Item: When my husband went on Medicare, we assumed our insurance costs, now being footed by the U.S. Government, would go down. Shouldn't they? They went UP. It costs us more to be covered by Medicare than by our private insurance alone. Who do you think receives the extra money?
Item: We saw on the news last week that if a patient comes in complaining of having fainted, Medicare pays "only" $7,000 to the health care provider. This low figure has been tempting some health care organizations to instruct their doctors not to call if fainting, but to call it central nervous system something-or-other, because that diagnosis brings in many times more dollars from Medicare.
Fainting is a complaint my husband says can be resolved in less than half an hour at a cost of perhaps $50 to the doctor or practice.
WHO PAYS SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for a fainting fit? You? Forget it. Your private health care insurance? Dream on. Only the U.S. Government.
And why? I defy you to make any sense of it without saying it involves corruption. The answer is, a lot of congressional somebodies are being paid a lot of money to funnel these kinds of dollars to doctors and hospitals.
ITEM: When my husband had his carotid artery operated on in March of this year, he spent one night in the hospital. The hospital's charge for this (not to be confounded with the doctors' charges, which are separate things) was $5,830.00. For one night. Without any particularly complicated care, as all went smoothly enough for him to be discharged the following morning. Medicare paid $3,000, which is still outrageous. And the remainder? The hospital, we were told, would write it off. Meaning it would receive $3,000 but, come tax time, claim a $2,830 loss.
The truth is, a major part of why the cost of health care in this country is so high is the federal government's corrupt involvement in it. Therefore the probability is, we would all, from infants to seniors, have been better off had there never been a Medicare. So yes, in that sense, I am against Medicare.
Does that mean I'm in favor of just dropping it? No, definitely not, because that would leave seniors, largely on a fixed income, defenseless in a sea of sharks. It ought to be dropped, yes, but only in the context of an overall reform in the American health care system. A real reform, I mean, not Obamacare. A reform in which medical charges bear some resemblance to actual costs, in which profits are not outrageous or extortionate, in which doctors and hospitals and pharmacies are paid directly by the patients, without any price-gougers interposing themselves between and dictating treatments. A reform brought about carefully, thoughtfully, and gradually.
We'd all pay less, seniors included, seniors especially.
Oh, and we'd also be living more nearly by the Constitution, which does not accord the federal government the power to set up or administer a program like Medicare.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Item: When my husband went on Medicare, we assumed our insurance costs, now being footed by the U.S. Government, would go down. Shouldn't they? They went UP. It costs us more to be covered by Medicare than by our private insurance alone. Who do you think receives the extra money?
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:37 PM
By the Twelfth Day of Christmas, according to the carol, how many birds had my true love given me?
May the remaining 8 Days of Christmas be very merry for you and yours!
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 8:40 PM
Friday, December 23, 2011
1.) Blue Christmas
Too whiney, not at all in the right spirit.
2.) Feliz Navidad
Annoying tune, plus it tends to get stuck in the brain.
3.) Minor Alterations II
by David Lovrein, heard on NPR. A medley of seasonal songs transposed from major into minor keys that gives the distinct feeling Christmas is being mocked. (That's a feeling NPR conveys in various ways every year.) I wonder how the arranger would feel if someone transposed Hannukah songs into major keys and made them sound like Christmas carols.
1.) Hark, the Herald Angels
Retains all the Christmas theology, expressed in rich paradox. He is born that we may no longer die, He is born once that we may be born twice, etc.
2.) Adeste, Fideles
Because of an event in my life with which I associate it, but that's a story for another day.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:19 PM
Often at this time of year, when we hear so much about angels, I think of my Guardian Angel, who has actually spoken with me, twice. Aloud, I mean, so anyone could have heard.
That was back in the time I didn’t even believe in guardian angels, or in angels generally. I did sometimes go to the Greek church, but although my angel helped change this, I wasn’t planning to become Orthodox.
What I had tumbled to was that my then-husband’s new “best friend”, who went by the alias of George Homewood, was a con artist. Not that we had any money to speak of; we were very poor, but my mother-in-law had just died and left us a little something for a rainy day. My husband wanted to scrape together and give his "friend" what for us was a huge amount, including my next paycheck.
