Category: Culture

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, december 19, 2023, by devadmin

This week I am in Washington, D.C. I, like yourselves have been shocked and horrified by the evil that was committed in Las Vegas a couple of days ago. However, I will not deal with the underlying issues, the control, politics, stability or religion that might shed insight into this tragedy.

Instead, I will continue my series of articles concerning government over-reach of and the seemingly unending costs associated with running the government enterprise. While writing these articles, I receive numerous letters, emails and phone calls telling me about the good things that government accomplishes. I am, in fact, fully aware of the good people who have dedicated their lives to performing some service to the rest of us. Ofttimes these services are provided under the flag of government responsibility, or jurisdiction, while at other times they are services provided by great-hearted people.

That there are hundreds of thousands of good men and women employed and doing valuable and necessary services for the rest of us is unquestionably true. For example, in one response from last week’s article about federal forest policy a friend wrote to describe the story of he and his wife. They experienced first-hand what it was like to be under evacuation orders.

He wrote:

“Our home was in the direct path of the advancing fire.  I am positive without the excellent firefighting skills of all government jurisdictions our home may not be here today.  Everyone at all levels of government were so genuinely helpful, honest and transparent.  It was clear to me that these government employees live in the area and are fully aware of the citizen’s needs.  We found that refreshing.”

This letter underscores the point with powerful clarity – Good people provide Good service. Additionally, their service furnishes warmth to the soul and provides an uplifting sense of comfort and safety to our communities.

As I write my newsletters, my issue with statism is not about necessary, and legitimate, rules and regulations. To even invoke the possibility that our extremely complex and modern society could function without any rules, regulations or governance structures is less than a straw man. It simply can’t be done. In the same way, however, it can be overdone.

This is my point – When is too much, too much? Do we even know what too much looks like?

In general, too much means monopoly. Monopolies, in turn, are too expensive, non-competitive, unresponsive and deliver poorer results with little to no recourse for the affected souls.

Adam Smith’s teacher was Adam Ferguson at the University of Edinburgh. In 1792, he wrote about the relationship between freedom and anarchy, “Liberty or freedom is not as the origin of the name may seem to imply, and exemption from all restraint, but rather a most effectual application of every just restraint to all members of a free state, whether they be magistrates or subjects.”

Best Regards,

He continued, “It is under just restraints only that every person is safe, and cannot be invaded, either in the freedom of his person, his property, or innocent action…”

To ensure that liberty remained a fundamental characteristic of our constitutionally federated Republic the notion of Separation of Powers was introduced.  First, this was specifically instituted among the three separate branches of the national government. Also, a degree of separation existed among office holders, through elections. Elections were further separated by varied lengths of terms in office

Further separation was mandated among the free and independent states which are also constitutionally required to be organized as republics. Then, within each state, among their various counties, municipalities and townships there was a further delineation of jurisdiction and authority. These separations were designed to lessen the possibility of any local despot gaining complete control over a council or municipality.

But, James Madison saw the weakness. He addressed the failings that might result from a false faith in constitutionally structured offices. In Federalist 47, he writes, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

These checks and balances were instituted because one of the major goals of the Constitution, as stated in the preamble, is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The separation of powers with appropriate checks and balances was expressly forwarded to combat the tendency of conspiring men to seek power while neglecting their public offices and duties.

Our Nation’s founders recognized Lord Acton’s apothegm, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They knew and had first-hand experience with the most powerful empire on the earth and they tried to protect us from tyrannical governments both large and small.

Thomas Jefferson is known to have championed a smaller, more decentralized idea of governance by independent yeomen−citizens.

However, the potential for over-reach even exists amongst local counties and townships led by their yeomen−citizenry. Alexander Hamilton termed these jurisdictions as societies and he highlights the potential for over-reach in terms of size. Today, we can add financial or economic where-with-all to Hamilton’s warnings. Hamilton notes that any acts which are “not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies,” should never become the supreme law of the land. He summarizes saying, “These [unconstitutional acts] will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

It is this closing that deserves our attention. Will we suffer the collapse of these separations, checks and balances? Will we allow unconstitutional acts to become the new-fangled, supreme law of the land or will we respond to them as mere acts of usurpation?

