In result of 12 years of formally-structured public school education, plus six years of college, this blogger comes to the conclusion that schooling on voluntary basis is far preferable to schooling on the basis of government coercion and compulsion. Here are the reasons for that conclusion:
1)"God loves a cheerful giver." The Bible, II Corinthians 9:7. The heart of a volunteer is sincerely devoted to his/her cause, purpose or activity, as contrasted with grudging attitude and lack of enthusiasm from those acting under compulsion. We want students in school because they want to be there, not because they have to be there.
2)The U.S. Constitution First Amendment freedom of assembly is also the freedom not to assemble, if one so desires. Compulsory school attendance may violate this Constitutional right.
3)The Declaration of Independence, as a back-drop raison d'etre for the Constitution, speaks of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as being God-given, and thus inalienable and inviolable by human governments. Thus, people have a right to pursue happiness on their own terms, and not on the government's terms, so long as they do not violate the just Constitutional rights of other people.
4)School administrators and teachers should have to sell their services in context of a free and open market-place, just as every other service and commodity must do. Guaranteed customer clientele means the service or commodity being sold requires coercion to sell it, thus casting doubt upon its value to society.
5)School must not be a substitute for prison, keeping youth occupied just to keep them out of trouble with the law. Also, school may, even though perhaps unsought, nevertheless teach would-be criminals how to commit more sophisticated crimes. Education is no final guarantee of obedience to law.
6)No names mentioned, but some of this blogger's high school classmates from 1964 found magnificent and splendid careers based on skills not learned in public schools. One classmate even flunked a grade in junior high school, but today still has a very successful business.
7)The Col. Zadok Magruder High School(where this blogger's daughter attends) Music Department is very popular, participated in by many of the school's students, all volunteers. There is no obligation for students to sign up for these music courses, either chorus or orchestra. Yet, the school has a nearly-full-sized student symphony orhestra, a jazz band, and several choruses. The truly successful teacher is the one who can inspire his/her students to pursue his/her subject on their own initiative, even after they have left his/her classroom. The high school's Music Department belies any claim that, without government coercion, nobody would go to school. Compulsory school is merely a guarantee of a captive student audience for mediocre teachers.
8)Even if we make mistakes in our life choices, it is far better that we make them, than that government make them for us. When government makes our mistakes for us, it rarely, if ever, takes any corrective measures to redress any injuries it may have inflicted upon us resulting from its decisions concerning our lives.
Before government tells students in school to quit bullying, it should first take a hard, honest look at its own policies, to see where it might be engaging in administrative bullying, just to feed its own ego. If we are to treat our youth like young adults, they must learn to take full responsibility for their own decisions. True enough, ability of responsible adult citizens to earn their own way without becoming a societal welfare charge is a legitimate concern, and to address that concern, the use of social welfare programs should be limited exclusively for the relief of those physically and/or mentally unable to work. Others must learn to put aside something for themselves for another time, when on the mountain-tops of life, so they may survive when they find themselves sojourning in its valleys.
-LKM
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Don We Now Our Gay Apparel.....
One of the most controversial issues of our time is that of rights for homosexuals. Even fifty years ago, America never had to address this problem because heterosexuality had always "worked" for man-kind from time immemorial.
Thus far, there is no scientific evidence for existence of a "gay gene", which would occupy a parallel basis for homosexual rights, as an inherited and immutable trait similar to skin color, race and gender does. But genetics alone does not form the basis of our Constitutional rights: We have freedom of religion, and yet our religious beliefs are not genetically determined. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution First Amendment does extend to all citizens a freedom of assembly, which by extension, also means freedom of association.
Homosexuals argue that government has no place in the human heart, to decide whom we can and cannot love. It is on this basis that the traditional Bible-based marriage model of one man for one woman, and one woman for one man, is being challenged. But this argument hinges upon how we define love: Indeed, the Bible does command its followers to love thy neighbor as thyself. The Bible does give several illustrated examples of love being extended to men by other men. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, comes to mind. Ostensibly, then, it is the marital relation, and not just "agape" or "filio" love which is under consideration here.
Given the presence of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, it would be extremely unwise to outlaw gay marriage--or any other unpopular behaviour--just for reason of its extreme unpopularity, per se. Such prohibition could put America on a slippery slope of outlawing any number of free exercises of constitutionally-legitimate behaviours merely for reason of their extreme unpopularity. We would all do well to remember that most of us are unpopular with somebody else somewhere, for one reason or another. Unpopularity cannot be a valid reason for cancelling out Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms, because these freedoms were and are extended to individuals, to protect them against mob-ocracy. It is to be admitted that the Constitution 14th Amendment in our day is being given extended applications beyond that of the original intent of its authors, i.e. to guarantee equal rights of former slaves with all the rest of the American citizenry. But words are words.
In my earlier BLOG article, "The Limits of Freedom", I stipulated that our exercise of Constitutional rights and freedoms are limited by whether a)said exercise inflicts physical injury upon other persons; b)said exercise inflicts physical damage or destruction upon anybody's property, and c)said exercise constitutes theft or fraud of anyone's money from them. If opponents of homosexual rights(including gay marriage) can come up with objective reasons why the exercise of homosexual rights would inflict physically-measurable damage upon other persons or their property, then indeed, homosexuality deserves no protection under our U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, homosexuals should be entitled to all the same rights under the 14th Amendment to which all other Americans are entitled, and should not be denied said rights merely for reason of their extreme unpopularity. It is true that homosexuals, as a class, have never been denied basic civil liberties, nor have they faced the economic deprivations that certain ethnic minorities have historically encountered. But past history should have no bearing upon our decision to acknowledge the rights of our fellow American citizens today.
Finally, we should also acknowledge that there are thousands of former homo-sexuals who have come out of that life-style, mainly due to the response of God to prayer from His people. What is impossible with man is possible with God.
-LKM
Thus far, there is no scientific evidence for existence of a "gay gene", which would occupy a parallel basis for homosexual rights, as an inherited and immutable trait similar to skin color, race and gender does. But genetics alone does not form the basis of our Constitutional rights: We have freedom of religion, and yet our religious beliefs are not genetically determined. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution First Amendment does extend to all citizens a freedom of assembly, which by extension, also means freedom of association.