“George” had a plan (don’t they all!). He had invented a solar food dehydrator. Because it was inexpensive to use and could preserve food, it would be the salvation of the starving poor all around the world. He had already produced it once, spending his entire, vast fortune to distribute it as widely as he could when he had been a missionary in the Philippines. As a result of his over-generosity, he now found himself in need. (Here it comes.) He needed money to begin manufacturing his device again. But this time, having learned his lesson the hard way, he had developed a plan for selling it that would make him – and us, of course – fabulously rich at the same time it helped the starving poor. Oh, and by the way, he also needed some funds for food and a few other necessities, in the meanwhile. Just to keep him going in the short run.
When the realization came crashing down on me that this had all the marks of a scam, I tried to discuss it with my husband, but this possibility was too difficult for him to admit.
So I saw I would have to prove my point, and quickly, before everything we had should go to George Homewood. I took the next day off from work and spent it in my cubicle anyway, and the first thing I thought I ought to do was ask for help from the police, and that’s when I spoke, over the telephone, to my Guardian Angel.
I dialed the regular non-emergency police number and said to whoever answered (the Desk Sergeant, if TV police shows are to be believed?), “I think my husband is being conned, and I need some help to prove it.”
“Just a moment,” said the man, “and I’ll transfer you to Tel Com.” I assumed that was short for Telephone Communications. Anyway, my Guardian Angel came on the line, although at the time I just imagined her as a very large, black woman, from her voice. “This is Officer Childs,” she said.
I had my legal pad and pen ready. “Is that C-h-i-l-d-s?” I asked. She said it was and I wrote it down beside the police phone number.
“I think my husband is being conned,” I told her, and then provided a few details.
“Honey, I’ve been in pursuit of justice for a long, long time, and I can tell you this definitely is a scam. No question. But what you need to do,” she said, gently, “is talk to your husband. Cain’t you talk to him?”
“I’ve tried, but it doesn’t work. He won’t hear it; he just gets mad."
"Listen, you've got to quit playing the avenging angel [how did she know?]and play the victim instead, because that's what you really are in this situation."
"I'll try, but can’t you give me some sort of ammunition, some facts, maybe some criminal record?”
“Well, I’m not really supposed to be doing that sort of thing. But you give me half an hour, and I will call you back.”
Half an hour later, she did phone me back. “What have you got?” I asked.
“He was never a missionary in the Philippines or anywhere else. He isn’t a Mormon, either. Nor a Navy chaplain. His degree in theology is fake and he’s no lawyer. Never even studied law. He was in prison during the time he said he was in the Philippines. You got a pen handy? His date of birth -”
“Thank you! I don't think I'll need need to know his birth date!”
“Yes, you will. You write this down.” So I did.
If I wanted to learn more, she suggested, I should go down to the Courthouse and inquire.
“Okay,” I said, “thank you, thank you, thank you! I’ll check it all out.”
“And when you’ve finished,” she said, “and it’s all over, I want you to call me back at this same number and tell me. Promise.”
Of course I promised! It felt like some sort of a secret pact between us. And I kept my promise, too, or tried to.
First item on the agenda, according to her, was to get all our finances safely under my sole control: bank account, mutual fund, insurance. That took most of the day.
Then, with the help of a private detective, I methodically checked everything she had told me. I called the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and they said they didn’t have any such person in their records. But how old was he at the time? Because they didn’t sent out missionaries older than 25. I had my Dad, who worked at the Pentagon, confirm that George was not a Navy Chaplain. The law college George claimed to have attended turned out to be a correspondence school. He had registered, but never even completed the first course. His theology degree was from a basement diploma mill in California; write your dissertation in 50 words or less on Why Religious Freedom is Important and enclose $25, or $35 if you want your diploma mounted in a handsome frame. I telephoned various prisons nearby and said I needed to confirm the dates of the incarceration and the nature of the charges. The charges were always fraud and/or passing bad checks. One man I spoke to said, “Oh, yes, I remember him. He was quite a piece of work! He used to take on legal cases for the other inmates, cheap rates.”
A week or so later, when I had gathered all my evidence, including photos of the man in prison, and when the big fight was over, and when George had disappeared on a “business trip” to the Philippines, with all our luggage but without any more of our money, I called the police station and asked how to get a flower arrangement to Officer Childs.
There is no such person working here, I was informed.
“Yes, there is! I spoke to her last Monday!”
“Well, has she quit or been transferred since then?”
“No ma’am, there never was anybody by that name working here.”
“She’s in Tel Com!”
No, she wasn’t. “The only female officers working in Telcom are Officers Evans and Jones.”