My contention is that Lord Acton’s apothegm is still relevant – “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, december 19, 2023 by devadmin

Radical progressives in Oregon are hoping for a blue wave in November. The American Spectator expects Trump’s national achievements and momentum will bring a red wave. Which will it be?

The Spectator admits, “There are those polls saying that millennials are as interested in communism as in capitalism, and there is the more anecdotal evidence within the Democrat Party that Bernie Sanders-style socialism is ascendant. The Democrat primary victory by avowed socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over New York congressman Joe Crowley is being lauded as an example of the country’s lurch leftward; the party’s chairman Tom Perez even called Ocasio-Cortez its ‘future’ last week.”

Is this trend happening in Oregon? Are we trending left, or right? Are young collegiates hearkening toward the Siren’s song of socialism? Are they smitten with attractive promises for unlimited equality and high paying jobs? According to the rhetoric, aside from gaining equality, there will also be plenty of battery operated gadgets – smart phones and $100k Teslas, – all powered by “clean” energy with restored global ice-caps and endless wildlife living happily ever-after on a pristine planet.

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, november 22, 2023, by devadmin

Ballot Measure 113 – would amend the Oregon Constitution to disqualify state legislators from re-election following the end of their term if they are absent from 10 legislative floor sessions without permission or excuse. The 10 absences would be deemed disorderly behavior. This would apply to both legislative attendance during regular and special legislative sessions.

Measure 113 must be defeated.

This is a deceptively worded constitutional change which is a direct attack against minority legislative rights. The minority party has long held constitutional power to help negotiate the order of business within the legislative agenda. Denying this right is a highly destructive intrusion into the dignity and constitutional safeguards for minority members of the legislature.

Legislators are responsible for representing their District’s constituents, not the bureaucratic state’s interests, which may be at odds. To force or coerce any individual or minority member to act against their conscience would be a violation of the deepest trust of elected officeholders.

Oregonians are already keenly aware that trouble is brewing in the super-majority’s marbled hallways. Crime, violence and murder rates are soaring, inflation is strangling the economic well-being of workers and their businesses across the state, and the war on fossil fuels is hammering transportation costs and the overall cost of living.

These dire issues plague Oregonians because of policy decisions made by a negligent, single-minded and disrespectful majority party. The destruction coming from Oregon’s single-party rulers and would be worse if the minority party were denied the ability to negotiate policy issues by slowing the legislative process.

The Oregon Constitution requires two-thirds of all members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives to be present in order to conduct legislative business, this is known as a “quorum.” When one-third of a chamber’s members are not present the chamber cannot conduct legislative business because this would violate the deliberative nature of our representative government. This process has been utilized by Democrats, other minority parties, and Republicans to bring the majority party to the negotiating table.

The Oregon Constitution currently does not establish automatic consequences for a legislator who engages in this activity. It authorizes members of the Senate or the House to compel the attendance of absent members. Ballot Measure 113 would amend the Oregon Constitution by adding a new restriction on the rights of citizens to stand for legislative office by disqualifying any legislator from holding office following the legislator’s current term for engaging in quorum denial for 10 days.

In 1897, when the major parties were in disarray, the Peoples’ Party used quorum denial to push through a constitutional amendment providing for the initiative and referendum process. The denial of quorum was the key to bringing both major political parties to the negotiating table and a compromise was reached.

Today, only Oregon voters have the power to disqualify a candidate for state legislative office who meets the current four qualifications. Measure 113 would pre-empt this power by allowing a single individual, namely the Senate President or House Speaker, to disqualify a candidate from standing for office in the next election term.

This extraordinary power is not about keeping the government’s budgets balanced, legislators on the job, or bureaucracies in check. It is about granting more power to the majority party’s political officers in the form of control over chamber politics, attendance, and excused or disapproved absences.

Oregon legislative rules do not provide any definition for determining what constitutes an “unexcused” absence, which is why it has gone through a number of cultural interpretations. Additionally, there is no requirement for the Senate President or House Speaker to explain their decision to declare a legislator’s absence as unexcused, nor is there any right of appeal against the discretionary judgement of these presiding political officers.

Like all of Oregon’s minorities, legislators in the minority party should have the freedom to speak and act according to the dictates of their conscience. This includes civil disobedience in an effort to get their voices elevated into the public square.

I recommend a “NO Vote” on Measure 113

After thoughts…

I liken this to deepening state power without concern for where that power and/or corruption might lead. Lord Acton is famous for his quip, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Meaning this sort of unequivocal power given to Democrats, Republicans, or any other party will lead to an authoritarian mindset.

The authoritarian mindset needs censorship against any and all opposition. This is why would be authoritarians wouldn’t like any minority member denying quorum and mucking with their agenda. Authoritarians have a keen dislike for the deliberative process, where views are discussed, bad ideas are trounced, and innovative and unique policy initiatives get recognized for their benefits.

A modern version of this is playing out in the news with Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. The media moguls aren’t afraid of power, rather they enjoy it. Neither are they  afraid that hate speech will spill out of your laptop and stain your carpets.

Those in power like their own ideas; they think they are right; they like their filtered and purely partisan facts. They dislike  alternative ideas. They can’t stomach any thought that is longer than the 280-character limit imposed among the Twitteratti.

This is as a good thing for those in power. This keeps conversations shallow, squelches debate, and limits any personal introspective analysis. It also lends itself to sloganeering instead of the far deeper discussions that Oregonians deserve.

Unfortunately, this type of power grab will promote an instinctive sort of tribalism where you get news from your camp, and I get news from mine. Destructive mainstream media moguls and their bots can hysterically throw any undefinable, contradictory or incontinent statement into the bit-bucket and it will spread around the world at the speed of light.

Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate – District 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, november 22, 2023, by devadmin

This November’s General Election has a batch of proposed measures which are included on your statewide Ballot.

Ballot Measures, 111, 112, 113, and 114 are presented in the Voters’ Pamphlet without any critical analysis. The information provided is like a restaurant menus written by various maître d’s in a vain effort to tease people into the shop. Everything presented sounds like a home-baked delectable but is really a coagulated mess of costly ingredients that will be difficult to chew and harder to swallow. Not to mention the long-term digestive ailments that will plague the citizens for decades.

Today, I will provide just a quick summary of these gastronomic dishes.

For example, Measure 111, is just a bad idea that has been dressed in garnish on a silver platter. But it is only socialist tripe. Then, Measure 112, looks attractive in the dim light of history, but will have disastrous impacts on Oregon’s Criminal Justice Budgets and will eventually be a backdoor into “defunding the police.”

Measure 113 is simply an attempt to mask majority rule by over-powering the voices of the minority. It will force the minority party legislators into compliance and deny rights to engage in civil disobedience.

Lastly, Measure 114, is an unconscionable measure that will negatively warp or destroy the lives of anyone seeking avenues for self-defense. Most especially, women, racial and ethnic minorities will get caught-up in the dragnet as their rights to self-defense gets obstructed by an ungodly menagerie of expensive rules and unattainable law-enforcement requirements. The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association (OSSA) estimates that Measure 114 will cost nearly $40M annually to implement. This measure is masquerading as a crime prevention measure but instead it will effectively “defund the police.”

Please, don’t be snookered by grandiose schemes for having government solve your neighbor’s condition. Government can’t do it because, when we force state-wide power into every crevasse of an individual’s life, you will introduce more absurdities that will require more government power, more taxpayer money, and more new-fangled solutions that will never fix the original problem.

Therefore, be comfortable and rest assured knowing that your, “NO Vote,” along with some common-sense will help put a stop to the tyranny which oozes from every pore of an unaccountable bureaucratic state.

Over the next several days I will provide a more in-depth analysis of each Measure, starting with a full-fledged analysis of the disastrous wording in Measure 111.

If we don’t stand for rural Oregon Values and common-sense… No one will!

Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate – District 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin frisday, november 22, 2023, by devadmin

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has a Center for Legislative Accountability (CLA), which is the premier organization for holding lawmakers accountable. The CLA produces the longest-running conservative congressional scorecard. Their state program is the only one in the nation that scores all 8,000 lawmakers in the 50 states across every policy area.

Last week I received CLA’s highest score for the Oregon Legislature. I am honored to receive the award for the “Most Conservative Legislator in Oregon.” Only 7 Oregon lawmakers earned awards from CPAC for their conservative ratings of 80% or above, while 45 Oregon Democrat party lawmakers earned CPAC’s “Coalition of the Radical Left” award for ratings of 10% or  below.

You can see their vote tally here:  Oregon Lawmaker Scorecard or download the PDF guide.

My legislative record allows you to see some of the principles that motivate my thoughts. At the most fundamental level, my voting record aligns with our Founders’ vision for this so-called American experiment.

The big-ticket item is our unalienable rights. Every individual’s right to Life, Liberty and their own just pursuits should be a sacred, undebatable, unalienable, and indefeasible right. Yet, the Left often argues that when seeking the  “common good” more importance should be given to the state than to individual people. We must never reject the idea that we have been endowed with rights that can never be stripped from us by a truly just government. Otherwise, our culture will fall prey to injustice under the guise of justice.

We all can clearly see the shortcomings arising from the false promises of the political elites. Whether they are tax and spend destructionists, defund-the-police anarchists, clean-energy hypocrites, big-government cronies, menstruating men, or drag-queen story-hour proponents their efforts will leave your family embattled in cultural turmoil, higher prices, more regulations, and fewer opportunities.

As “conservatives” we must fight for conserving and preserving the ideals of our founders’, our history, freedoms, education, logic, science, traditional values, culture and prosperity.

I appreciate you and your unfailing support for our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Thank you for standing with me as we continue our struggle to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

If we don’t stand for rural Oregon Values and common-sense… No one will!

Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate – District 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Saturday, october 6, 2023, by devadmin

Ten days ago, I partnered with all of Oregon’s Republican and Independent State Senators to stop a handful of shocking bills that would undoubtably inflict harm on children and their parents. Our efforts to bring transparency, openness, and bi-partisan leadership back into the Senate chamber have been met with deep division and partisan reluctance. 

Oregon’s Senate, like most governing bodies, requires a certain number of members in attendance before transacting business. This is known as a quorum rule. Oregon’s Republican Senators are currently denying quorum in order to slow the majority party’s run-away agenda. 

Stopping the legislative process, due to a lack of quorum, is not “unconstitutional.” It is a tool, used throughout history to prevent the tyranny of the majority and protect the rights of the minority. It ought to be obvious to everyone that without this tool minority voices would be silenced.

My own reasons for denying quorum are well-thought-out and fundamentally sound. I am not violating my “constitutional duties”, rather I am exercising my fiduciary responsibilities to the best of my ability. 

Contrary to the Senate President, Majority Leader and social media pundits – there is no constitutional requirement for anyone to provide a quorum. Oregon’s newly minted Constitutional amendment, which was sponsored by Oregon’s stalwart public employee unions, specifies an additional qualification for holding office in the next term. The amendment makes no demands on today’s office-holders. Legislators are not required to succumb to political rhetoric or bombast. 

I will not bow my knee to the unlawful demands of today’s Democrat majority.

Our current impasse is due solely to Senate President Wagner’s (D-Lake Oswego) continued rejection of all reconciliation efforts by members who are denying quorum. Our minority parties’ demands are easy enough, 1) adhere to Oregon’s constitution; 2) follow Oregon’s Revised Statutes and Senate rules; and 3) fulfill the “bipartisan/open door” pledge made to Oregonians. 

Otherwise, as the news cycle races along, even liberal news outlets and social media pundits are looking for any loose threads that weaken the fabric of the Democrat party’s suffocating hold in Oregon. Shemia Fagan’s forced resignation, brought similar and potentially more illicit money scandals to the surface. Each flaming accusation about corruption, tampering, and potential money-laundering creates a foothold for others to scale the walls of power. Yet, the Senate President is holding fast to his extreme position.

Are Republican and Independent Senators (aka, “the Courageous 13”) willing to sacrifice their eligibility for their next term in office? 

The answer is easy – Yes.

The bills in question are poorly written and they were only advanced because of an allegiance to radical concepts promoted by far-left activists who thrive on bumper sticker slogans, not facts. The bills we have identified egregiously promote a regulatory boundary around healthcare without helping the truly needy. Primarily, these bill will needlessly harm parents and families, in all areas of Oregon and across all fifty states.

Do you recall the incident when the FBI put the “domestic terrorist” label on everyday concerned parents who attended their local school board meetings? These Moms and Dads got snagged via a circular chain of false accusations which were leveled by a DOJ request. The falsity of Attorney General Merrick Garland reasoning is abhorrent. By any standard, this was an intrusive, unconstitutional effort by government actors. It was the heavy hand of government interfering in free-speech rights and denying the right of citizens to petition their government for a redress of grievances. 

Today, Oregon Democrats apparently applaud these unseemly attacks against parental involvement by desiring to enshrine them into law.

HB 2002, 2003, and 2005 perfectly illustrate this problem of government intrusion into the lives of everyday citizens and parents, in particular.

While newspaper headlines claim, “Republicans walk on Abortion and Gun Bills”, this is not true. As I pointed out last week, a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is legal at every step along the journey, from conception all the way through the 3rd trimester and up to the last minute of the pre-birth moment.

The Dobb’s decision from the Supreme Court has no impact on Oregon State law. HB 2002, does not improve reproductive healthcare rights except to place an unscientific and purely political statement into Oregon Law.

If we don’t stand for rural Oregon Values and common-sense… No one will!

Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate – District 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, september 12, 2023, by devadmin

Here in Oregon, we find ourselves in the midst of an enormous culture war. It’s not unlike other parts of our nation where the far-left is propagating falsehood and purposefully misguiding public opinions. On an hourly basis mainstream media and mindless twitter-bots praise what is despicable and despise what is honorable. They punish noble, patriotic and virtuous sentiments while hurling despair and discouragement  around the local schoolyard like junkyard litter. They applaud falsehood and smother truth under indifference, hypocrisy, insult and brazen lies.

In the 2023 legislative session, eleven Republican and Independent Senators attempted to deny quorum and stop further business in the Senate chamber. Our actions were sound; our reasons were valid; our cause was just, and as I have said before, righteous. Our principles and purpose were and still are valid. Through the full-throttled stoppage of Senate business our goal was to prevent unconstitutional, disingenuous, risky and life-threatening legislative concepts.

Not unlike a workers’ strike, we denied quorum to elevate the voices of our oft ignored minority constituencies.

During the founding era, our nation was continually warned about the vigilance that would be required to keep our Republic whole.

In the past several newsletters I have written about the most egregious bills put forth in the 2023 Legislative session. Bills targeting children, parental rights, increasing access to taxpayer funded abortions and transgender care as well as the ever-increasing assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights. I supplied details with specifics about how parents, their children and all Oregon families and individuals would be harmed.

Here’s a list:

• Assault Against Parents
• What’s Lurking in the Legislature?
• Irreversible Harm
• Standing Firm

As my newsletters illustrate, Republicans and Independent Senators denied quorum to stop the State from:

• becoming the authority over your children and your family’s decisions,
• furthering unconstitutional anti-gun measures on law-abiding citizens,
• increasing the healthcare costs for all Oregonians,
• covering transgender and abortion on demand for all, including minors,
• providing free abortion and gender-altering care to anyone, of any age, from any state,
• eliminating the right of patients to seek justice following provider malpractice,
• sterilizing untold numbers of innocent, confused and vulnerable children.

The Democrat party uses our own tax money against us and our children. The advancing power of the state is like the screw in a mechanical fitting. It is always turning, always gaining, always gripping, always penetrating, forever holding fast to what it gains and never letting go.

Friends, I believe the casualties and the price Oregonians pay will be high. But I am confident we will win this culture war if we continue to stand on our principles with unwavering fortitude. We must protect our children and never back down from working to restore our God-given rights to life, liberty and our own just pursuits.

Surrender is not an option.

The question before us is, how do we continue, where do we throw our weight, what battles should we fight?

First, I am currently involved with five other Republican Senators seeking remedy against the Secretary of States for her capricious ruling regarding Measure 113. Essentially her ruling is that the 36 county election officers would not be permitted to accept the filing for office from Senators falling under Measure 113.

Remember, Measure 113 allows the partisan Senate President, who is currently a Democrat, to declare an absence by any member “excused” or “unexcused”. This power was used in a capricious, vindictive and retaliatory fashion against Republicans in the 2023 legislative session.

At the end of 1776, Thomas Paine was sick at heart over the suffering and despair he saw after just six months of tragedy. Yet, he was also inspired by the undaunted resolution of others in leadership. His book The American Crisis, should continue to inspire us.

It begins:

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

I will follow Paine’s counsel with all of my might. I will continue to serve Oregonians to the best of my ability. I will continue to work towards a positive, prosperous and wholesome future for all Oregonians. I won’t give up and I won’t back down from the ongoing fight.

As summer closes, we confidently move forward. Diane and I send our Best Wishes for the fall season.

As you know lawsuits are not cheap and your help is vital to continue our pursuit of justice in this battle against tyranny.

Thank you for your steadfast support.

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate – District 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Monday, September 30, 2020, by devadmin

To help you with this journey, I’ll start by clearing up several questions that popped into my head:

• What is meant by “good” literature?
• How does a person get started?
• Will any book do?
• If not, what criteria for choosing should a person use?

The definition used by the National Endowment for the Arts will help us.  The NEA asks, “What is literary reading?”  Answer: “It is the reading of novels, short stories, poetry, or drama in any print format, including the Internet.” Therefore, any type of reading, from romance novels to classical poetry, works for our purposes.[1]

The harder question is, “What is meant by ‘good’?” Does “good” refer to an interesting story with good character development? Could it be describing an exciting thriller, an intriguing mystery, or a compelling drama packed with great suspense and adventure?  Certainly, all of these things make reading fun and interesting, but they don’t necessarily make it “good.”  The “good” that I am talking about is “good” in the moral sense.

In, Philippians 4:8, Paul writes, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is worthy of respect, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is
If you want to find a “good” book, look for a book that will help you achieve the thought-life that Paul describes above. Paul sets this standard for whatever enters your mind, but I’m suggesting that you start by applying this standard to your reading material. commendable, if something is excellent or praiseworthy, think about these things.”

Now that we’ve defined good, let’s be deliberate and thoughtful in our pursuit of it.

Raymond Tallis describes deliberate action as an essential part of our humanness, “At the heart of our exceptional nature… is that we are explicit creatures who do things deliberately.  This transforms every aspect of our lives. It lies at the root of so many things that we guide, justify, and excuse…”[2]

Today is your opportunity to make an exceptional choice. Choose today to become an “explicit creature.” Look for books or stories that are good, true and beautiful. Follow Paul’s advice and actively search for the commendable.

To help along these lines, I recommend looking for books written before the 1920’s. I am not saying there are no modern “good” books, but in the past century the literary field has become cluttered.Today, there are so many sources – eBooks, self-published novels, academic literature, that it is much more difficult to distinguish the good from the bad, or the ugly.There are literally thousands of good books from every age. However, I want to help you gain an easy victory.

I want to encourage you to pick up a classic. Start by trying a book by Defoe, Cooper, Dickens, Hugo, Alcott, or one of the Bronte sisters.

Also, sample the book by looking at the preface, author’s note or epigraph (which is the quotation or motto often placed at the opening of a chapter in older literature, designed to give insight into what the book is about). For example, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” is the epigraph from Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy (1873).

This epigraph, taken from Romans 12:19 which in turn is quoting from Deuteronomy 32:35, gives you, as a reader, insight into the author’s moral perspective. This is worth noting because Tolstoy is providing his readers with a hint. He has created an intriguing and dynamic story about husbands, wives, lovers and enemies, yet he is opening the door to God’s moral presence. Tolstoy is trying to entice you with a comment straight from God’s mouth. He wants you to accept a worldview that gets its focus from God’s vantage point.

We also get to see into our author’s worldview in the author’s preface. In the typical preface, the author has the opportunity to express his thoughts, ideas and desires. He may even allude to details about a character that might come from another story or book. This will help set the scene and flavor of the piece with more accuracy than the back-cover or jacket-flap. The back-cover is designed to entice you to buy the book. It is not necessarily designed to inform you about the real story, the author’s goals, or his moral intentions. Remember, we should be looking for books that are morally “good,” not books that only have tantalizing cover-art.

As another example, here is the entire preface to Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables (1887) :

“So long as there shall exist, by virtue of law and custom, decrees of damnation pronounced by society, artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny; so long as the three great problems of the century—the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light—are unsolved; so long as social asphyxia is possible in any part of the world;—in other words, and with a still wider significance, so long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use.”[3]

In one paragraph, (actually, one long sentence) Hugo has informed the reader of his goals. Hugo’s challenge is directly to you: are you willing to awaken your soul to its natural abhorrence to injustice, class damnation, corruption, poverty and ignorance?

If so, this will be a “good” book for you, but you must be willing to be an “explicit creature.”  You must be willing to weigh your effort, in deliberately finding a “good” book, against God’s Word to measure your success. Remember, our goal is to find real goodness, truth and beauty in the book we choose to read. Victor Hugo writes later in Les Misérables that, the “conscience is the chaos of chimeras, of lusts, and of temptations; the furnace of dreams; the lair of ideas of which we are ashamed; it is the pandemonium of sophisms; it is the battlefield of the passions.”[4]

It’s incredible how well authors like Victor Hugo can bring light to evil and give us cause to rejoice in good, awakening our often chaotic consciences through compelling stories and Biblically-based truth. Astoundingly, more than a century after it was written, Les Miserables continues to captivate us with its story of sacrificial love, honor and justice. Stories are a powerful medium for truth, and through deliberate pursuit of “good” literature do we discover those stories that, as Hugo rightly predicted, cannot fail to be of use.

So, this week, here is your challenge: pick up a book that will challenge your soul. Make the deliberate choice to read something morally uplifting, both to you and to those you discuss it with

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Friday, September 30, 2020, by devadmin

In my last article: Finding Good in Classic Books I encouraged you to read a classic book as a way of thoughtfully pursuing things that are “good” in a Godly and eternal sense. One of the books I recommended was Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, which was recently released to movie theaters as a musical. The success of the movie demonstrates the power of the original story, and in this post, I want to make a case for reading the book as well, because I think that taking the time to read the story will grant you even more insight and fulfillment, rather than simply seeing the film alone.

Yes, the book is more than 150 years old, and it weighs in at 1500 pages – but the eternal themes and the incredible story make Les Misérables one of the best dramatic and romantic novels ever written. Les Mis is a perfect example of what makes a classic story a “classic.”

In Les Misérables, the transcendent themes come alive through the art of story-telling. These themes are eternal because they are not bound by the here and now; they are the self-evident truths that transcend time and technology – they remind us that “eternity is written in our hearts” (Eccl. 3:11) and that God reveals himself in part through the world around us. (Romans 1:20)

This will be easy for you to recognize as you start the story. Hugo tells us that, “Man is not a circle with a single centre; he is an ellipse with a double focus. Facts form one of these, and ideas the other.”^[1]  Throughout his novel, Hugo delivers the ideas: moral principles inherent in our God-given natures, juxtaposed with the facts:the specific circumstances in which we find ourselves. Therefore, the focus of Les Mis becomes a story of balance – how does one proceed through life while holding both facts and ideas; while weighing good and evil?

As we also struggle to hold facts and ideas in balance, I suggest that we use this classic story to train our minds, as suggested in Philippians 4:8: “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” As we read Les Misérables, it’s easy to identify God’s principles. For example:

Single Parenthood – “The father of her child gone… she found herself absolutely isolated, minus the habit of work and plus the taste for pleasure.”^[2] (Prov 21:16-17)

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, September 30, 2020, by devadmin

I was recently elected as a County Commissioner (a.k.a. County Supervisor) in South Central Oregon, and in the process, had become interested in the ideas that forged our Nation’s Constitutional Republic. Although most of us are familiar with the names of our founders – Jefferson, Adams, Washington, etc., and even know a few important dates – have you ever read any of their original writings?

I hadn’t either, until I decided to investigate, and I was amazed and fascinated by what I found. Biblical truth tied with careful thinking dominates the pages of these older books. The technological limitations of the day (the feather quill, ink-pot and blotter) forced these writers to craft their arguments far in advance of taking their seat at the writing stand. This seeming hardship actually created a bounty of well-reasoned writing.

Today, we perhaps rely too much on our technologies. Our reliance has led to complacency and laziness because we have allowed technology to invade our humanness and our thought-life is suffering. Sometimes I fear that we don’t think through our beliefs carefully enough, or work out our worldviews with solid logic and reasoning, and we are thus unprepared for the attacks of modernism and post-modernism on our faith and life.

Therefore, my goal is to mine these older books to help bring Biblical reality and careful thinking back into our hectic lives. God’s truth is all around us and it is evident in literature from every age. For example, here is a piece of advice from Benjamin Franklin, written in 1733:

“Reading makes a full man – meditation a profound man – discourse a clear man.” [1]

Consider for a moment, how closely Franklin’s advice follows Biblical principles – read, meditate, discuss, share and live out. For example:

“Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.”    (Joshua 1:8)

Or,

“You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole being, and all your strength. These words I am commanding you today must be kept in mind, and you must teach them to your children and speak of them as you sit in your house, as you walk along the road, as you lie down, and as you get up.”    (Deuteronomy 6:5-7)

Certainly, our Lord cares about what we read. Otherwise, why read the Bible and not Hustler magazine? This website is called “Trochia” ( trociav) and most of you are familiar with its definition. It is the New Testament Greek word for a path, like the track of a wheel, or figuratively, a course of conduct. Our conduct will be influenced by our thought-life and our thought-life by what we ingest in various forms of media, such as good books (or, not-so-good magazines).

The Old Testament Hebrew equivalent to “trochia” is “derek” ( Krd ) meaning way, behavior,  journey, conduct, deeds, direction, routes, lifestyle and destiny. It is used in Deut. 6:7: “as you walk along the road.” This is the essence of our journey. Our calling is to think and live beyond the mundane. It is a moral, decision-making journey and there are God-given principles we should be following.

God has called each of us into unique positions, both as individuals and as members of the church. “Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him.” (I Cor 7:17)

Whether you are a programmer, plumber or paralegal, each of us is in a unique situation with uncommon relationships and exclusive conversations. This is Martin Luther’s powerful concept of vocation, but it is not the mundane world of work. Instead, it is a calling to relationships.

Consider your relationships – family, friends, co-workers, service providers, kids in the neighborhood.  No other person will encounter the myriad of unique individuals that you will. This is your “calling.” It is God requesting your life’s commitment.

This “calling” brings me back to my fascination with old books, and with improving our thought-life through meditation, reading and discourse. Only through careful thought can we truly impact those relationships, for as 1 Peter 3:15 says: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Let’s take the time to read and think carefully about what we’ve read. Ask questions of yourself and wonder. Wonder out loud – discuss your ideas with others.

Over the next several weeks, I will continue thinking about authors, books, and how beautifully matched we are to the calling that God has given us. I’m suggesting God’s glory is all around us and that we will discover it more readily if we listen to old Ben Franklin, who, in turn, was listening to God’s counsel, “Reading makes a full man – meditation a profound man – discourse a clear man.”