"Love Kills Slowly"

I saw a bumper sticker today that read "Love Kills Slowly." After reading it, I began to ponder the truth of this statement. Does love actually kill slowly? What is the purpose or objective of love? Is death actually the purpose and the ultimate end of love? If it does kill slowly, then why do people "fall into" it so often, already knowing what the outcome will be?

I think that first of all, one must decide what love really and truly is. As a Christian, when defining love I personally think initially of 1 Corinthians 13. It extensively defines love and provides a long list of attributes and adverbs that love should be associated with. Some of them include: patience, kindness, perseverance, rejoicing in truth, never failing, unceasing, protecting, trustworthy, hopeful and humble. On the other hand, it lists several antonyms of love, including: pridefulness, self-seeking, easily angered, boastful, not delighting in evil, not keeping records of wrongs or offenses, and not rude.

In contrast to the biblical view of love, the world today depicts a completely different or other perspective. By simply going to blockbuster or the movie theater or any other number of places in a city, one may easily realize the truth of the above statement. A popular genre of movies that play upon the hopes and dreams of unsuspecting women, "Chick-Flicks" paint an increasingly inaccurate picture of love and all that it entails. Instead of drawing a view of reality, such movies sketch scenes of fairytale endings and fantasy relationships where the proverbial chips fall into place in just the perfect way to make their dreams come true, with no work on the part of those involved. Likewise, men need only to turn on the television and wait for a commercial to pop up sensualizing everything from wrenches to deodorant and shaving cream and beer. Rather than vehicles simply being vehicles, they are portrayed as tools to attract beautiful women who will give them the time of their lives with no strings attached. In the worlds eyes, love is all the right outcomes to all of people's crazy dreams just when they want them to happen-no sooner, no later. Love is free sex whenever one so desires. Love is "and they lived happily ever after." Love is perfection.

But are these definitions what love truly is? Is this the true meaning of love? Is love sexual passion or is love gentle and tender yearning? Is love wild and short-lived or calm and lasting? Is love all about oneself or about meeting the needs of the other person involved? What is love and how can one know what it truly is?

If love slowly kills, then what about the fairytale endings? Does the passion not continue on unceasingly, or does it instead fizzle out and become null and void via divorce and separation? Is it a one night stand in bed or a lifetime of knowing eye contact and loving hand holding? Who is it all about anyway? Oneself or another?

Love "is not self-seeking." In other words, it promotes the good of another over itself, even if it is detrimental to its own health and happiness. It is not selfish. Rather than putting itself on a pedestal, it kneels in deference to someone else. Love says "it's not all about me" but rather "it's all about you." Love dies to itself to honor and serve another. Maybe the bumper sticker is right after all, but in an unconventional way. Maybe love does kill slowly...

Judicial Term v. Appointment

In California recently, a judge decided to take “God” out of the American Pledge of Allegiance. Soon thereafter, another judge in Massachusetts decided to redefine marriage so that what was traditionally a union between one man and one woman may now be formed between two people of the same gender. Are these brave acts of courageous individuals, or simply activists asserting their personal opinions into a cultural debate? Does the method of selection and retention give them the independence to insert their opinions into their rulings? Today, there is a cultural debate concerning if the judges’ method of obtaining office contributes to the way they perform their roles in the judicial system.

One procedure for filling judiciary positions in the United States is legislative or executive appointment of individuals. Similarly to the way college professors cannot be dismissed after they receive tenure from teaching, researching and publishing for an extended period of time, appointed judges hold their positions for life. There are several problems that arise from appointing individuals to lifetime offices. When someone is designated to fill a decision-making capacity that has no ultimate termination, then they have no accountability whatsoever over their actions. He or she can act as they wish without fear of removal from office. The opinions of the citizens hold little or no value in their estimation. Furthermore, because citizens do not have input concerning who are their arbiters, the appointments may be based simply on connections with those high in political power, rather than the actual qualifications of the nominee. As a result, the product of these appointed judges is not held to a high standard, and thus the caliber of decision-making significantly decreases.

Although there are many flaws to the appointment system, there are benefits derived from it as well. Generally, lawyers in established private practices are settled in the comforts of their high and steady income, and do not wish to leave such security for the lesser and unguaranteed wages of the campaign trail leading to the judiciary. However, when individuals are appointed, there are no risks of losing their positions when they run for reelection or are removed from office. Judges under appointment receive judicial independence, which basically means they are unanswerable to a vocal majority of citizen voters and have the potential, if they are willing, to protect the rights of the disfavored minority groups.

