUTIFUL. He is worthy. He is holy. He is the Bridegroom, Judge, and King, and there is no end to His majesty. My words are inadequate to describe it, so I'm going to stop there, but if you've seen Him, you know what I mean...God met me and touched my heart. I didn't have to be at the onething conference for Him to encounter me, but that's where He chose to meet me this time, and as a result, I have a renewed and deeper hunger for Him. So praise Him!

That's all for now.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

In KC

I'm presently sitting in the lovely living room of Mr. David & Mrs. Molly in Grandview, Missouri. I'm sitting in a very comfortable chair, I might add, watching Molly get the floor very clean with their new vacuum cleaner (yay!). Onething '08 starts tomorrow afternoon. Dave, Molly, Sarah, and I will be doing that morning to night through the new year. Today's drive was long but enjoyable. We stopped by the Prayer Room on the way in and caught a little bit of Misty Edwards' set. That's about all I have to say for now. I'll give a report on onething once I get back.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Makeover!

As you can see, my blog now has a new look! I had been wanting to spruce it up but didn't have the time during the semester. I took my last final yesterday, went to church last night, and promptly started working on my blog after I got home. LOL. I also worked on it for about 5 (yes, 5!) hours today. I actually spent most of that time looking for a good template online but just couldn't find what I was looking for. I even tested out a bunch of different templates. Finally, I decided to look for one that would let me add my own picture to it. So I ended up with a template from this site. Then I added my own picture to the header (it's a picture I took outside the Tour Magne in Nîmes, France) and customized everything else to make it my own design. I'm happy with how it turned out. If anyone wants to redesign their own blog and needs help, let me know! After all the trial and error, I'm an expert now. ;)

Maybe now I will be inspired to write more? Either way, I hope you enjoy the new look.

Saturday, December 06, 2008

I had forgotten

...how bad studying for finals is. It's really bad. It's not so much about the studying itself (which is not all that much different than any other time during the semester) but the fear, doubt, and anxiety that come in and makes me want to give up. But despite the fact that I may grow weary, my God NEVER will!

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. He gives strength to the weary, and to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, and vigorous young men stumble badly, yet those who wait for the LORD will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk and not become weary.

(Isaiah 40:28-31)

Can't beat that with a big stick!

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Quote from Justice Frankfurter

"History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political, economic and social pressures."

-Dennis v. United States (concurring opinion), 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

Monday, October 20, 2008

Who you ARE and who you are NOT

Here are some Scriptures that remind me of who I am and who I am not. I know I need to be reminded. Hopefully they will encourage you too.

--
Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.

-2 Corinthians 5:17

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man, and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.

-1 Corinthians 10:13

Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.

-1 Peter 5:8-9

Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

-James 4:7

Therefore we have been buried in Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

-Romans 6:4-7, 11-14, 18

Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."

-1 Peter 1:13-16

...if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

-1 John 1:7-8

Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

-1 Peter 2:16

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

-1 Corinthians 10:23

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

-2 Corinthians 10:5

As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.

-Psalm 103:12

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Watch out for the worry of the world

And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

-Matthew 13:22

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Horrific Violence Against Christians in Orissa, India

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

-Matthew 10:28
--

From The Times
September 6, 2008
India: where Christians are a target for the religious murder mobs

Rhys Blakely in Bhubaneswar

The mob appeared an hour after sunset, armed with axes, clubs and paraffin. The carnage that followed would have been much worse if the Christians of Gadragaon, a remote village in northeast India, had not been warned by text message: “The Hindus are coming to kill you.”

The alert gave most enough time to flee to the jungle, where 114 of them would hide for a week, drinking rainwater and foraging for food.

But the warning did not come early enough for those unable to run. “They doused him with petrol and taunted him; we could hear him screaming,” said Ravindra Nath Prahan, 45, of his paralysed brother, Rasananda, 35, who was burnt alive by Hindu fanatics. “I could have tried to save him. But we had to save ourselves.”

