Quality vs. Quantity and the Nature of Morality

Last summer, I wrote two columns in this space about stem cell research and federal policy. In one, I called on Congress to pass and President Bush to sign a bill enhancing federal support for the groundbreaking research. In the other, I commended Senator Bill Frist, a surgeon by trade, for breaking with the President and changing his stance to support the program.

The last two days have seen a great high and a terrible low for those who support scientific and medical research. First the Senate passed an already approved House bill to expand support for stem cell research. Then, today, President Bush vetoed the legislation in a heartless act that all but shuts the door on this critical research for at least another year. With the bill falling just a few votes short of a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both houses, it is highly unlikely that the veto will be overridden, and therefore the bill will not become law.

While stem cell research would not guarantee a panacea for all of the world's ills, diseases, and pains, it does open up new doors and offers the best chance for finding treatments and cures for diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and others. How President Bush can morally justify denying this kind of research is beyond me. He claims that his action is moral, that he is defending the lives of fetuses, but this is not the case. Stem cell research would have no effect on the number of abortions in this country. Instead, this action trades actual lives for potential lives.

Of course, this should come as no surprise from an administration that backs what they call a "culture of life" and what has more accurately been called a "culture of birth." The President has long been a supporter of birth, and his stance against abortion is well known. Unfortunately, he often ignores life after that point. Another stand he is well known for is being a staunch supporter of the death penalty, allowing over 150 executions while serving as governor of Texas. This presents a bizarre dichotomy for a man who claims to be in favor of preserving life at all costs. And on top of that, with this veto, Bush declares that only the quantity of life, not its quality, matter to him.

President Bush today, for the first time in his term in office, used the veto power given to him. Congress should return the favor and use its override power and allow this critical, groundbreaking, lifesaving research to go forward with federal support.

Moral Authority and the First 1,000

Today is a sad day in our country. Today is the day the 1,000th execution since the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1977 took place in North Carolina. Kenneth Lee Boyd was pronounced dead at 2:15 a.m. after receiving a lethal dose of chemicals for a double murder in 1988 of his wife and father in law.

Today there is a debate raging in our country about the death penalty. Is it humane? Is it fair? Is it accurate? Is it a legitimate action for a state to take against one of its citizens? Today, I will not be touching on any of these issues. Instead, I want to focus on just one aspect of using the death penalty. Is capital punishment effective?

Just after 9:00 this morning in Houston, Texas, a clerk at Vega's Meat Market was shot during the course of a robbery attempt. He died later at the hospital. Just eight hours after the 1,000th execution in the modern era of capital punishment took place, a murder was committed in the state with the most executions during the same period. Clearly the threat of execution was no deterrent to the two men seen fleeing from the scene.

One argument for the death penalty is that it deters people from committing crimes, yet murders continue to occur. Crime has not gone down since the death penalty was reintroduced. If there is a way to deter crime, we either have not found it, or at least are not using it. When murders occur constantly across the country, there is clear and present danger to our society, and we must do everything we can to stem the tide of blood that flows through our cities. If capital punishment is the best solution we can come up with as a society to solve this problem, however, then I feel ashamed to call myself a member of this society.

I do not know what the best answer is. Maybe it is to increase funding for education. Maybe it is increased restrictions on handguns. Maybe it is increased restrictions on ammunition. All I do know is that we are not better off now that Kenneth Lee Boyd is dead, and as long as would have remained locked away in prison, we are not any safer than when he was alive.

The only other thing I know is that our moral authority is at stake. I do not know how we can claim to have the moral high ground on any subject when we still carry out barbaric practices that keep us in league with Iran, China, Singapore, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I am looking forward to the day when no one is led into the death chambers at San Quentin, or Terra Haute, or Raleigh, or Huntsville, or anywhere else. We will all be better off when we are not killing anybody as a society.

Still Seeking a Newer World

Where have all the great speeches gone? Does anyone even listen to the President's weekly radio address? Does anyone care what Senators say on the floor of the greatest deliberative body in history? Can anyone remember a single speech from last year's campaigns?

There used to be a time when our leaders inspired us, when what they said could ring true deep within us and spur us on to actions that we never thought we could accomplish. Speeches used to be about dreams and visions for a better country, speeches used to be calls to action, not just about taking potshots at the other side. In the world today, we are short on practical idealists.