Homosexuals argue that government has no place in the human heart, to decide whom we can and cannot love. It is on this basis that the traditional Bible-based marriage model of one man for one woman, and one woman for one man, is being challenged. But this argument hinges upon how we define love: Indeed, the Bible does command its followers to love thy neighbor as thyself. The Bible does give several illustrated examples of love being extended to men by other men. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, comes to mind. Ostensibly, then, it is the marital relation, and not just "agape" or "filio" love which is under consideration here.
Given the presence of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, it would be extremely unwise to outlaw gay marriage--or any other unpopular behaviour--just for reason of its extreme unpopularity, per se. Such prohibition could put America on a slippery slope of outlawing any number of free exercises of constitutionally-legitimate behaviours merely for reason of their extreme unpopularity. We would all do well to remember that most of us are unpopular with somebody else somewhere, for one reason or another. Unpopularity cannot be a valid reason for cancelling out Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms, because these freedoms were and are extended to individuals, to protect them against mob-ocracy. It is to be admitted that the Constitution 14th Amendment in our day is being given extended applications beyond that of the original intent of its authors, i.e. to guarantee equal rights of former slaves with all the rest of the American citizenry. But words are words.
In my earlier BLOG article, "The Limits of Freedom", I stipulated that our exercise of Constitutional rights and freedoms are limited by whether a)said exercise inflicts physical injury upon other persons; b)said exercise inflicts physical damage or destruction upon anybody's property, and c)said exercise constitutes theft or fraud of anyone's money from them. If opponents of homosexual rights(including gay marriage) can come up with objective reasons why the exercise of homosexual rights would inflict physically-measurable damage upon other persons or their property, then indeed, homosexuality deserves no protection under our U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, homosexuals should be entitled to all the same rights under the 14th Amendment to which all other Americans are entitled, and should not be denied said rights merely for reason of their extreme unpopularity. It is true that homosexuals, as a class, have never been denied basic civil liberties, nor have they faced the economic deprivations that certain ethnic minorities have historically encountered. But past history should have no bearing upon our decision to acknowledge the rights of our fellow American citizens today.
Finally, we should also acknowledge that there are thousands of former homo-sexuals who have come out of that life-style, mainly due to the response of God to prayer from His people. What is impossible with man is possible with God.
-LKM
Two Questions About Jesus Christ For My Christian Friends
Christianity is the world's single-most popular religion today. Yet, Jesus Christ warned that the road to destruction is broad, many would go therein; while the road to salvation is narrow, and only few would find it. How do we separate sheep from goats, real Christians from fakes and frauds? (Matthew 7:13-27)
I have two questions to ask, of all who would name the name of Jesus Christ, claiming Him to be their Lord and Saviour.
Question One: If we could transport you back in both time and space to ancient Israel 2000 years ago, you see Jesus Christ alive in the flesh as the Bible New Testament gospels describe Him, and He is just now choosing out His first twelve apostles. He taps you, to be one of them. Would you be willing to accept His call upon your life, knowing there are no other Christians around at the time, and that therefore, to accept Him and follow Him means certain popular villification as a rebel, an "up-start", a trouble-maker, a boat-rocker, etc.? It is always easy and safe, to jump onto popularity band-wagons, and say "me, too". It is always most difficult to swim up-stream against the tide of popular opinion, and be the first in any new socio-political or religious movement proposing major societal change. One of the most popular church hymns today contains the words, "Where He leads me, I will follow....I'll go with Him all the way..." Really? What if He leads you into extreme unpopularity? Because this world is in the hand of Satan the devil, there is always a conflict between what is right and what is popular.
Question Two: If Jesus Christ were to return to us in the flesh now--today--where do you think He would spend most of His time and energies? The Bible describes Him as being a friend of sinners, the socially-outcast, the disgusting and the unpopular. Would He spend any time at all in the churches? Or would He be out in the streets with the homeless, the drunks and the drug addicts, and the prostitutes? Would He spend His time in the night-clubs and red-light districts? How about at the jails? He did say those who are sick need the doctor, while those who are well do not. (Matthew 9:10-13)
Saying and doing what is popular requires no courage at all. Jesus Christ describes these persons as "luke-warm Christians" whom He will spit out of His mouth.(Revelations 3:15-16) Jesus Christ started a movement to turn the entire world--not upside down, but right-side up. It was already turned upside down, when Adam and Eve chose to listen to and obey Satan in the Garden of Eden, and mighty was their fall through their disobedience.
-LKM
I have two questions to ask, of all who would name the name of Jesus Christ, claiming Him to be their Lord and Saviour.
Question One: If we could transport you back in both time and space to ancient Israel 2000 years ago, you see Jesus Christ alive in the flesh as the Bible New Testament gospels describe Him, and He is just now choosing out His first twelve apostles. He taps you, to be one of them. Would you be willing to accept His call upon your life, knowing there are no other Christians around at the time, and that therefore, to accept Him and follow Him means certain popular villification as a rebel, an "up-start", a trouble-maker, a boat-rocker, etc.? It is always easy and safe, to jump onto popularity band-wagons, and say "me, too". It is always most difficult to swim up-stream against the tide of popular opinion, and be the first in any new socio-political or religious movement proposing major societal change. One of the most popular church hymns today contains the words, "Where He leads me, I will follow....I'll go with Him all the way..." Really? What if He leads you into extreme unpopularity? Because this world is in the hand of Satan the devil, there is always a conflict between what is right and what is popular.
Question Two: If Jesus Christ were to return to us in the flesh now--today--where do you think He would spend most of His time and energies? The Bible describes Him as being a friend of sinners, the socially-outcast, the disgusting and the unpopular. Would He spend any time at all in the churches? Or would He be out in the streets with the homeless, the drunks and the drug addicts, and the prostitutes? Would He spend His time in the night-clubs and red-light districts? How about at the jails? He did say those who are sick need the doctor, while those who are well do not. (Matthew 9:10-13)
Saying and doing what is popular requires no courage at all. Jesus Christ describes these persons as "luke-warm Christians" whom He will spit out of His mouth.(Revelations 3:15-16) Jesus Christ started a movement to turn the entire world--not upside down, but right-side up. It was already turned upside down, when Adam and Eve chose to listen to and obey Satan in the Garden of Eden, and mighty was their fall through their disobedience.