The attack on Gadragaon, by a mob that chanted “Hail Mother India” as they razed the village, was among the first of the grim litany of atrocities committed against minority Christians in the state of Orissa over the past two weeks. The Vatican has called the wave of violence “a sin against God and humanity”.

A nun has been gang-raped; a worker at a church-run orphanage burnt alive. In the Kandhamal district, the site of the worst attacks, Kamalini Naik, who was seven months pregnant, was ordered to denounce Christianity and convert to Hinduism by a baying mob. When she refused, she and her one-year-old son were “cut into pieces”, witnesses said.

So far 36 deaths have been recorded by the Catholic Church — compared with 16 by the state authorities, which have been accused of being complicit in the tragedy.

With the worst violence occurring in remote regions, there are fears that the toll is much higher. “It is hard to tell. The mobs are burning their victims,” said Father Ajay Singh, who is trying to keep a list of the dead in the office of the Archbishop in Bhubaneswar, the state capital.

Of the estimated 50,000 Christians forced to flee, most have little to go back to: more than 3,000 homes and 115 churches have been destroyed.

The villagers of Gadragaon watched from their hiding places as their possessions were looted, their cornfields and banana gardens spoiled and their goats slaughtered. Then they walked for more than 200 kilometres (125 miles), most of them barefoot, through the jungle to reach a makeshift sanctuary at a dilapidated YMCA hall.

“They said that we must convert if we want to return. We can never go back,” Ravindra Prahan said. A mountain of a man who served in the Indian Army, he now wears the shell-shocked expression of a wounded veteran.

Many are similarly scarred. Namrata, 8, one of more than 8,000 refugees held at a camp in Raikia, was badly burnt when Hindu fanatics torched her family's house. She has bad dreams and says she is too frightened ever to go home.

Hindu extremists claimed the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to the murder of a local Hindu leader. Others believe they were orchestrated — as the purge began trees were felled to block roads across the region to prevent Christians from escaping.

On Thursday India's Supreme Court ordered the Orissa government to answer charges that local police had stood by — an accusation also made by paramilitary forces drafted in from other parts of the country.

Orissa has a dark history of intolerance. Last Christmas 95 churches were razed and at least five Christians murdered. At the time, the unrest — far surpassed in the past two weeks — was branded the worst anti-Christian violence in India since Independence.

The roots of the current misery have festered for generations. Despite being enormously rich in mineral resources, Orissa is one of the sub-continent's poorest regions. Its low-caste Hindus and tribal populations are among the world's most impoverished people.

It is from these groups that most Christian converts have come — attracted by the opportunity to study at church-run schools and the chance to leave the lowest rungs of Hinduism's rigid caste system.

“There is resentment among some Hindus that the Church has reached out to these people, for whom nothing was being done,” said Father Prabodha Pradhan, one of the many Christians in Orissa who now owe their lives to Hindus who hid them as they were hunted by fanatics. “Some feel threatened.” However, the state's Christians make up only 2.4 per cent of the population — in line with the figure for India as a whole.

Other movements are also recruiting among Orissa's poor — notably, the Naxalites, a fierce cadre of atheist Maoist militants whose influence now extends across half of India.

Compared to the AK47-toting communist guerrillas, however, Orissa's Christians have made soft targets. “We don't fight. We are not many,” Father Prabodha said.

There are now fears that the attacks directed against Christians in Orissa may be replicated against other religious minorities across India as far-right Hindu groups seek to mobilise support ahead of general elections that must be held before May.

The latest violence was triggered by the murder on August 23 of Swami Lakhmananda Saraswati, a local figurehead of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), an extremist Hindu organisation. Ignoring a claim of responsibility from the Naxalites for the assassination, the VHP immediately accused Christians.

Some suggest that the VHP and its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu fundamentalist group that holds sway over India's largest opposition party, the BJP, have exploited Saraswati's death to achieve a long-stated mission: to make Orissa “a poster state for Hindutva (Hindu-ness)”.