This is a day to celebrate the life of one such practical idealist. Robert Francis Kennedy would have turned 80 today. Attorney General, Senator, Presidential Candidate, world traveler, inspiration to millions, idealist, protector, husband, father, brother, son. Any number of words can be used to describe the man, but all seem to fall short in one measure or another. History will record Kennedy's last wave to the crowd, his final public words, and that horrifying scene moments later with him lying on the ground bleeding from the gunshot wound to his head. But he could have been so much more, and his words were the kind that called a generation to public service, and he took the nation and the world to task for injustices that he saw.

Among the many speeches he gave during his public life, from his time as Attorney General to the Senate to the 1968 Presidential Campaign, three stand out. One is from Kennedy's trip to South Africa in 1966. The second was given at the University of Kansas on March 18, 1968, one of the first days of his campaign. The third in this trilogy of great speeches was delivered on April 4, 1968, in Indianapolis, after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Kennedy biographer Arthur Schlesinger said of the South Africa speech "It was Kennedy’s greatest speech." At Kennedy's grave in Arlington National Cemetery, there is a quote from the speech that exemplifies the man's vision of the world: "It is from numberless acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." In the home of apartheid, Robert Kennedy was not afraid to take his hosts to task, and his words inspired generations of South Africans who worked tirelessly to sweep down those walls of oppression and helped to create the new, free South Africa that exists today.

The speech at the University of Kansas, titled "Recapturing America’s Moral Vision" by Edwin Guthman, at one time Kennedy's press secretary, is a vision of what America can and should be. "Too much and too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over eight hundred billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage … But the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play ... It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America, except why we are proud that we are Americans." The words come clearly and ring true from a man who did not want to be President of the United States for personal glorification, but to further a mission that he had spent his entire life furthering, the pursuit of justice, goodness, and truth for America and the world at large.

The third speech is from one of the darkest days in American history, the day Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Learning of his death upon landing in Indianapolis, Kennedy went straight to the city's ghetto, where a crowd of mostly African Americans had been waiting for him and had not heard the news. After telling them of King's death, Kennedy, speaking without notes, told the crowd of the deep anguish he felt at his brother's assassination five years earlier. It was a moving, personal moment in a very public campaign, and it was the only time in his life that Robert Kennedy spoke about John Kennedy's death in public. He continued speaking that night: "What we need in the United States is not division, what we need in the United States is not hatred, what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness, but love and wisdom and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black. Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man, and make gentle the life of this world." The appeal to peace did not go unheeded. While many cities across the country erupted in flames and riots and violence that night, Indianapolis remained quiet. While King, throughout his life a peaceful man, would have hated the violence that followed his death in Detroit and elsewhere, he would have been proud and happy at the calm that Kennedy brought to Indianapolis.

These are just small parts of just three of the speeches that Robert Kennedy gave throughout his tragically short life. He was an inspiration to millions of people around the world, from the young anti-war crowd in the United States, to the discriminated against and the disenfranchised in South Africa. From the old liberals in the northeast, to the migrant workers of the southwest, Robert Kennedy stood as an image of peace and justice. A calming influence, even in the midst of the massive crowds that followed him everywhere he went. Gunned down by an assassin's bullet just after midnight on June 5, 1968, Kennedy's heart would not stop beating until the early hours of June 6. His death left a void in the country, and added to the myth of the Kennedy curse.

Robert Kennedy was a hero, an inspiration, and a leader. The words of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel speak of him to generation after generation, "It is indeed a loss not to have met him."

Justice, Truth, and Unintentional Virtue

This week brings to light two of the greatest things that define our country. One, the impact that a single individual can have on all of us, the fact that one person can make a difference in all of our lives. The other is the fact that our leaders are accountable, that no one is above the law, and that there are consequences for our actions.

A Real American Hero

Rosa Parks died Monday. Half a century ago, she showed us all that an individual, even one of small stature, can make all the difference in the world. Just a tired woman who would not give up her seat simply because of her race, Parks was arrested. This set off the Montgomery bus boycott, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which lasted for over a year. Parks' action, which was not a planned arrest but instead a spontaneous decision of a citizen to not take any more abuse, brought to national prominence one of the greatest leaders of the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks, by not standing that day, stood up for all that is good about the United States, and she truly is an American hero deserving of the honor of lying in the Capitol Rotunda.

How the Mighty have Fallen

Today, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby resigned after being indicted in the investigation surrounding the leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to reporters. In this case, we see again that political power does not put a person above the law in the United States. One of the most powerful men in terms of influence in the government, Libby has now resigned in disgrace and faces federal charges of lying to FBI agents. With the investigation not over yet, the Bush administration could lose another key adviser in Karl Rove. Although he appears to have squeaked by for now, Rove could still face charges and justice in this matter might finally be achieved.

Justice and the Spirit of the United States

The Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle wrote "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." This week shows us that he could not have been more wrong. The history of the world is but the biography of simple people who do great things. Rosa Parks is one such person, whose personal actions drove us all to be better people. Scooter Libby's indictment and resignation show us that the strength of the United States is rooted in the idea that our leaders can be brought down peacefully and justly, and we can still go on, stronger than we were before.

"Justice is rather the activity of truth, than a virtue in itself. Truth tells us what is due to others, and justice renders that due. Injustice is acting a lie." – Horace Walpole

Vouching for the Short Term

In the midst of discussions on ways to move the recovery from Hurricane Katrina forward, the Bush administration has proposed a laundry list of possible programs and changes that they claim would help in returning New Orleans and other affected areas to their previous economic strength. While the intentions of those formulating these proposals are good, and their goal of getting the region back on its feet are admirable, we must be very wary of proposals that push ideological and political positions instead of those that would bring about the most broad-based economic support.

Foremost among these ideological proposals is to provide students with vouchers, allowing them to attend private schools and to have the government pay for their tuition. Aside from clearly conflicting with the separation of church and state, since many of the private schools that would be receiving federal money are religious schools, the proposal is a blatant political ploy by the Bush administration to use the disaster as a way to achieve a goal that it has thus far been unsuccessful at. Since 2001, Congress has repeatedly denied the President the opportunity to get a voucher program passed, much to its credit.

Voucher programs are detrimental to public education and a wide variety of well-respected organizations disagree with the idea on various grounds. The National Parent Teacher Association, the Anti-Defamation League, and the NAACP all stand opposed to school voucher programs.

Hurricane Katrina is a disaster beyond what most of us who do not live in the area can comprehend. Countless houses and schools have been damaged or destroyed, and the basic way of life in southern Louisiana has been changed forever. We need to help the people of the region rebuild their lives, their homes, and their schools. But we cannot neglect the next generation of students and destroy the foundation that public education provides for so many students around the country. School vouchers divert money from public education and put it in the pockets of private, often religious schools, something that goes against one of our basic principles of government.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post published an article on the school vouchers proposal. Here are two quotes from the article:

"It makes it even worse," Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, said of the idea that all displaced families could obtain money for private schools. "It is really a tone-deaf response to the crisis. It is a real grab to get an ideological position across that they haven't been able to achieve under normal circumstances."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), ranking Democrat on the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said, "Instead of reopening ideological battles, we should be focused on reopening schools and getting people the help that they need."

To read the rest of the article, here is a link to it.

This needs to be exposed as exactly what it is: an attempt by the Bush administration, panicking over extremely low approval ratings, and trying to get an extremely controversial program pushed through Congress in order to claim any victory they can by any means necessary.

Small Steps and Great Leaps

Forty-three years and one week ago today, at Rice Stadium in Houston, Texas, President John F. Kennedy announced a new national priority for the United States. Here are the highlights from that speech:

"We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds...

"No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

"Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight...

"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too...

"Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

"We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public...

"To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money ... even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us...

"However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job."

Today, we are again preparing for a return trip to the moon, as NASA announced its $100 billion, 13-year plan to land a crew of four on the moon for initial explorations of seven days. The numbers are daunting and the costs are high, but I think they are more than worth it. Thirty-three years after the last moon landing, we are long overdue for a return trip to our closest neighbor in space. We sent just half a dozen manned missions to the lunar surface, and only 12 men have left permanent footprints there. This is not even close to the amount of exploration we need to conduct in order to learn everything that we can from the riches of the worlds around us.

Already members of Congress have started to howl at the costs. In a time of natural disasters here, with engagements on this planet, how can we look elsewhere? Some may even see this as a way for President Bush to deflect some of the criticisms that have been leveled against him. I do not see this as correct, however. This is something that we have to do. Discovery is not planned. What we will learn is immeasurable. No one can predict what benefits we can accrue from these missions to the moon and later ones to Mars. The benefits will far outweigh any and all of the costs.

Worlds are waiting for us. It is time that we go explore them. The money has to be spent, the research and planning done, and the ships launched. I cannot state the case any better than President Kennedy did all those years ago. I only hope we can be as successful in the next two decades as we were in the decade after President Kennedy spurred us on to small steps and great leaps a quarter of a million miles from home.

On Civil Rights, Privacy, and Kowtowing to the Right

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to have his cake and eat it to. On September 6, the California Legislature approved a bill that would formally recognize gay marriage in the state. This is the first time that a legislative body has voted to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. Schwarzenegger, however, has said that he will veto the bill, leaving California law in its current discriminatory state.

While it is not the right thing to do, Schwarzenegger is well within his rights as governor to veto the bill. The problem arises when it becomes obvious that the veto is not out of any personal opinion by the governor, but instead is clearly a political play to the conservative base of the Republican Party. Schwarzenegger's spokesman has said that the Governor "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship." What, then, could be the explanation for the impending veto of a bill that would explicitly give homosexual couples the "full protection" that the governor supposedly believes in? Only to kowtow to the conservative right and to ignore the will of the elected legislature.

No matter what happens on the Governor's desk, however, the bill's passage represents a great blow for equal rights for all Americans. This is the first time that gay marriage has been recognized by an elected body instead of by an individual official or by a court. The tide is turning towards equal rights for all, as it did with interracial marriage and the civil rights movement in the last century. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue and a privacy issue. It should be not only allowed, but it should be instead embraced and welcomed. Far from destroying the institution of marriage, as its detractors would argue, gay marriage would strengthen the institution, bringing in a group of devoted couples that are married in every sense of the word but one. It is time to give them that legal standing and recognition. Not just in California and Massachusetts, but in Oklahoma and Texas and Alabama and Mississippi and Washington and across the rest of the nation.

The tide is turning towards what is right. Today, I am proud to stand up and say that I am a citizen of California, where at least the legislature recognizes that we cannot discriminate against so many of our citizens simply based on who they love.

700 Club Economics

The poster boy for the Christian Right has once again shown that the name of the movement is a double misnomer. Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and has justified this claim by saying "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Robertson is abdicating his duty as a spiritual leader. His justification for killing Chavez is economic. On "The 700 Club," he said "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator." This kind of utilitarian justification for an assassination is deplorable and nauseating. Robertson is not an economics expert. He has a degree in history, a law degree, and a Master of Divinity. In other words, his so-called area of expertise is in morality, spirituality, and the law, most likely as seen through the lens of history. But at the same time, he has forgotten the history of the religion that he preaches, which is founded on the ideas of peace and love, and adamantly opposed to murder.

Robertson is an interesting and enigmatic person, at least as shown through his contrasting views on the subjects of life and the law. He is opposed to abortion and supports a moratorium on the death penalty, and yet he calls for the assassination of Chavez. He has a law degree, yet calls for an act that would violate the law as articulated in executive orders banning political assassinations issued by two presidents, Ford and Reagan, both of whom, like Robertson, are conservative Republicans.

A man who claims to preach a religion that at its core espouses the virtues of peace should not be advocating the murder of anyone. For this person to advocate the political assassination of the leader of another country is even worse. For him to advocate this based on economic interests, both in the potential cost of a nonexistent war and in the threat of reduced oil supplies, is grotesque. Robertson needs to apologize and stick to spiritual matters. He can start by going back to the source and reading the parts of the bible that speak of peace and love.

The day may come when we have a confrontation with Venezuela and Chavez. That day, however, is neither today nor will it be tomorrow. If that day does come, we have numerous means at our disposal, most diplomatic, some military. But assassination is never the way to go. In America we value the rule of law, and while we may not like Chavez or be the best of friends with Venezuela at the moment, we cannot simply remove him from office in a "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" style.

On Their Own

Yesterday in Iraq, the committee writing that the new constitution for that country gave themselves an extra week to finish the document and work out compromises on the last few issues facing them before sending the completed constitution to the Iraqi National Assembly. While the Iraqi leaders missed their deadline for completion, they did so in order to not send an incomplete document to the assembly. It is easy to say, as the Sunnis have requested, that they will work out issues of federalism and self determination, as well as women’s rights, next year, but this will lead to an unstable country filled with violence and the potential for civil war.

While the Bush administration is putting the best face that it can on the delay, it is obviously disappointed that the Iraqis could not complete the constitution by the August 15 deadline. The administration had long pushed for a vote on the constitution, even if it did not resolve all of the issues that Iraq is facing as it begins to make its way in a post-Saddam Hussein world. I am not going to speculate as to whether democracy can take hold and succeed in Iraq. However, what I do know for certain is that for democracy to succeed, it has to begin on Iraqi terms. They need to hammer out compromises and solutions to their problems. If they come to the United States with questions or for advice, then it is our place to advise them. Otherwise, the process needs to be their own.

If a new Iraq starts out with Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, then that country can be a peaceful oil powerhouse in an increasingly globalized world. If, on the other hand, a new Iraq starts out with American solutions to Iraqi problems, it is very likely that the country will fail and collapse under internal pressure from opposing forces. The people writing the new constitution know that they have to finalize the document soon, or their country will never get off the ground, but the process cannot be rushed to a so-called "completion" that leaves the most pressing issues for a later date.

We can hope that the final product will include equal rights for all Iraqis, men and women, Muslims and Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, but we cannot dictate to them how to accomplish this. The greatest thing that a country can do for its own future security and success is to dictate how it will govern itself. Here in the United States, it was men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison who wrote, debated, amended, voted on, approved, and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These men are celebrated as great Americans who changed the course of history with their words and deeds. How could we deny Iraq the right to have its own great leaders in the same vein?

The Iraqis will finish their constitution. Iraq will emerge as a peaceful economic power. There will be an additional measure of stability in one of the most historically volatile places on earth, the Middle East. The world will be a safer place because of what the Iraqis are doing for themselves right now. But this can only happen if the United States remains hands-off and lets the Iraqis find solutions to their own problems.

"To Seek, to Find, and Not to Yield"

Peter Jennings died yesterday at the age of 67. The face and the voice of the news for more than 20 years for millions of Americans, the Canadian-born Jennings brought the world into our living rooms for so long that for many people, including myself, it is hard to remember a time when he did not keep us informed of the goings on around the world. The first man on the scene at so many of the defining moments of the second half of the 20th century, Jennings was the man we turned to on September 11, 2001. He provided us with the information we needed and was a source of comfort and consistency on that most bizarre and inconsistent of days. It is hard to imagine who the world will turn to when the next major event occurs. On September 11, Jennings was on the air for 12 straight hours. There was no script prepared, and we experienced the emotions of the day through his reporting.

Jennings' impact on America and the world goes beyond simply reporting what was happening half a world away. He had a personal influence on people that was shown in the reaction to his sudden announcement in April that he was battling lung cancer and would have to leave the anchor desk at ABC News. Countless current and former smokers hurried to their doctors for screenings and tests to see if they were in the same fight, and it is impossible to say how many lives were saved because of his announcement. Jennings had a choice in his announcement. He could have stepped down saying that he wanted to spend more time with his family, or that he felt that it was time for there to be a new face in the business, or because it simply was his time to leave. Instead, he felt that he had a duty to those who had spent so many years depending on him, and that he should tell the world that he was in a fight for his life, and many others are in this same fight whether they know it or not. I personally know someone whose life was saved by Jennings' announcement, and I am thankful for his courage in sharing what is often a very private fight with the world.

Peter Jennings brought us the world every day for over 20 years. In tribute to his life of traveling the world and being part of the world he reported, I am including three quotes from Alfred Tennyson's "Ulysses" that I feel exemplify the man and his mission to the world.

"Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour'd of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers;
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am part of all that I have met…

"The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die…

"Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in the old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal-temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."