-LKM
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What Kind of World.....?
America today does NOT have a race relations problem. What is does have is a culture war, a conflict between two sets of socio-political values, in the which racial identity is being disingenuously exploited as a symbolic "Trojan horse", i.e. a pretext to advance the cause of one camp over the other.
The conflict in question is one of individualism versus group collectivism, of free enterprise capitalism versus Communism and socialism, of a nation whose societal values are influenced by religion versus one in which all religious theologies are absented from the national scene altogether. It is a question of acceptance of individual responsibility for one's own destiny, versus an insistence that society-at-large, acting through government as its agent, owes me a living. It is a question of whether or not the government should rescue me from adverse consequences of my own foolish personal choices.
Suppose we could somehow wave a magic wand, to permanently eliminate all racial differences between us, would this bring about a global Golden Age of peace, justice, love, brotherhood/sisterhood, and prosperity to all? Past history strongly answers with a thunderous "NO!" The historic human experience is replete with examples of nightmarish war between peoples of the same race. The American Civil War and European theaters of two global world wars of the 20th century come immediately to mind. North and South Korea, North and South Viet Nam, race brother against race brother, in mortal combat over questions of socio-political ideology. In Africa, too, protracted civil conflicts in the Congo, Angola, Rwanda, Sudan and former Biafra are reminders that racial similarity is no restraint against wholesale slaughter.
Even the Bible makes a pronouncement on race, in quoting Jesus Christ to say a prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and among his own people. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4. Indeed: today, people of multiple nations and races world-wide venerate and honor Jesus Christ as the indisputable Son of God; while in modern Israel, His own homeland, nearly all the people hate and revile His name except for a small remnant of self-named "Messianic Jews for Jesus". Romans chapter 11.
In summary, then, racial homogeneity and solidarity is no guarantee of absence of conflict and strife among men. Race is therefore no more than a convenient pretext by which to "pass the buck" to other people, in allegation of cause for one's own self-inflicted difficulties and misfortunes. It takes a paramount degree of courage to look honestly at one's self in the mirror, and ask:
What kind of world Would this world be
If everyone in it Were just like me?
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The conflict in question is one of individualism versus group collectivism, of free enterprise capitalism versus Communism and socialism, of a nation whose societal values are influenced by religion versus one in which all religious theologies are absented from the national scene altogether. It is a question of acceptance of individual responsibility for one's own destiny, versus an insistence that society-at-large, acting through government as its agent, owes me a living. It is a question of whether or not the government should rescue me from adverse consequences of my own foolish personal choices.
Suppose we could somehow wave a magic wand, to permanently eliminate all racial differences between us, would this bring about a global Golden Age of peace, justice, love, brotherhood/sisterhood, and prosperity to all? Past history strongly answers with a thunderous "NO!" The historic human experience is replete with examples of nightmarish war between peoples of the same race. The American Civil War and European theaters of two global world wars of the 20th century come immediately to mind. North and South Korea, North and South Viet Nam, race brother against race brother, in mortal combat over questions of socio-political ideology. In Africa, too, protracted civil conflicts in the Congo, Angola, Rwanda, Sudan and former Biafra are reminders that racial similarity is no restraint against wholesale slaughter.
Even the Bible makes a pronouncement on race, in quoting Jesus Christ to say a prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and among his own people. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4. Indeed: today, people of multiple nations and races world-wide venerate and honor Jesus Christ as the indisputable Son of God; while in modern Israel, His own homeland, nearly all the people hate and revile His name except for a small remnant of self-named "Messianic Jews for Jesus". Romans chapter 11.
In summary, then, racial homogeneity and solidarity is no guarantee of absence of conflict and strife among men. Race is therefore no more than a convenient pretext by which to "pass the buck" to other people, in allegation of cause for one's own self-inflicted difficulties and misfortunes. It takes a paramount degree of courage to look honestly at one's self in the mirror, and ask:
What kind of world Would this world be
If everyone in it Were just like me?
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, September 6, 2010
Let Us Bring The U.S. Constitution Out of Exile
Reference is made to Judge Andrew Napolitano's book, The Constitution In Exile.
"God is not the author of confusion", wrote the apostle Paul in the Bible, I Corinthians 14:33. The Bible book of Acts quotes the apostle Peter, Acts 10:34, to say God is not a respecter of persons. Thus, the nation's founders, inspired by God's Word, sought to create an ordered society based upon impartial rule of law, in total renunciation of their Old World experience of capricious and arbitrary decree of royalty. "Lex Rex", they declared, not "Rex Lex"--the law is the king, not the king the law. The result of this proposition was the U.S. Constitution, which although initially far from perfect, still represents a work in progress towards the formation of a more perfect union.
The nation's founders also recognized the morally-fallen nature of man, based on the Bible scripture of Jeremiah 17:9, saying "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desparately wicked: who could know it?" No man can be entrusted with too much power, to exercise it equitably and justly. Accordingly, in their design of the U.S. Constitution, the nation's founders left much ruling sovereignty to individual states, wisely assigning to the federal government only those obligations of which individual states are administratively and logistically totally incapable, e.g. carrying on foreign relations, providing for a national military defense, coining and printing a common national monetary currency, and resolving interstate disputes. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly spell out this legal mandate.
Today, however, the states have become virtually subservient vassals of the federal government. The development of this situation was long in coming, at least since the turn of the 20th century if not earlier, caused mainly by crisis situations in the which the federal government seized extraordinary powers in order to deal with national emergencies--usually war. Then when the crises passed, the federal government refused to surrender the usurped powers back to state and local control. Today, the recission of individual Constitutional prerogatives is also based on fear of imagined crises which might occur only--but have not yet occurred--if we allow individuals to exercise as they please their Constitutional civil liberties. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." Unlike the intent of the nation's founders, our basic civil liberties are no longer seen by government as God-given and thus inviolable by human authority. On the contrary, they are granted and rescinded according to the momentary political expediencies of governments. The First Amendment free speech rights are now especially under challenge. For example, George Mason law professor David Bernstein wrote a book called, You Can't Say That!, in the which he copiously illustrates how anti-discrimination laws are killing free speech rights. Then, the DVD Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, featuring Ben Stein, documents how science professors are being fired from their jobs at prominent universities, for having the temerity to suggest, contrary to scientific orthodoxy, that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed, and divinely-created design is a better plausible explanation for the origin of life. (It should be interjected here that, as neither creation nor evolution have ever been observed in actual process, neither can be claimed to be proven scientific facts, but are both merely plausible speculations.)