Religion and caste

— India's Constitution is secular. Hindus account for 80 per cent of the country's billion-plus population, while Muslims account for about 13 per cent

— The most recent Indian census, in 2001, states that 2.3 per cent of the population is Christian, but converts often claim to be Hindus to retain government privileges reserved for Hinduism's lower castes

— Most Indian Christians are Dalits, at the bottom of the caste system, who were once known as untouchables

— Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two children were burnt to death when their car was set alight by a Hindu mob who went on the rampage in Orissa state in 1999

— Over Christmas last year, 55 churches and 600 houses were set alight in Orissa, as part of a vicious anti-Christian campaign

— 35 major incidents of violence against Christians were recorded in the state of Madhya Pradesh alone between January and August this year

— Last March a United Nations freedom-of-religion investigator gave warning that the scarcity of prosecutions and “political exploitation of communal tensions” put India at risk of more religious violence

Sources: www.cia.gov; Times Archive; Human Rights Watch

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4687075.ece

Saturday, September 06, 2008

House Churches Growing in Iran

By Gary Lane
CBN News International Correspondent
September 5, 2008

CBNNews.com - TEHRAN, Iran - A major crackdown against house church Christians is proceeding in Iran.

And while the Islamic government could halt its nuclear program if it wanted to, it's finding it's incapable of reversing the rapid spread of Christianity there.

The idea behind the Iranian revolution was to establish the world's first modern state governed solely by Islamic law.

Ayatollah Khomeini believed a more prosperous society could be created if the Iranian people and their government adhered to tenets of the Koran.

But nearly 30 years on, the Revolution is faltering and many Iranians are disillusioned.

Todd Nettleton is with the Voice of the Martyrs.

"The people look around, they see the poverty, they see the discontent, they're not happy so they have questions. Why isn't it working out, we're doing it the Islamic way, why isn't our country great? So, they are ripe to hear a new way," Nettleton said.

And the new way many are embracing is Christianity. But the faith is not new to Iran. The gospel actually arrived here 500 years before Islam. Persians are believed to have been among those in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

Less than one half of one percent of the Iranian population is Christian.

There were nearly four times as many Christians just before the Islamic Revolution, but many fled the country because of Islamic extremism.

Some of those who remain often share their faith with Muslims. As a result, the evangelical house church movement is now growing rapidly.

"The church is exploding in terms of numbers, but it is coming with a price," Nettleton said. "The people are arrested, they're harassed, they're persecuted, in some cases they are beaten severely. It is not an easy pathway."

Christian praise songs blast from the cassette player of an Iranian tax cab. The driver is a Muslim convert to Christianity. Depsite risk of arrest and possible death for apostasy, he's unafraid to share his faith.

A cross hangs from his rearview mirror. He keeps his Bible on the front passenger seat beside a can of STP gas treatment. He shares the gospel with his passengers and gives them a Bible if they want one.

That alone could lead to his arrest.

Other Christians have even been martyred for sharing their faith with Muslims.

Their suffering and sacrifice is not just a modern day experience here.

Many have come before them like the missionary Mary Catherine Ironside. She was here until she died in 1921.

She was not martyred, but she was one of many Anglicans from the church missionary society sent to share the gospel throughout the Middle East.

An inscription on her tombstone reads, "Will you not follow if you hear the call?"

Her grave is given a place of honor at the Armenian Cathedral in the city of Isfahan. It is one of 73 churches registered in Iran.

It's not established churches that the Iraniain government fears most, but the rapid growth of unregistered churches.

President Mamoud Ahmadinejad is so concerned that he has made it his aim to stop the house church movement, declaring: "I will stop Christianity in this country."

He's launched an unmerciful crackdown against Iranian house churches.

Just this past summer, a war veteran and his wife died from beatings they received during a raid on their house church meeting in the city of Isfahan.

A month earlier, Christian Tina Rad and her husband were arrested and severely beaten. Held for four days, they were accused of committing activities against Islam and Iranian national security. Both are former Muslims.

A house church leader said the crackdown has caused Christians to grow stronger and more serious.

"God is testing our faith because he wants us to become more like Jesus," she said.

The house churches are now meeting in smaller groups.