“Is one of them black?” Officer Childs had had a distinctly black timbre to her voice.
“No, ma’am, both white.”
The private detective who had helped me follow Officer Childs' leads now tried to solve this new mystery, out of pure personal interest. Maybe someone had given me a pseudonym? But why? He tried every branch of law enforcement: city police, county police, sheriff. But he never solved the mystery. Officer Childs just didn’t exist.
Except that she had given me valuable information, and everything she had told me had proven true. She had given me courage, saved some of our precious little nest egg, and given our badly battered marriage another chance (even though, in the end, it still failed).
Oh, and everyone I had spoken to, every single one of them, had required George Homewood’s date of birth when looking him up.
It was the Greek priest who exclaimed, “My God, have you been talking with your guardian angel, or what?” And I looked at him for a long moment before I finally said, "Yes," with wonder in my voice. "Yes, I have.” Yes, just as almost everybody else including me has given up such quaint and curious beliefs, I told him, I find out this is one thing you have got right after all.
Glory to God, and fervent thanks to you, my own dear Guardian Angel! (Were you among those who sang Christ’s birth?)
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 12:13 AM
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Superego, of course, is a concept of Freud’s. It is often made synonymous with “conscience”. The superego is basically an image you have of Who You Are Supposed To Be. This image can be inculcated into you by your parents, your teachers, your religious leaders, and/or can even be constructed by yourself. Wherever it has come from, your heart has accepted it as your ideal.
The trouble is, that’s not who you really are, nor can be. You can’t live up to this ideal. And whenever you don’t, you feel pangs of remorse; you feel guilty and like kicking yourself, because you think you are supposed to be this other thing and you find you aren’t. It’s this phenomenon that gives rise to the “terrors of conscience”, the conviction that in all justice, you ought to be punished.
It happens all the time. I once knew a pious Catholic man who went off to a monastery to become a monk and came back six months later saying, “They wanted me to be someone I’m just not and I couldn’t do it.” He couldn’t be someone’s concept of the Ideal Monk. For him, perhaps that meant defeat, or perhaps it meant liberation, as it should for us. Because – take heart! – in reality, this is a mistake our hearts have made in accepting something not me as “Who I am Supposed To Be”.
Yes, it’s all a mistake. The superego is an artificial construct. Your true conscience is the Image of God within you that protests every time it is violated. Its reaction is sorrow, not guilt.
And you are not meant to be what you cannot be, nor to live up to any ideal. You are not meant to be anybody other than who you are.
And who is that? That’s YOU! You are a unique someone created in the Image of God. You are someone in whom that Image has become tarnished and battered. You are someone in whom God means to refurbish His image and make it brighter than ever.
That Image is the Image of His Son. And it’s not just another form of superego, either, because you aren’t supposed to be Jesus Christ, now or ever; you’re just supposed to try to keep faith with Him as He does His work in you, transfiguring you into your best self, your true self, which is to say, into a glorious but still unique member of Himself, living the life of the Holy Trinity. You are the raw material He takes and deifies.
And unlike the superego, this Image, not merely existing in your head, but as a facet of your own being, is non-threatening. This is the Image of the Creator of all the Galaxies, yes, but Who graciously condescends to be born as a helpless babe in a stable. This is the One Whom all the heavens could not contain, consenting to be wrapped in a human womb for nine months. This is the Timeless One, entering into time, the Immortal One, willing to be killed, the Judge of us all, which sounds so threatening, yet so meek is this Judge that He allows us to judge Him!
It’s the judgment we make of Him that ultimately will reveal most profoundly who we really are. Do you really, really, deep down, want Him or not? His dread Judgment will be:
to reveal this to you
and then to give you what you want
and to let you be who you want to be.
The hopes and fears
Of all the years
Are met in Him tonight.
May you have a very merry and blessed Christmas!
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 5:15 PM
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 12:16 PM
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
There's a program on pulic television airing as I type, explaining why Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have more "commonalities" than differences. Really they are three versions of the same thing with slightly different wrinkles. They all do worship the same God, after all.
Wait, wait - Muslims and Jews have begun to worship the Holy Trinity???
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 8:20 PM
Monday, December 19, 2011
We had a wonderful discussion Saturday night with a group of friends from church, and the subject arose of how it very much appears the Orthodox Church has some sort of a grudge against women. This appearance kept me away from the Church for a while. Consider: women are not allowed to go into the altar. Women in some jurisdictions are asked not to receive Holy Communion during their menstrual periods. And it does seem there are an awfully lot of women saints who before their repentance were prostitutes! Women are not ordained priests, either.