Citizens are able to elect the judiciary to terms of office in some states as another means of selecting judges. There are both pros and cons to this process as well. One major downfall is what may be called the “name game.” While some states place Republican or Democrat on the ballots beside each candidate’s name, many judicial elections are non-partisan, which means that candidates cannot campaign under the emblems of the donkey or the elephant. Rather, they are forced to get their names out and appeal to the maximum number of voters possible in order to succeed, making their campaigns much more difficult. Some people vote based on the familiarity of the name (for example, people with the same last name as a former governor or state legislator, or even just common names such as Smith and Jones) or the gender of the candidate. In many cases, these unfortunate facts entail that people with unusual names will not win, and women are increasingly more favored than men. Also, because candidates are forced to campaign to attain judicial office, their risks (such as losing their job, decreasing their income, etc.) increase, and it becomes less and less likely that qualified and capable individuals will run. These risks are also raised after the judges are elected into office as they are forced to submit to the public’s dogma, forgoing their own personal judicial philosophies in order to remain in office. If they fail to comply with the predominant views of the citizens, then they face the possibility of losing their reelection campaigns and ruining future political pursuits in addition to losing the popular public opinion.

Despite these initial difficulties, there are many favorable aspects of the elected judiciary process. Rather than allowing activist judges with no accountability to make assumptive decisions about important issues, by electing the judiciary, the judges automatically become accountable to their electors. If they make radical decisions, then they will reap stringent consequences at the hands of the citizens who elected them. One of the most important reasons for the promotion of the elected judiciary is the equal opportunity for selection that it provides. As the United States Constitution claims that “all men are created equal” and that the goal of America is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” opportunities to run for office and to be elected by one’s fellow constituents should indeed be highly favored. Even if a candidate has no connections high in the political spectrum, they have a chance to spread their name and their judicial philosophy throughout their electoral area, and in so doing have a chance at success and superiority regardless of their humble beginnings.

While some would argue that appointed judges are preferable to citizen elected arbiters, they fail to realize that, via the campaigning and election process, people are able to provide input into who governs them and in the way the laws are interpreted. Justice Paul Newby, a current North Carolina State Supreme Court Associate Justice, would probably have never attained his position without the citizen-elected judicial system in his state. A federal attorney who was tremendously involved in his church, community, and the lives of his family members, Justice Newby had no prior political experience. He began his campaign with the desire to counter judicial activism with conservative interpretation of the law. Because of his comparative obscurity, Justice Newby undertook a statewide campaign in which he spoke to a wide variety of civic and religious groups in an attempt to make voters aware of his character and judicial philosophy. He stressed the importance of character and values among candidates, and miraculously won his race. He proved in many ways the importance of voter input into political races, and virtue of working hard to achieve position rather than having it given because of the proper political connections.


In conclusion, while many legislators and executives contend that judicial appointment is the best way to fill court offices, it benefits the citizens for the judges to be elected by voters other rather than by governing individuals. As is seen through Justice Newby’s example, the latter view of the judiciary is in accordance with the purposes of the United States Constitution. It seems more appropriate in a democratic government that judges are held accountable to other people during their terms of office rather than being allowed to insert their personal agendas into court decisions. As a result, more judicial vacancies should be filled in compliance with the majority will of the people, rather than the minority will of certain individuals or governing bodies.

"About the South" ~Rodney Atkins

Fried pickles, drunk chicken, crawfishin' in the creek.
Wild Turkey, deer jerky, tough as Tarzan's feet.
Hot women, skinny swimmin' barely bellybutton deep
Turn muddy river water into sweet, sweet tea
Hay loft lovin' in the holler 'hind the house

No doubt about it, what I love about the South

Loretta Lynn, Maker's Mark, it's Kentucky as can be
Jack Daniel's, Dolly Parton hold the hills of Tennessee
Finger pickin', bluegrass blowin' in the wind around here
We believe the Book of John and we drive John Deeres
The Devil came to Georgia, Mr. Daniels showed him out

No doubt about it, what I love about the South

What I love (what I love)
About the South (about the South)
If you need a Dixie Fix just a' come on down
It's what I love (what I love)
About the South (about the South)
Southern Belles with a drawl make you stop and drop your jaw, come on y'all, shut your mouth....

It's what I love about the South.

Grew up down here and it's where I'll grow my kids
Old Mc Donald had a daughter, get 'er done, got 'er did
Corn grows in rows on a cob, and flows from a jar, in a Rocky Top bar.
A little fountain from the mountain even made the Possum shout

What I love about the South

What I love (what I love)
About the South (about the South)
If you need a Dixie Fix just a' come on down
What I love (what I love)
About the South (about the South)
Southern Belles with a drawl make you stop and drop your jaw, come on y'all, shut your mouth....

It's what I love about the South.

(Sung to the tune of Dixie)
It's what I love, what I love, what I love, about the South

See y'all!

"I Need You to Love Me"

Why, why are You still here with me
Didn't You see what I've done?
In my shame I want to run and hide myself
But it's here I see the truth
I don't deserve You

But I need You to love me, and I
I won't keep my heart from You this time
And I'll stop this pretending that I can
Somehow deserve what I already have
I need You to love me

I, I have wasted so much time
Pushing You away from me
I just never saw how You could cherish me
'Cause You're a God who has all things
And still You want me

Your love makes me forget what I have been
Your love makes me see who I really am
Your love makes me forget what I have been

-Barlow Girls