Nettleton says while Ahmadinejad is trying depserately to halt church growth, his crackdown is actually having an opposite affect because Christians are moving around more.

"We see outreach of people traveling to other cities, they're traveling to other parts of the country and they are in turn planting these little house churches in those cities and in those parts of the country as well," Nettleton said.

What should Christians around the world know about their brothers and sisters in the faith in Iran? The house church leader tells us they should know that Jesus Christ is with Iranian Christians and will never leave them nor forsake them.

And what can believers around the world do for the persecuted Christians in Iran?

"We have to pray for them. That is their first request. Pray for us, pray for us, pray for us… and I challenge people to really pray for the Iranian government," Nettleton said. "Pray for Ahmadinejad to have a personal meeting with Jesus Christ. Imagine how that would change that country; imagine how that would change the world."

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/437006.aspx

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Back to School

It must be something about law school that makes me want to blog...an avoidance tactic, maybe? Who knows? I just wanted to say that I was reviewing how much reading I have for this week, and I figured out that I have 125 pages to read just for 1 of my 5 classes. So at 5 pages an hour, that's 25 hours. Then I have the other 4 classes. Here we go again...

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Blogging

So it's been 2 1/2 months since I've blogged. Basically, I finished my final exams and journal petitioning on May 31, and I've been doing other things ever since. I've been thinking about blogging for awhile, but I'm ambivalent about it...if it's becoming just one more chore to take care of, I don't want to do it. And it kind of has been feeling like a chore, rather than something that naturally flows out as I sit down to write. The other thing I've been unsure of is the direction of the blog - do I want it to be a platform for me to talk about myself and keep people updated about what I'm doing? Or would my time be better spent doing other things? Do I want it to be a forum to share about issues that are interesting to me - for example, the 2nd Amendment and gun control? Or do I just want to use it whenever I feel like getting my thoughts out into cyberspace (about a neighbor's barking dog, final exams, whatever). Not that a blog has to have a direction. I think mine has been a little bit of everything in the past, and that's fine with me. It's just that regarding talking about myself and what I'm up to - well, most people know what I'm up to. Or they can just talk to me and find out. And I don't really want to spend so much time focused on me - frankly, I don't need any help in that area. As far as using the blog as a forum to talk about interesting issues - that takes so much time! And there are so many other things vying for my attention...but I do like writing about things...but I feel like I need to blog regularly then if I'm going to do that. And I don't think that's a commitment I'm ready to make. Ditto with respect to getting thoughts out into cyberspace...

Sigh. I know I'm making this into a bigger deal than it is. But this is what's going through my mind and why I keep ignoring my blog.

Anyone want to give me some feedback? Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Wish my neighbor would read this

Excessive barking is nothing new. Dogs appear to enjoy barking, and they do so for various reasons. They bark when they want something, when they say “hello,” when they are having fun, when they are startled or alarmed, when they are defending their territory or threatening someone, when they are frustrated, and when they hear other dogs barking. Unfortunately, a dog who barks incessantly can drive the family crazy—and disturb the entire neighborhood.

Compulsive Barking
There are occasional compulsive barkers who bark in situations that are not considered normal or bark in a repetitive, rigid fashion. If your dog barks repeatedly for long periods of time, apparently at nothing, he may be a compulsive barker. If your dog repeatedly barks at things that would not bother other dogs, such as shadows, light flashes, mirrors, open doors, the sky, etc., you may have a compulsive barker. If your dog also engages in other stereotypic behaviors while barking, such as spinning, circling, or jumping, he may be a compulsive barker. A good first step may be to make a change in his lifestyle. For instance, if the dog is tied up, try keeping him loose in a safe fenced area. If the dog is left alone for long periods of time, increase his exercise, mental stimulation and social contact.

If you suspect your dog is a compulsive barker, please seek assistance from a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist or a Veterinary Behaviorist; his condition may require drug therapy.