Eventually I figured out that appearances do not add up to any imagined mysogyny, hatred of women. I was treated with great respect, and so were the other women I observed. There must be some other reasons behind these practices.
Going Behind the Altar
The truth is, nobody of either sex is allowed behind the altar screen unless he or she has some legitimate duty to perform there. Men don't usually know this, but they are also not supposed to be there without a blessing from the priest. Women don't usually realize it, but any cleaning lady can tell you she regularly goes there to vacuum and dust and clean up the wax.
Not Reciving Holy Communion During Your Period
This is a pious practice in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church (e.g., Greek); others (e.g., OCA) think it perhaps a bit over the top. Certainly it is not a dogma of the Church that a woman must not receive Holy Communion while she is menstruating.
The truth is, men aren't supposed to receive Holy Communion, either, if they have any significant bleeding. The reason, for men and women alike, is, of course, you are receiving the true Blood of Christ and you want to treat it more reverently than to let it seep out of you in undignified ways.
Obviously, men dying on battlefields and dying women, bleeding from anywhere, do receive Holy Communion. The Church exercises wisom and compassion when an exception to the rule seem more likely than the rule itself to support a person's salvation.
Yes, there are a lot of those in our Tradition! St. Mary of Egypt comes to mind, and the woman who anointed Christ's feet with oil, and the Hymn of Cassiani. Prostitutes are featured so often because sexual sin is such a big problem for human beings. It's also to encourage us, because when we see them forgiven, we understand that so can we be forgiven.
We also note that several people infamous for sexual sin are listed among the Ancestors of Christ in Matthew's Gospel. We have Tamar who had become pregnant by someone not her husband (Genesis 38); we have Solomon, whom King David begat by the wife he had stolen from Uriah (and had Uriah killed in the process); we have Booz, son of Rachab the, um, yes, prostitute. Sinners and scoundrels, yet here they are, made worthy to be accounted Ancestors of God-in-the-Flesh; and as the priest in Fort Wayne once told us, if they could make it, there's hope for all of us!
But guess what? Tradition has at least as many stories of fornicating monks as it does of wayward women!
And when Christ saved the woman caught in the act of adultery, what did He say to the men standing all around ready to stone her? If any of you is without sin, cast the first stone. So He taught them they were not better than she.
Women Excluded from Priesthood
This is a long, complicated topic, but perhaps we can summarize it here. The first thing to understand is that in Orthodox Christianity, "priest" does not equal "leader". Our leaders are men and women who are exceptionally Christlike. The office of priest is that of a servant to the servants of God; where it is adequately understood that we really mean this, it isn't just a matter of words, few feminists will covet the role.
There is no higher status accorded priests; instead, there is a special function, for the sake of which we show a priest respect. That function is to be the living icon of Christ, both inwardly and outwardly, for liturgical purposes. Christ Himself sends the Holy Spirit upon the waters of Baptism or into the bread and wine of Holy Communion, or into the oil for Unction; ministering alongside the Lord is the priest, doing the visible counterparts of what Christ is doing invisibly and being His visible counterpart.
The priest's functions, although indispensible, are not the highest ones in the Divine Liturgy; receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is the most important function, and it is no less available to women than to men.
In short, the Orthodox Church, recognizing that the sexes are not alike (and vive la difference!) has different roles for each, but not different statuses, because in Christ there is no inequality between male and female.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 4:30 PM
Bats are so intelligent that some scientists consider them primates, like gorillas and chimps, or at least very closely akin to them. They are warm, furry, very smart, loveable creatures.
They are susceptibble to rabies. One in every 200 bats, on average, has or carries it. For that reason, I'd like to point out that normally, bats are handled with GLOVES! This may be considered an exception because (1) the baby is from a zoo, where it is known his parents were healthy and (2) this is a very young baby, without teeth (and too young to be terribly fearful of humans, anyway).
I hope you enjoy this darling little video.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 3:34 PM
Saturday, December 17, 2011
"It means you believe something is true," replied Erin.
Sydney burst into tears. "Oh, NO!" (You have to 'hear' the rest in a Southern accent.) "I messed up! I REALLY messed up!"
"Why, what did you do?"
"I told my teacher and my whole class I did NOT accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior!"