America was not founded by cowards, and the apostle Paul wrote in II Timothy 1:7, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Yet today, the doctrines of political correctness and majoritarian consent silence all but the most brave from speaking their honest minds on those issues of life so greatly important to us all. In the TV series All In The Family of four decades ago, Archie Bunker said out loud the thoughts millions of Americans were thinking, but did not themselves dare to publicly verbalize.
The purpose of Constitutional civil liberties is to protect individual American citizens from either government or majoritarian mob-ocracy. We must bring the U.S. Constitution back from exile, if individual citizen freedom is to survive: it is no test of the strength of Constitutional freedoms, if the only exercise thereof we permit are those with which we all unanimously agree. As Justice Charles Evans Hughes once observed, we must endure the Constitution when it pinches, as well as when it comforts. Otherwise, society will never benefit from the wisdom of the few brave souls courageous enough to say, "vox populi vox humbug!", and tell the nation those inconvenient truths of life we all so desparately need to hear.
-LKM
"God is not the author of confusion", wrote the apostle Paul in the Bible, I Corinthians 14:33. The Bible book of Acts quotes the apostle Peter, Acts 10:34, to say God is not a respecter of persons. Thus, the nation's founders, inspired by God's Word, sought to create an ordered society based upon impartial rule of law, in total renunciation of their Old World experience of capricious and arbitrary decree of royalty. "Lex Rex", they declared, not "Rex Lex"--the law is the king, not the king the law. The result of this proposition was the U.S. Constitution, which although initially far from perfect, still represents a work in progress towards the formation of a more perfect union.
The nation's founders also recognized the morally-fallen nature of man, based on the Bible scripture of Jeremiah 17:9, saying "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desparately wicked: who could know it?" No man can be entrusted with too much power, to exercise it equitably and justly. Accordingly, in their design of the U.S. Constitution, the nation's founders left much ruling sovereignty to individual states, wisely assigning to the federal government only those obligations of which individual states are administratively and logistically totally incapable, e.g. carrying on foreign relations, providing for a national military defense, coining and printing a common national monetary currency, and resolving interstate disputes. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly spell out this legal mandate.
Today, however, the states have become virtually subservient vassals of the federal government. The development of this situation was long in coming, at least since the turn of the 20th century if not earlier, caused mainly by crisis situations in the which the federal government seized extraordinary powers in order to deal with national emergencies--usually war. Then when the crises passed, the federal government refused to surrender the usurped powers back to state and local control. Today, the recission of individual Constitutional prerogatives is also based on fear of imagined crises which might occur only--but have not yet occurred--if we allow individuals to exercise as they please their Constitutional civil liberties. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty." Unlike the intent of the nation's founders, our basic civil liberties are no longer seen by government as God-given and thus inviolable by human authority. On the contrary, they are granted and rescinded according to the momentary political expediencies of governments. The First Amendment free speech rights are now especially under challenge. For example, George Mason law professor David Bernstein wrote a book called, You Can't Say That!, in the which he copiously illustrates how anti-discrimination laws are killing free speech rights. Then, the DVD Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, featuring Ben Stein, documents how science professors are being fired from their jobs at prominent universities, for having the temerity to suggest, contrary to scientific orthodoxy, that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed, and divinely-created design is a better plausible explanation for the origin of life. (It should be interjected here that, as neither creation nor evolution have ever been observed in actual process, neither can be claimed to be proven scientific facts, but are both merely plausible speculations.)
America was not founded by cowards, and the apostle Paul wrote in II Timothy 1:7, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Yet today, the doctrines of political correctness and majoritarian consent silence all but the most brave from speaking their honest minds on those issues of life so greatly important to us all. In the TV series All In The Family of four decades ago, Archie Bunker said out loud the thoughts millions of Americans were thinking, but did not themselves dare to publicly verbalize.
The purpose of Constitutional civil liberties is to protect individual American citizens from either government or majoritarian mob-ocracy. We must bring the U.S. Constitution back from exile, if individual citizen freedom is to survive: it is no test of the strength of Constitutional freedoms, if the only exercise thereof we permit are those with which we all unanimously agree. As Justice Charles Evans Hughes once observed, we must endure the Constitution when it pinches, as well as when it comforts. Otherwise, society will never benefit from the wisdom of the few brave souls courageous enough to say, "vox populi vox humbug!", and tell the nation those inconvenient truths of life we all so desparately need to hear.
-LKM
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Government Or Private Sector Free Enterprise?
As long as this writer can remember, the general American public has been strongly imbued with the proposition that private sector enterpreneurs, driven by the profit motive, are wicked and evil conniving villains out to defraud an unsuspecting society, while government is comprised exclusively of "good guys in the white hats" who, without any profit motive, will surely keep those satanic private enterpreneurs toeing the straight-and-narrow line. and society-at-large thus benefits from the legendary and proverbial arrow-straight integrity of government.
The Bible says differently: "There is none righteous; no, not one....for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:10-23). President Theodore Roosevelt agreed, by saying, "Under government ownership, corruption can flourish just as rankly as under private ownership." Man never changes his basic moral character, according to whether he works for government or for the private sector. Can leopards ever change their spots? Again, the Bible speaks: "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he..." (Proverbs 23:7).
-LKM
The Bible says differently: "There is none righteous; no, not one....for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:10-23). President Theodore Roosevelt agreed, by saying, "Under government ownership, corruption can flourish just as rankly as under private ownership." Man never changes his basic moral character, according to whether he works for government or for the private sector. Can leopards ever change their spots? Again, the Bible speaks: "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he..." (Proverbs 23:7).