--
Taken from http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pets_barking (emphasis mine)

Friday, May 09, 2008

2 down, 2 to go

So last night I typed the words "freaking out" into google. Wikipedia popped up with a link to its entry on "mental breakdown." On the list of causes of potential mental breakdowns, "academic problems" was one them.

Then I wrote a blog about how freaked out I was, about the heavy weight that's been on my chest for at least the past 2 months, and about how I couldn't wait to be done with finals. I decided not to post it and to do my best to focus on my Strong Tower, Jesus. He never fails. He is so faithful. I went to Him again last night in the midst of my freaking out, and He gave me words from Psalm 25 to quiet down the soulish rioting. I woke up this morning at 5am to do some more review, and I had such peace. It was great. It was like a 180 degree turnaround from how I was feeling last night. This morning, I took my 2nd final (the one I was most worried about), and I think it went fair. We'll see. But it's over, and I didn't freak out during the exam.

So now it's on to my next 2. A little over a week from today, I'll be totally done with my finals!

Friday, May 02, 2008

I'm still alive

The title of this post doesn't really make sense, since anyone who checks this blog probably has contact with me on a regular basis and knows what I'm up to. I just thought I'd put something up so my blog doesn't go totally dormant, because I would like to keep it around. I've just fallen out of the habit of blogging. I've also been very busy with school, job interviews, etc. Finals start this coming Tuesday (yuck) and go until Friday, May 16, at which time a 2 week writing competition for journal membership will start (also yuck). I'm really looking forward to this summer. I don't know yet what I'll be doing (still looking for a job), but I know that the job is just going to be something to do, and I'm going to be able to focus on everything else that I've been neglecting for so long. As I said, I can't wait.

Tomorrow, my brother and his lovely wife-to-be, Molly, are getting married. It's going to be an awesome wedding. Can't wait for Jesus to be glorified in this exciting event in their lives.

I'll be back posting in awhile...

Saturday, March 22, 2008

I love Chipotle


Today was my third time getting free food at Chipotle! I was hanging out, doing some studying, planning to eat a salad (which plan went awry), and my parents came in very hungry. I offered to make a Chipotle run. I got there, ordered three burrito bols...and discovered I had forgotten my wallet! They didn't take checks, but I asked them if they could make an exception. The manager came out and kindly told me that I could come back and pay later that day. So nice. So after lunch, I headed back over there, wallet in hand. They were really busy, but they got the manager to come out again so that I could pay. He came out and shook my hand. He told me he was so impressed by my honesty that the meals were on him! He said out of all the times he's let someone come back later to pay because they had forgotten their wallet, I was the first one to ever come back (that raised the question in my mind of why he continued to let anyone do that if they never came back, but I'm thankful he let me do so). Then he asked me if I wanted anything else to eat! LOL. I decided not to go for 2 Chipotles in 1 day.

The funny part is, that's the third time I've gotten free Chipotle at that very same store! The first time I ever had Chipotle (3 years ago) was at that location. I mentioned to the guy making my burrito that it was my first time there, so he gave me my burrito for free. He wanted to be sure I liked it, apparently. Another time, I was in there, and the woman in front of me was being so incredibly RUDE to them, I almost said something to her (having worked in fast food for 4+ years, I guess I have a low tolerance for that sort of thing). Thankfully I held my tongue, but when she left I made some kind of comment to them about how I thought she was being unreasonable and shouldn't have been treating them like that. They said, "Because you are so nice, we're going to give your burrito to you for free!"

Strange. All at the same Chipotle!

Monday, March 17, 2008

Individual Right to Bear Arms?

As promised, I am going to blog about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. Before you read this post, ask yourself this question:

Does the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantee an individual right to bear arms?

Yes______ No______


I want you to answer that question without looking at any outside sources. Just give a one-word answer based on what you think. Then I want you to answer a slightly more involved question: why? I know there are those of you reading this who have read the 2nd Amendment and do know what it actually says, but, frankly, I think most people don't know what it says. Before I started my legal writing brief this semester, the only thing I knew about the 2nd Amendment was that it says something about the right to bear arms and that those pro-gun control people don't seem to care about infringing it. However, knowing exactly what the 2nd Amendment actually says is crucial to understanding the debate over it. That's primarily what this post will be about. I want to explain in simple terms (because I have just a basic understanding of it) the debate over the 2nd Amendment and why there is so much controversy over it. Why am I posting about this?