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 1:17 PM
|This was Earlier this Summer; Below is|
a very recent one of Jackson. Sydney is
so Thrilled with her Little Brother she
has Been Asking Mom and Dad for Another!
|On the First Anniversary of the Day|
Jackson First Came to Us
|Kelly and Her Brothers at Hallowe'en. Kelly is the|
Goddess Athena. Connor and Ryan are Transformers.
I don't have a recent shot that shows their handsome faces!
|Kelly Having Tea at Biltmore House in North Carolina (Vanderbilt |
Mansion) and Trying to Look Like a Flapper.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 1:03 PM
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your views on funding priorities within the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. [Funding priorities were not my issue, but of course this is a form letter.]
We have placed great demands on our military in recent years, and the Department of Defense must be granted the necessary budgetary authority to fund essential and effective defense programs while also ensuring that our armed forces are properly equipped, cared for and compensated. For that reason, on December 1, 2012, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 (S. 1867) 93-7, with my support.
As we consider legislation during this time of fiscal strain, I believe it is important to consider that the ability of our country to field well-trained, fully-resourced and combat-capable military forces is dependent on a healthy, functioning economy. I recognize that addressing our debt and deficit challenges will not be easy; however, I believe it is imperative that we continue to engage in a civil and open debate as to what we need and what we can afford. This will require tough choices, but I believe that addressing our debt and deficit is too important for Congress to put off any longer.
Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 1:20 AM
Friday, December 16, 2011
The decision, because of being so unpopular, was changed. Instead of quarantining the ship, each and every cabin would be thoroughly searched - and fumigated. That's when I really did tearfully toss Gelati overboard. I was relieved, but my parents were more upset than ever.
I could well understand their distress and fury, but it wasn't until decades later I found out the real source of it. My parents were smuggling alcohol in their luggage!
At least that was my understanding until a few days ago, until Thanksgiving.
"No," said Mom. "We didn't have anything in our luggage. We weren't smuggling liquor; YOU were!"
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 12:02 PM
Anyway, if Beethoven happens to be your favorite composer, too, or at least one of them, he was born on this day in 1770, so that makes it, um, let's see, 241 years ago. (?)
So Happy Beethoven's Birthday to you!
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 10:50 AM
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in
their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 5:34 AM
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 6:25 PM
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 6:01 PM
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
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.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 12:14 PM
No, I don't have any voice recognition or any text-to-voice software on this computer. It's true that my finger had slipped while typing that sentence, but I can't imagine what I could have pressed that would cause this to happen.
(No, I do not "hear vocies"!)
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:02 AM
or, Liberty and Security are not Mutally Exclusive
This man is the author of several articles about the anti-American, unconstitutional provisions of the current National Defense Authorization Act. Read the first one here and then, if you care to, follow links.
The President has just withdrawn his threat to veto this bill. He says certain changes have now made it acceptable. They haven't. The major change is that if your innocent little self is arrested as a terrorist suspect, the power to waive the non-existent charges is now assigned to the President instead of to the Secretary of Defense. After today, would you trust this president to do that for you?
Consider carefully from now on what you say on Facebook or Twitter or on your blog. I can't believe I'm saying this. In America.
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 8:14 AM
In the coming election, it appears we are going to have some pretty rotten choices. Mitt Romney’s record as head of Bain Capital is at best morally mixed; google it. Newt Gingrich’s record on several things is at best morally mixed. Barack Obama has done nothing whatever to correct the policies of torture or rendition, nothing substantive to correct our broken health care system, nothing to curb our insane drive to secure and consolidate American control of the whole world. (When I was growing up, such an ambition was considered criminal, was associated with Hitler, and was consistently foiled by the likes of Batman or Superman or even – if memory serves, which it doesn’t always – James Bond.) Ron Paul so far appears at least an honest man, to support whom would not be morally objectionable – so far as I know now. Should he be elected (and contrary to popular perception, he is indeed electable), I think we'll still be safe from his more radical ideas, which will remain just that, ideas, because they will be non-starters in Congress.
But if he is not the Republican nominee and we end up having to choose between two crooks, there is another choice, albeit also a flawed one. And that is not to vote at all.
I was brought up to believe, and I still believe, that to vote is my duty as an American citizen, an exercise of a precious right. But that belief presupposes there will be at least one honest candidate. What if there isn't? I'm amazed how many people think a morally bankrupt candidate is in any way qualified to be President of the United States.
If there is no honest candidate, I believe my duty then is to withhold my vote, to refuse to put my support behind any of these white-collar gangsters. (And I do not believe myself qualified to decide which is the worse or which the better. It's like asking whether stealing is worse than lying, or whether avarice is better than lust.)
Would withholding my vote do any good? Probably not. (But if voting won't, either, so what?) On the other hand, just maybe it will. If a certain high percentage of all registered voters don’t vote, then the legitimacy of the election will be in question, which is a good thing. It at least registers our discontent.
As far as I can recall, there is no write-in option on Virginia ballots. But maybe I could just not punch out any of the holes, and write in ink across my ballot, “None of the above”. A lot of people doing that, or writing it in, would also send a message.
Perhaps this would be the least wrong of the available options.
UPDATE: Someone who voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 presidential race has reminded me that a candidate does NOT have to be his or her party's nominee to appear on the ballot, at least in Virginia. Probably everywhere??
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 2:06 AM
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Today I went to the pharmacy to renew a prescription, and while I was there, I inquired about the price of those pills for which, in Greece, without insurance, I paid $2.34 for a month's supply. Here, without insurance, a month's worth of the brand as opposed to the generic version costs $27.99. That's almost 12 times more! (Okay, it's 11.96 times more.)
I don't think my health insurance company pays a cent. Simply the manufacturer "accepts" my $15 co-pay, which, figuring in the pharmacist's profit, is still six or seven times what the manufacturer could profitably sell it for. The drug company accepts 7 times what the pills are worth instead of 12 times. And the health insurance company keeps on charging me for this kind of coverage.
Call it "protection" instead of "coverage" and it begins to smack of racketeering, doesn't it? Pay up or else.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:21 PM
I am not, or at least not yet, a convinced supporter of Ron Paul, but as I've said before (and will explain in more detail another time) I am unable to consider any of the others. John, over at Ad Orientem, has expressed my thoughts on this candidate very well.
This video is educational and sobering and well worth your attention.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 7:47 PM
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Anyway, Clyde's hobby was playing bit parts in movies and TV. His all-time "big" role was a one-liner in Hawaii Five-O. Here he is with the then star of that series, Tom Selleck.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 3:58 PM
Monday, December 12, 2011
Still haven't gotten everything straight with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, either. Our letter reached the Commissioner Monday. If we get no satisfactory results, our representative to the State Legislature will receive the next one...
Once we stopped to think about it, we thought it ought to be rather embarrassing to have someone break into your home and not find anything worth stealing! (The DVR didn't belong to us, but to our tv/phone/internet provider.) Oh, well, too busy to feel embarrassed.
It was announced yesterday that our assistant priest will re re-assigned as of 01 January; such short notice! I do hope our Bishop Evangelios will assign us another one very soon!
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 2:30 PM
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Congress has just passed a bill that, if if becomes law, will take away all your rights if you are ever accused of having anything to do with terrorism. Of course you are no terrorist, and would rather die than support any terrorist, so you aren't worried, right? You should be. Because it doesn't matter if such a charge is flat-out, obviously ridiculous and outrageous and you have totally been framed; you won't have a chance to defend yourself in a civilian court. And you may be incarcerated by the military without any charges indefinitely.
PLEASE READ THIS.
P.S. It will be instructive to see whether Mr. Obama will veto this legislation. Don't count on it. Letters to him might be useful, though.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 1:00 AM
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Several years ago, when Vladimir Putin was visiting the United States, we were listening to The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS when Mr. Lehrer
Who has the power to deny Putin access even just to the whole American press - as in censorship, as in unconstitutional - much less deny him access to all the international, Western news media?????
And not only who, but how? How is it managed?
And in what other ways may somebody or somebodies be controlling/manipulating the entire Western press?
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 3:39 PM
But the tipping point, Fr. John says, was something else. Check out his blog.In the final analysis, however, I would boil all the differences down to these main points:
- The Church is not a Platonic Republic (i.e., intrinsically or primarily invisible); i.e., an assembly of believers. Rather, it is and must be a visible entity, traceable through an unbroken link to the time of the Apostles. (The Lutheran Confessions, in my view, speak with two minds about this doctrine.)
- The end or purpose of salvation is not merely to be safe or make it to heaven, but to be in an undying union with God through Christ and the Spirit. That end or purpose is never fully achieved, just as a relationship is never exhausted. (This is a summary of theosis or, what "Lutheran Orthodoxy" called unio mystica.) This leads me to resonate with St Maximus the Confessor's speculation that sin and death did not necessitate the incarnation of the Son of God; rather, the original design, from eternity, was that the Son of God would become incarnate so that man could be in union with God.
- Tradition is not a custom nor merely a lens through which the church reads the Scriptures; rather, Tradition is the ongoing life of the Church (the Spirit in and of the Church) which, of course, cannot contradict Scripture but which also amplifies Scripture. (The Lutheran Confessions state that some of Tradition - e.g., liturgy - is indifferent; and insist, for those who take a quia subscription, that it is a lens.)
- Sin is certainly serious and is inherited; but it is not part of man's nature nor is it the primary problem. Rather, death is the primary problem, as seen by the fact that Christ purposefully took on passable flesh in order to suffer, die and rise. (The article on Free Will [FC SD II], when read understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the language, agrees that man is not by nature sinful.)
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:23 AM
St. Barbara is also (at least in the West, not sure about in Orthodoxy) the patron saint of the artillery, and my father was an artilleryman, so I think of him, too, on the Feast of St. Barbara.
Memory Eternal to them, and Many Years to all of you named Barbara!
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:13 AM
...and Many Years to each Nick / Nicholas out there!
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:10 AM
Monday, December 5, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
We listened to some news coverage after the recent Republican debate (moderated by, um, Donald Trump?) and two things stood out to us.
One was that the "issues" debated were education, the environment, and a couple of other secondary issues. The crucial, critical, urgent ones were not mentioned at all, at least by this report on NPR.
The other striking thing was that there was no mention of Ron Paul. We've noticed this before, how the press snubs him. Never mind he's a solid third in the polls among Republican candidates. The press covers candidates who are garnering much smaller numbers than his, but mention of Ron Paul is avoided.
Is this a clue that the powers that be don't want him? And is that, in turn, a clue that we do?
Could it be we have found an honest man at last? I'm skeptical, having been so disappointed in Obama, whom I thought honest. I don't even care any more if I agree with a candidate or not, so long as he is honest. Because I think it's dishonesty, corruption, that more than anything else is bringing down this country. Honest mistakes we can live with, but corruption can destroy it all.
So I'm going to keep an eye on Ron Paul. He's the only candidate I am even remotely considering so far.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 9:15 PM
I think Mr. Gingrich stands a strong chance of being the next President of the United States.
We watched/listened to his speech a couple of nights ago, and his oratorical skills match or perhaps exceed Mr. Obama's. (Plus, he's more of a thinker.) He knows how to give a feel-good speech. He invokes Lincoln, Franklin, Jefferson, tells you heartwarming stories about them. He invites us to join him in "rebuilding that America".
Fat chance. That America was two centuries ago; we need a new America that lives up to those ideals. We need to look forward even more than backward.
How to get there? Mr. Gingrich didn't say. There was not a single mention of any of the issues that concern most Americans today. Nothing about the economy or the banking system or Wall Street or the crisis in Europe or jobs or home forclosures or ... well, you name it, he didn't mention it.
I'm all in awe and admiration at such consummate skill in sounding wonderful and saying nothing. He does it even better than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and that's saying a lot.
It will be interesting to see if he improves over the course of the campaign.
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 9:05 PM
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The first glory God bestowed upon mankind was to create us, and only us, in His own Image. No angel has that honor.
Again, God bestowed the highest honor upon humanity by becoming one of us. When have we ever heard He became an angel?
The God-Man laid down his own life to conquer death for us. For which angel did He ever die?
When the God-Man ascended into heaven, it was in His flesh, in His full humanity, to “sit at the right hand of the Father”. With which angel did the Father ever share His throne? In the Person of Jesus Christ, our humanity is perfectly united with the Godhead, without compromise to either. No angelic being has that honor.
We become, even in this life, members of Christ, grafted into His Being by Holy Baptism. Are angels baptized? We take God’s own flesh and blood into ours and mingle them together; do angels receive Holy Communion? We share the Body and indeed, the whole Being, of Christ, who is “so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Hebrews 1:4)
Our destiny is to become deified and to share forever in the inner life of the Holy Trinity. We are sons and daughters of God’s; angels are and forever remain God’s servants – and ours.
For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You” ?
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son” ?
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
Posted by Anastasia Theodoridis at 11:59 AM