-LKM
Thursday, August 12, 2010
LKM Brief Autobiography
I, Lawrence Keeney Marsh, entered the world on June 19, 1946. I was born the second child of Dr. Paul Bruce Marsh and Mrs. Ruth Carolyn Keeney Marsh. I was given my middle name after the family name of my maternal grandfather. The first child, my sister, is Susan Jean Marsh (Ellsworth), born March 2, 1943. I was born at James A. Garfield Hospital on Florida Avenue in Washington, D.C.. This facility has long since been merged into the Washington Hospital Center on Michigan Avenue.
My father was a plant scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and my mother was a public schools music teacher. My father was born in Niagara Falls New York on November 21, 1914, and my mother was born in Mallard, Iowa on November 29, 1913. For one year after my birth, we lived in Washington D.C. at 3115 Newton Street N.E. just across the District line from Mt. Ranier, Maryland. Then, our family moved to 9509 50th Avenue in College Park, MD, where we lived until 1957.
I remember my childhood neighborhood well. I knew most of our neighbors, and often played with them. I also remember all of my elementary school teachers, and most--but not all--of my junior- and senior-high school teachers. (See my BLOG article on LKM school days recollections.)
I grew up in a musical family: My father played the clarinet, my mother and sister played the violin, and I played the violoncello, even as I still do until today. I arrived at cello as my instrument of choice by process of elimination: I did attempt to play brass-wind instruments, but gave them up because I was always getting pimples and boils on my mouth which disabled me to play. At age five, I had started to play the piano, but also gave that up because my little hands at the time simply could not make th reaches on the key-board which most music demanded of me. The cello became my instrument of choice because it is physically the most comfortable to play, and has a very pleasing tone quality if played in the hands of expert artists. Still, I wish to this day I had begun to play piano when my hands grew bigger, and had taken lessons on it to play it, side-by-side with cello. On Saturday evenings, we would often gather together as a family to play chamber music together, rather than to watch television. My musical activities, as I recall, made me extremely "culturally incorrect" (as a parallel to "politically incorrect") in the opinion of my contemporary peers, and I remember a sense of chagrin and embarrassment to let them know of my cultural predilections. Nevertheless, I so valued my musical life that I personally did not regret it then and do not regret it now. As a family, we did much over a period of several years, to bring into existence an all Prince George's County High School orchestra, this being largely thanks to my mother's position as a music teacher in the county schools. This genre of music, I felt, and still feel today, is definitely superior in quality to the latest "pop-culture" music. This latter is transient, here today and gone tomorrow; but the names of great Classical music composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and many others who lived between 1700 and 1900 live in immortality. So despite my extreme unpopularity among my peers, I had and still have the cultural better half! Today, I wear my badges of "political incorrectness" and "cultural incorrectness" with honor and pride. Politically incorrect and proud of it!
I remember well my four excellent cello teachers: William Stokking Jr., John Martin, Leopold Teraspulsky, and Mihaly Virizlay. I recall liking Mr. Teraspulsky the best because he did not smoke, and thus never smoked during my lessons with him. All four were excellent cellists and teachers per se; however, I did find the smoking habit of the other three most disconcerting, as I was raised as a non-smoker, and now the medical community knows it possible to contract smokers' diseases from second-hand exposure to smokers' smoke. I believe at least two of my four former teachers are now dead because of diseases linked to long-term smoking.
Bill Stokking was my teacher from age eight until I entered junior high school. At the time, he played in the Navy band orchestra, later moving on to become principle cellist in the Cleveland and Philadelphia Orchestras. Sometimes, he would frighten me by telling me at my lessons that unless I played my lessons exactly as he demanded, he was going to "wrap that music stand around my neck". But Dutch-uncle Bill was still a lot of fun, as he often told tall tales in the which he always made himself out to be the hero! Despite his fast temper, he still had a great sense of humor to go with it. Then came my second teacher, John Martin, principle cellist of the National Symphony. He was much more of a gentleman, more easy-going, and I appreciated that! He was my teacher from the start of my junior high school days, until I graduated from high school. To this day, I always remember his immortal comment on my performance at my lessons: "That was nice for a warm-up; now, let's play it!" By that, he meant to say my playing lacked artistic expression, despite it being technically flawless. My third teacher, Leopold Teraspulsky, was at Indiana University Music School. I studied with him only two of the four years I was at Indiana University, and this was a distinctly disappointing experience. I had wanted to study with him for all four of my years at Indiana University, but I withdrew from the Music School after my sophomore year and returned to major in my foreign language studies in the College of Arts and Sciences simply because the Music School was greatly over-crowded and thus it was well-nigh impossible to get time to rehearse in the school practice rooms. All the cello faculty was great, and I felt guilty that I could not give them the practice-time in preparation of my lessons that they truly deserved. I temporarily took a hiatus-break from my cello, but returned to it in 1974, when I studied with my fourth teacher--Mihaly Virizlay--at the George Peabody Music Conservatory of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. This I did until 1980, when tuition for lessons became simply too expensive for my budget. I remember Mr. Virizlay as being an excellent teacher, when he taught! But the point here is that he often ran out on me, skipping out on lessons obligations to me in favor of concertizing in order to glorify and deify his own personal repute. He was one of the most conceited persons I have ever met: if he heard a clap of thunder, he would walk over to the window and take a bow! In all, I had 18 years of formally-structured cello education, and still continue to learn today by listening to CDs of the great cellists of the past to play, as well as to the performances of contemporary cellist colleagues.
Later in 1957, our family moved to Beltsville, and lived at 4203 Wicomico Avenue. I went to Buck Lodge Jr. High School in Adelphi, Maryland in grades 7 and 8, while Beltsville Junior High School, just at the end of our street, was under construction. I transferred to it at the beginning of the 9th grade.
I recall generally hating my years in junior and senior high school, they were sad and demoralizing because the Education Establishment had mandated me to take certain courses, ostensibly "for my own good", on compulsory basis. I also felt socially rejected because for all my gargantuan efforts, I was no good at sports, whereas our society at large glorifies and even deifies its athletes. I strongly felt at the time, especially as a member of the male sex, that being a smash success in sports is the only possible avenue to popularity and social acceptance. Given my failure in that endeavor, and culturally-incorrect involvement in musical endeavors, I sadly wrote off a priori all social life in my teenage years, feeling sure no woman in her right mind would care to be seen in my company. This factor was extremely damaging to my social development, and accounts for the fact that I postponed marriage until age 46, and that to a woman of foreign origin who herself gives no popular assent to the sports world. I do not harbor any ill will against my former class-mates, concerning my "culturally-incorrect" relation to them as a musician: they had no mean-spirited hate of me per se; rather, in their cultural ignorance of my musical endeavors, they just did not "get it". Indeed, the genre of music I play on my cello was never composed for consumption of the masses of common people. Rather, it was meant for the consumption of Europe's upper-crust socio-political elite at the time.
Academically, I always did reasonably well in both high school and college, always on the honor roll--but not at the very top of my class. In addition, while in high school, I was very busy with extra-curricular activities: I ran cross-country and track-and-field. I also took private lessons on my cello and in the Russian language, in addition to playing in the all Prince George's County High School orchestra. In my senior year, in addition to college entrance exams on my high school subjects, I also took the Russian language exam. Out of all my exams, I made the best score on my Russian exam, something which made school teachers and officials angry at me instead of pleased, to see me take academic initiative of my own.
My college years were much happier than my public school years, insofar as I was studying what I wanted to study, rather than what I was forced to study against my will. I will always say that the truly successful teacher is the one who inspires his/her students to continue study of his/her subject long after they leave his/her class-room. That describes my private teachers but a small number of my public school teachers. I went to college at Indiana University from 1964-1968, graduating from there with a B.A. degree in Middle Eastern studies. I also took cello lessons from the university's music school while there. I continued on for an M.A. degree at University of California Los Angeles, from January 1969 until June 1971. For the most part, my college years were much happier than were my junior- and senior high school years because my chosen academic endeavors in college were highly respectable in those institutions: not so in junior and senior high school. I temporarily discontinued my cello studies while at U.C.L.A., but later resumed them after graduation as I continued them at the George Peabody Music School of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, 1974-1980. I can truthfully say that my cello has been and still is an invaluable and irreplacable joy of my life. I would not trade the experience for any other riches of this world and this life. My cello is a rare find: made in Cremona, Italy in the year 1684, it is now worth about half the value of my house.
In 1968, our family moved within Beltsville from 4203 Wicomico Avcnue to 11105 Emack Road. When not in college, between academic sessions, I lived with my parents until starting government employment with the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency on June 21, 1976.
In my government career, I served as a geographic names specialist serving two government entities simultaneously: the Defense Mapping Agency and the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. Our work was primarily in service to the military, but secondarily was in service throughout the entire civilian government as well: our job is to standardize geographic names and thus end confusion as to their correct spellings, as encountered on various diverse maps and in other geographic publications. I felt greatly honored to serve my country, but found the supervisory managers to be quite demoralizing insofar as they managed the work-force negatively by heavy-handed fear and coercion, rather than positively through inspirational leadership and encouragement. They had not a clue about smooth inter-personal relationships; they were fine managers of information, but were anything but excellent leaders of people. As I review my overall career experience with the government, I would not say it was altogether a failure, there were some good times to be had. The pay and side benefits were also excellent, I had no complaint about those, until after taxes! Overall, I give the thirty-year experience a grade of "C". Perhaps the most demoralizing aspect of the experience was that my individual initiative to make suggestions for improvement in the agency were usually rejected by arrogant self-worshipping managers and agency officials who thought they know everything, and we the peon rank-and-file employees know nothing. Even if ideas were "wrong" in substance, the truly demoralizing rudity was that I was not even thanked for my initiatives and concerns. I was often sternly reprimanded by bosses for having the temerity to think for myself. Little did they understand that citicism of the present status quo is a golden opportunity for improvement in disguise, and we must think not only of ourselves at the present, but of future succeeding generations of workers coming after us.
I married Lidia Bertha Aguilar-Marin from Bolivia in Darnestown at the Poplar Grove Baptist Church on December 19, 1992. We moved into our present home shortly afterwards. Our first and only child, daughter Eva Keeney Marsh, was born to us October 11, 1993, at the Rockville Seventh Day Adventist Hospital. My mother passed into eternity in May of 1993, one day just before Mother's Day. My father did likewise on November 5, 1995, just three weeks shy of his 81st. birthday. It was sad to lose my parents, but it was well for me to start a new chapter of my life. We now live in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Today, I look back on my childhood and teen-age years with some degree of fondness, but admit if I had them to do over now, there are a few things I would not have done. Most notably, I would not have tried to succeed in the sports world. Why waste my time on an endeavor in which I have no talent? Also, I would not have taken certain academic courses, had I had the prerogative in my hand--most notably, math and science courses. To be sure, my teachers of those subjects were extraordinarily nice people, per se! Still, God does not endow all of us with equal physical and mental gifts, or even with equal levels of intellectual acumen. I doubt, too, that my math and science teachers could even have begun to play a musical instrument at the level which I play the cello, nor could they begin to tackle the mastery of a foreign language completely strange to English. In one word, Dr. Know-It-All is simply not out there! Still, it must be the goal of the education establishment to change the attitude of American youth towards education: we want students coming to school because they eagerly want to learn, rather than because they have to learn: school must not be a substitute for prison.
Were I to have time and resources to do so, I could write a book on my life a thousand pages long, recording some very humorous events and others not so humorous. But it stands well worth to say that some school subjects, while a dreadful bore in class at the time, may take on an unexpectedly strong relevance later in adult life. Such is the case of my experience with U.S. History. Today, now that America is re-evaluating itself with much intensity, the topic of America's past history is very interestingly controversial as it never was before. Especially captivating in American life is fascination with the American Civil War experience, it was a defining turning-point in America's history which demands further re-evaluation today.
Finally, I cannot close out this commentary on my past, without appropriate commentary on my view of the future. I am very confident that Americans will always make great advances in science and technologies, but fear a concommitant decline in morality because of unwise applications of new inventions and discoveries. Yes, Satan the devil also loves to go to school! For the future, my largest concern lies also rooted in the past: Will we ever have equal justice under law for all, as the words in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building boast? We have rarely, if ever, had it before. (See my BLOG article, "The U.S. Supreme Court Not So Very Supreme"). To date, some people have enjoyed great liberty at the cost of heavy sacrifice from many others. Tomorrow, when freedom finally rings throughout the land, will both poet and peasant hear it equally? Will they be allowed to do so?
-LKM
My father was a plant scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and my mother was a public schools music teacher. My father was born in Niagara Falls New York on November 21, 1914, and my mother was born in Mallard, Iowa on November 29, 1913. For one year after my birth, we lived in Washington D.C. at 3115 Newton Street N.E. just across the District line from Mt. Ranier, Maryland. Then, our family moved to 9509 50th Avenue in College Park, MD, where we lived until 1957.
I remember my childhood neighborhood well. I knew most of our neighbors, and often played with them. I also remember all of my elementary school teachers, and most--but not all--of my junior- and senior-high school teachers. (See my BLOG article on LKM school days recollections.)
I grew up in a musical family: My father played the clarinet, my mother and sister played the violin, and I played the violoncello, even as I still do until today. I arrived at cello as my instrument of choice by process of elimination: I did attempt to play brass-wind instruments, but gave them up because I was always getting pimples and boils on my mouth which disabled me to play. At age five, I had started to play the piano, but also gave that up because my little hands at the time simply could not make th reaches on the key-board which most music demanded of me. The cello became my instrument of choice because it is physically the most comfortable to play, and has a very pleasing tone quality if played in the hands of expert artists. Still, I wish to this day I had begun to play piano when my hands grew bigger, and had taken lessons on it to play it, side-by-side with cello. On Saturday evenings, we would often gather together as a family to play chamber music together, rather than to watch television. My musical activities, as I recall, made me extremely "culturally incorrect" (as a parallel to "politically incorrect") in the opinion of my contemporary peers, and I remember a sense of chagrin and embarrassment to let them know of my cultural predilections. Nevertheless, I so valued my musical life that I personally did not regret it then and do not regret it now. As a family, we did much over a period of several years, to bring into existence an all Prince George's County High School orchestra, this being largely thanks to my mother's position as a music teacher in the county schools. This genre of music, I felt, and still feel today, is definitely superior in quality to the latest "pop-culture" music. This latter is transient, here today and gone tomorrow; but the names of great Classical music composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and many others who lived between 1700 and 1900 live in immortality. So despite my extreme unpopularity among my peers, I had and still have the cultural better half! Today, I wear my badges of "political incorrectness" and "cultural incorrectness" with honor and pride. Politically incorrect and proud of it!
I remember well my four excellent cello teachers: William Stokking Jr., John Martin, Leopold Teraspulsky, and Mihaly Virizlay. I recall liking Mr. Teraspulsky the best because he did not smoke, and thus never smoked during my lessons with him. All four were excellent cellists and teachers per se; however, I did find the smoking habit of the other three most disconcerting, as I was raised as a non-smoker, and now the medical community knows it possible to contract smokers' diseases from second-hand exposure to smokers' smoke. I believe at least two of my four former teachers are now dead because of diseases linked to long-term smoking.
Bill Stokking was my teacher from age eight until I entered junior high school. At the time, he played in the Navy band orchestra, later moving on to become principle cellist in the Cleveland and Philadelphia Orchestras. Sometimes, he would frighten me by telling me at my lessons that unless I played my lessons exactly as he demanded, he was going to "wrap that music stand around my neck". But Dutch-uncle Bill was still a lot of fun, as he often told tall tales in the which he always made himself out to be the hero! Despite his fast temper, he still had a great sense of humor to go with it. Then came my second teacher, John Martin, principle cellist of the National Symphony. He was much more of a gentleman, more easy-going, and I appreciated that! He was my teacher from the start of my junior high school days, until I graduated from high school. To this day, I always remember his immortal comment on my performance at my lessons: "That was nice for a warm-up; now, let's play it!" By that, he meant to say my playing lacked artistic expression, despite it being technically flawless. My third teacher, Leopold Teraspulsky, was at Indiana University Music School. I studied with him only two of the four years I was at Indiana University, and this was a distinctly disappointing experience. I had wanted to study with him for all four of my years at Indiana University, but I withdrew from the Music School after my sophomore year and returned to major in my foreign language studies in the College of Arts and Sciences simply because the Music School was greatly over-crowded and thus it was well-nigh impossible to get time to rehearse in the school practice rooms. All the cello faculty was great, and I felt guilty that I could not give them the practice-time in preparation of my lessons that they truly deserved. I temporarily took a hiatus-break from my cello, but returned to it in 1974, when I studied with my fourth teacher--Mihaly Virizlay--at the George Peabody Music Conservatory of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. This I did until 1980, when tuition for lessons became simply too expensive for my budget. I remember Mr. Virizlay as being an excellent teacher, when he taught! But the point here is that he often ran out on me, skipping out on lessons obligations to me in favor of concertizing in order to glorify and deify his own personal repute. He was one of the most conceited persons I have ever met: if he heard a clap of thunder, he would walk over to the window and take a bow! In all, I had 18 years of formally-structured cello education, and still continue to learn today by listening to CDs of the great cellists of the past to play, as well as to the performances of contemporary cellist colleagues.
Later in 1957, our family moved to Beltsville, and lived at 4203 Wicomico Avenue. I went to Buck Lodge Jr. High School in Adelphi, Maryland in grades 7 and 8, while Beltsville Junior High School, just at the end of our street, was under construction. I transferred to it at the beginning of the 9th grade.
I recall generally hating my years in junior and senior high school, they were sad and demoralizing because the Education Establishment had mandated me to take certain courses, ostensibly "for my own good", on compulsory basis. I also felt socially rejected because for all my gargantuan efforts, I was no good at sports, whereas our society at large glorifies and even deifies its athletes. I strongly felt at the time, especially as a member of the male sex, that being a smash success in sports is the only possible avenue to popularity and social acceptance. Given my failure in that endeavor, and culturally-incorrect involvement in musical endeavors, I sadly wrote off a priori all social life in my teenage years, feeling sure no woman in her right mind would care to be seen in my company. This factor was extremely damaging to my social development, and accounts for the fact that I postponed marriage until age 46, and that to a woman of foreign origin who herself gives no popular assent to the sports world. I do not harbor any ill will against my former class-mates, concerning my "culturally-incorrect" relation to them as a musician: they had no mean-spirited hate of me per se; rather, in their cultural ignorance of my musical endeavors, they just did not "get it". Indeed, the genre of music I play on my cello was never composed for consumption of the masses of common people. Rather, it was meant for the consumption of Europe's upper-crust socio-political elite at the time.