1. This is an interesting and maybe crucial constitutional debate.
2. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow morning in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). I will explain later why this is so interesting.
3. If I just figured out what the core debate was over the 2nd Amendment, there are probably other people out there who don't know what it's about. And it's fun to share something new when you learn it.

Let me preface the remainder of this post by saying that 1) there's a lot more to the debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment than I can cover in one relatively short blog post - and there's a lot that I haven't looked at yet; and 2) it is not because I attend a liberal law school that I am positing that there is a legitimate debate over what the 2nd Amendment guarantees and that I think the position that it guarantees an individual right is on shakier ground than most probably think. I do attend what many would consider to be a liberal law school, but trust me - it's not turning me into a liberal. In fact, I haven't heard one word about the 2nd Amendment in any of my classes so far. I started investigating on my own in conjunction with a brief I'm writing. For purposes of the brief in this hypothetical criminal case, half of us are representing the United States (as prosecution) and half of us the defendant (a police officer). I'm representing the United States, and in my brief, I have to argue for the collective rights theory in order to defeat the defendant's argument that his 2nd Amendment rights have been violated. My research consisted of reading the only Supreme Court case that deals with this issue, reading several appeals court opinions, looking over some amici briefs for the case that will be heard tomorrow, and most importantly, reading and thinking about the text of the Amendment myself. There are plenty of constitutional scholars out there who take the individual rights view - so don't think that liberal academics all take the collective rights view. Sorry to throw those terms out before I explain what they mean, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact that this is an issue over which academics are deeply divided (and not on party lines).

I would guess that "yes" would be most people's response to the question of whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. As to the why...I'm not sure what I would have said a few weeks ago...

The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Constitutional theorists are thus divided into 2 camps when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (I'm leaving out the sophisticated rights camp for now): 1) the individual rights camp and 2) the collective rights camp. Individual rights theorists believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. They point to the language "the right of the people" to support their interpretation. Thus, any laws that tend to limit that right (e.g. gun control laws) are susceptible to a constitutional challenge based on the 2nd Amendment. In contrast, collective rights theorists claim that the 2nd Amendment guarantees only a collective right to bear arms. What does this mean? Well, a collective right to bear arms is a right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated state militia. You can see where they get this interpretation - right from the text of the Amendment. The idea is that the reason the 2nd Amendment was written was to prevent the federal government from crushing the states - to guarantee the right of the states to have organized militias made up of citizens that would be able to defend themselves against the strong central government put into place by the newly-ratified Constitution (the previous government - i.e. the one before our current Constitution, the Articles of Confederation [1777-1788] - was abolished and replaced with our Constitution because the central government was so weak that it couldn't accomplish anything). So a collective rights theorist would say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a member of a well-regulated state militia. The 2nd Amendment does not, however, says the collective rights theorist, guarantee the right of Joe Blow Citizen to keep a gun in his closet or carry it around in his suitcase.

I haven't settled my opinion on this debate yet, but I do think that it is worthy of a little pondering. I think conservatives tend to have a knee-jerk reaction about the 2nd Amendment. Now, don't take this the wrong way, conservatives! I'm a conservative. But I think we need to know what the issues turn on and to think them through. I know that there are plenty of conservatives who have thought through this issue, and they think that the most accurate reading of the Amendment is that it guarantees an individual right. But I think there are also plenty who haven't - and I think that people tend, if they want something bad enough policy-wise and hear enough people saying it, to just assume that it's true and start saying it themselves. This is exactly what people who are so gung ho about separation of church and state have done. They want separation of church and state, and they've heard it said so much that they actually believe it's in the Constitution. Even people who know that the exact phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution just assume that the First Amendment should be read that way.

