Whenever words are being used some kind of definitions and/or parameters must be factored into the equation. So let's begin with the words themselves.

"PRINCIPAL - First in rank, authority, importance, degree, etc." Next, the same sounding word is not as easy to define: "PRINCIPLE - The ultimate source, origin or cause of something, and the third suggested meaning is a further application of this root meaning: "A fundamental truth, law or doctrine, or motivating force, upon which others are based (like, moral principles)".

Life, as we know it on Planet Earth, is determined by absolutes. There are those who prefer to think otherwise but absolutes cannot be ignored. Try jumping off a ten story building and claim the absolute of gravity will not apply. Try putting your hand in a crucible of molten lead (which becomes liquid at approximately 540 degrees Fahrenheit) and leave it there for just 30 seconds. Consider just one more futile experiment. Drive your car at a speed of 60 miles an hour and try to stop when you get within 10 feet of a concrete covered bridge abutment. By the time your brain's message to your leg muscles gets your foot to the brake pedal your car will have smashed into the concrete wall and you will probably be dead and the car a total loss. These three scenarios are indisputable examples of principles.

Principles then, by the definition in the first paragraph are virtual absolutes. Gravity is indisputable--it works on this planet every day, sunshine or rain. It works the same for everyone, whether male or female, a 10 pound baby or a 200 pound adult. Money has no influence or effect on gravity; you cannot bargain with coin or paper currency and change the "law of gravity".

Life is affected by principals and principles, period. Charles R. Swindoll has written dozens or maybe hundreds of his small (68 pages) Bible study guides and his editor-writers, Bill Watkins and Bill Butterworth consistently used what I would classify a caveat in those books: "Knowledge apart from application falls short of God's desire for his children. Knowledge must result in change and growth." I believe these two statements are true regardless whether the subject is religious or secular.

What about the PRINCIPALS?

Every person who is "in charge" over matters, events or a company in which you have no control could be called a (or the) principal. If that person is not governed by PRINCIPLES that are fair, equitable or moral, you could well have problems (or "issues" as modern day parlance prefers over "problems"). It is that simple. How we deal with life or the circumstances that are our lot in life is what matters. It is that simple. In other words, Chuck Swindoll's editors wisely counseled biblical students: "Convert knowledge learned into change and growth."

There will always be principals and principles. We must come to some kind of terms with how we work with this fact of life. It is not a matter of rocket science to discover the principles mentioned above will be obvious in leaders in our government, whether it be politics or legalities in local or other levels of government. Believe it, principles are essential to the successful operation of any government.

With the above thoughts on principals and principles some applications are in order. In 1999, the popular TV host, Larry King, had CBS'S 60 MINUTES quips expert, Andy Rooney as a guest. All through that broadcast, neither "principal" or "principle" was mentioned as a word. However, throughout the comments Andy Rooney made in regard to two politicians in particular and others in general. (Please remember the DATE--1999! Readers need to understand my comments are not about today's politicians but the application is like the ubiquitous "politician "--their talents-virtues know no generational bounds.)

"Lowering Standards" - A PRINCIPLE

In the opinion of Andy Rooney, when a President chooses to refer to himself as BILL Clinton instead of William J. Clinton, he presents the idea or concept of a lesser or lower standard. We accept such lowering of standards with "common" people but when the President of the United States compromises principles of standards it is a fake acquaintance entitling "common citizens" to regard Bill Clinton (in this analogy) to be a "buddy" as opposed to the fact this he is the one who was holding the highest office in our land. Jimmy Carter did the same thing. Comparatively, I cannot imagine the average Brit being encouraged to refer to Queen Elizabeth as "Betty", can you?

"Buying Political Offices" - Andy Rooney feels that something has radically happened in our society when becoming elected is dependent on how much money you can raise to spend on being elected. This is literally (by principle) BUYING the office. The person seeking election should be qualified by what they are rather than whose they are.

"Principles of Principals" - When Bill Clinton allowed himself to become involved in a scandal with a young woman within the walls of the White House he was disdainfully disregarding the principles of morals, ethics and sanctity of the office of President. We do not expect this kind of conduct from the President and not only did he appear to be guilty he lied to millions on television when he denied he had such relationships. The same accusations can be applied to Republicans with former President Richard Nixon in the Watergate Scandal. Inexcusable is a fair word to use for either man. I think the conclusion Andy Rooney had about his opinion of former President Clinton ("...he was good at what he does but terrible at who he was") and finally Mr. Rooney said, "With all his faults I still liked the man." And don't we wish or hope people can regard us with the same concessions? No president has ever been perfect but neither should they relish in their imperfections.

"Knowledge apart from application falls short...knowledge must result in change and growth." --- Charles R,. Swindoll