Academically, I always did reasonably well in both high school and college, always on the honor roll--but not at the very top of my class. In addition, while in high school, I was very busy with extra-curricular activities: I ran cross-country and track-and-field. I also took private lessons on my cello and in the Russian language, in addition to playing in the all Prince George's County High School orchestra. In my senior year, in addition to college entrance exams on my high school subjects, I also took the Russian language exam. Out of all my exams, I made the best score on my Russian exam, something which made school teachers and officials angry at me instead of pleased, to see me take academic initiative of my own.
My college years were much happier than my public school years, insofar as I was studying what I wanted to study, rather than what I was forced to study against my will. I will always say that the truly successful teacher is the one who inspires his/her students to continue study of his/her subject long after they leave his/her class-room. That describes my private teachers but a small number of my public school teachers. I went to college at Indiana University from 1964-1968, graduating from there with a B.A. degree in Middle Eastern studies. I also took cello lessons from the university's music school while there. I continued on for an M.A. degree at University of California Los Angeles, from January 1969 until June 1971. For the most part, my college years were much happier than were my junior- and senior high school years because my chosen academic endeavors in college were highly respectable in those institutions: not so in junior and senior high school. I temporarily discontinued my cello studies while at U.C.L.A., but later resumed them after graduation as I continued them at the George Peabody Music School of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, 1974-1980. I can truthfully say that my cello has been and still is an invaluable and irreplacable joy of my life. I would not trade the experience for any other riches of this world and this life. My cello is a rare find: made in Cremona, Italy in the year 1684, it is now worth about half the value of my house.
In 1968, our family moved within Beltsville from 4203 Wicomico Avcnue to 11105 Emack Road. When not in college, between academic sessions, I lived with my parents until starting government employment with the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency on June 21, 1976.
In my government career, I served as a geographic names specialist serving two government entities simultaneously: the Defense Mapping Agency and the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. Our work was primarily in service to the military, but secondarily was in service throughout the entire civilian government as well: our job is to standardize geographic names and thus end confusion as to their correct spellings, as encountered on various diverse maps and in other geographic publications. I felt greatly honored to serve my country, but found the supervisory managers to be quite demoralizing insofar as they managed the work-force negatively by heavy-handed fear and coercion, rather than positively through inspirational leadership and encouragement. They had not a clue about smooth inter-personal relationships; they were fine managers of information, but were anything but excellent leaders of people. As I review my overall career experience with the government, I would not say it was altogether a failure, there were some good times to be had. The pay and side benefits were also excellent, I had no complaint about those, until after taxes! Overall, I give the thirty-year experience a grade of "C". Perhaps the most demoralizing aspect of the experience was that my individual initiative to make suggestions for improvement in the agency were usually rejected by arrogant self-worshipping managers and agency officials who thought they know everything, and we the peon rank-and-file employees know nothing. Even if ideas were "wrong" in substance, the truly demoralizing rudity was that I was not even thanked for my initiatives and concerns. I was often sternly reprimanded by bosses for having the temerity to think for myself. Little did they understand that citicism of the present status quo is a golden opportunity for improvement in disguise, and we must think not only of ourselves at the present, but of future succeeding generations of workers coming after us.
I married Lidia Bertha Aguilar-Marin from Bolivia in Darnestown at the Poplar Grove Baptist Church on December 19, 1992. We moved into our present home shortly afterwards. Our first and only child, daughter Eva Keeney Marsh, was born to us October 11, 1993, at the Rockville Seventh Day Adventist Hospital. My mother passed into eternity in May of 1993, one day just before Mother's Day. My father did likewise on November 5, 1995, just three weeks shy of his 81st. birthday. It was sad to lose my parents, but it was well for me to start a new chapter of my life. We now live in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Today, I look back on my childhood and teen-age years with some degree of fondness, but admit if I had them to do over now, there are a few things I would not have done. Most notably, I would not have tried to succeed in the sports world. Why waste my time on an endeavor in which I have no talent? Also, I would not have taken certain academic courses, had I had the prerogative in my hand--most notably, math and science courses. To be sure, my teachers of those subjects were extraordinarily nice people, per se! Still, God does not endow all of us with equal physical and mental gifts, or even with equal levels of intellectual acumen. I doubt, too, that my math and science teachers could even have begun to play a musical instrument at the level which I play the cello, nor could they begin to tackle the mastery of a foreign language completely strange to English. In one word, Dr. Know-It-All is simply not out there! Still, it must be the goal of the education establishment to change the attitude of American youth towards education: we want students coming to school because they eagerly want to learn, rather than because they have to learn: school must not be a substitute for prison.
Were I to have time and resources to do so, I could write a book on my life a thousand pages long, recording some very humorous events and others not so humorous. But it stands well worth to say that some school subjects, while a dreadful bore in class at the time, may take on an unexpectedly strong relevance later in adult life. Such is the case of my experience with U.S. History. Today, now that America is re-evaluating itself with much intensity, the topic of America's past history is very interestingly controversial as it never was before. Especially captivating in American life is fascination with the American Civil War experience, it was a defining turning-point in America's history which demands further re-evaluation today.
Finally, I cannot close out this commentary on my past, without appropriate commentary on my view of the future. I am very confident that Americans will always make great advances in science and technologies, but fear a concommitant decline in morality because of unwise applications of new inventions and discoveries. Yes, Satan the devil also loves to go to school! For the future, my largest concern lies also rooted in the past: Will we ever have equal justice under law for all, as the words in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building boast? We have rarely, if ever, had it before. (See my BLOG article, "The U.S. Supreme Court Not So Very Supreme"). To date, some people have enjoyed great liberty at the cost of heavy sacrifice from many others. Tomorrow, when freedom finally rings throughout the land, will both poet and peasant hear it equally? Will they be allowed to do so?
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