Both sides have evidence of the Framers' intent in writing the Amendment. Why is it necessary to look at the Framers' intent in order to know how this Amendment should be interpreted? Well, conservative constitutional scholars believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the Founders' intent. What did the Founders mean when they wrote the Constitution and its amendments? The Constitution is not a "living document" that should be interpreted to mean what current social consensus says. In order to know what the Constitution means and how it should be applied to current issues, we have to look at the original intent of the Founders. For example, the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment means that Congress may not make a law that establishes a national religion (e.g. something like "The religion of the United States shall be Islam, and all citizens and residents of the United States shall convert to it.") When you look at the Framers' intent, you can see that this is the best interpretation of that clause.

The 2nd Amendment is no exception to this mode of scrutiny. We need to ask what the Founders actually intended when they wrote this Amendment - not what we think would be the best policy. If we as a society want there to be a constitutionally guaranteed individual right to bear arms, and if there is not one currently, then we need to amend the Constitution to add it.

Keep in mind that to say that the 2nd Amendment means that there is a collective, but not an individual, right to bear arms is NOT to say that as a matter of policy we shouldn't have a fundamental right to bear arms. Nor is it saying that Congress should pass gun control laws or that individuals should not have guns. It merely means that when the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, they established a collective, militia right, not an individual right. This is not to say that the Constitution says that individuals MUST not bear arms (that would be completely untenable). It means that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of the individual to bear arms unless it's in connection with a well-regulated militia. The resulting consequence is that legislation tending to limit the ability of individuals to carry guns may not be challenged on constitutional grounds. The potential consequence of this is that Congress could pass a severely restrictive gun law, and it would not be unconstitutional - at least not on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Of course, all of this is theoretical, because the Supreme Court has not made a definitive ruling on the 2nd Amendment. Actually, the last time the Court addressed this issue was almost 80 years ago in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). There is controversy over how broad the holding of this case is, but the majority of federal courts have interpreted Miller to stand for a collective rights theory. The circuit courts are divided on this issue, however. Enter District of Columbia v. Heller, the case for which oral arguments will be heard tomorrow. This should prove to be a monumental case, as the Court is expected to make a definitive ruling on whether a law restricting the registration of guns violates the 2nd Amendment. To do that, the Court will have to come down one way or another on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The action was brought by a D.C. security guard who was denied a permit to keep a gun in his house. D.C. has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (complete ban on all registration of hand guns). The security guard alleges that the statute violates his 2nd Amendment rights and is thus unconstitutional. It'll be very interesting to find out how the Court comes out on this and to examine its rationale. The opinion probably won't come down until late June or so...gives us plenty of time to figure out what we think the 2nd Amendment really means, if we haven't already.

People who respect the Constitution and believe it should be interpreted according to the intent of the Founders need to do so with the whole Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. Again, I'm not saying that the individual rights theory is not the correct interpretation. But if that is your view, it needs to be your view because you really think that's what the Founders intended - NOT because you believe a fundamental individual right to bear arms makes for good policy.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

2nd Amendment...void for vagueness...what?

Ugh. It's after 4am, and I'm still trying to finish my legal writing brief. I have to leave at 7 to get to class and turn it in. I'm so sick of working on this thing. There comes a point where you have to take a step back from something and can't get any further with it - but when it's due in a couple of hours, you don't have the choice. You have to keep grinding along at an extremely slow pace. The thing that annoys me most about this whole debacle is that I didn't leave it for the last minute. I've worked on virtually nothing else since last Friday night. My classmates probably think I'm crazy for putting so much time in, since this is a pass/fail class. And maybe I am, but I know I'm not just going to turn in a shoddy piece of work...sigh. This will probably be the worst week of the semester until finals, so at least it can only get better from here on out.

I know I haven't posted in awhile and I choose the strangest times to...

I'll post more soon. This brief I'm writing has piqued my interest in the 2nd Amendment, one I'd largely ignored before. Maybe I'll post about it later, and you'll get piqued too. :)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

How a Bill Becomes a Law

  © Blogger template 'External' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP