What If I Were President

What if I decided to run for President? What would be my platform? What party would I run under? Would anybody vote for me? Do I want to be President?

The last question is easy to answer, NO! I have no desire to lead this country, a state, county, or even a city. I was once approached to be mayor and felt a panic attack at even the thought. I have no lust for power or position. While there is a part of me that wants to make a difference and be a catalyst for positive change, I have no love for the conflict and perseverance such a venture would entail. I also lack the confidence in myself to really believe I could make it happen. Nonetheless, in those moments when my dream of making a difference takes the foreground, I have thought about what it would be like to run for President and what I would offer.

A good president should have an understanding of what is good and what needs to be changed. He or she would then need to have a viable plan on how to improve things and handle challenges as they come. They also need the ability to communicate their vision and plan to others, but let’s skip that part for this exercise and focus on the understanding of how things are and the viable plan. Here is my understanding of some of our strengths and issues as a people.

Let’s talk about the economy:

First, it is my position that the economic problems in our country are based on an unsustainable materialism supported by deficit spending and excessive speculative investment. Our economy is in a position where its only short term growth potential comes from increased consumerism in luxury goods and services—things not needed to feed, cloth, and shelter us or support our employment. At the same time, such consumption can only be funded through unrealistic speculation and through debt, the growth of which in governments, businesses, and individuals cannot be sustained due to debt-to-income and debt-to-asset ratios that are dangerously high.

Related to materialism is an unrealistic expectation of the amount of services that government can or should provide. We can no longer expect government to do more and expect it to do so with the same or lower taxes.

Second, It is my conclusion that the taxing structure has become overly complicated and inequitable. I believe we are taxing the wrong thing, income, and that loopholes and exemptions are resulting in taxes excessively targeted at the middle class.

I see the basic infrastructure of our economy as adequate or adjustable without major re-tooling. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with our labor force. Our people are as capable as or more so than those in any other country. The freedoms inherent in our political structure continue to give us tremendous potential to achieve anything we firmly put our mind to accomplish with discipline and integrity.

We could bring in some related issues like the proper role of regulation, the environment, and how the educational system needs to support the goals of society, but let’s keep it relatively simple.

So, what is my plan? First, government must implement a plan to balance the budget within 5 years. This should primarily be done with cuts in government spending. No part of the budget should be exempt and across-the-board cuts would be mandated unless there is bi-partisan agreement to cut some programs and services to salvage cuts to others. If the parties can’t agree on priorities, then percentage cuts across the board would be the fall-back law. Constitutional amendments should require a balanced budget in the future and limit future government spending growth to a percentage of population growth or some other economic indicator—with the exception of short term national emergencies. The amendments should also limit the debt-to-revenue ratio the country is allowed to carry, which should require a significant reduction in the national debt to be achieved over a 10 to 20 year period.

Second, the taxing structure should be moved from primarily taxing income to primarily taxing consumption. A value-added or sales tax should be used to tax consumption on all goods and services, retail and wholesale. Few, if any, exceptions would exist. Income taxes for both individuals and businesses at all levels of government should be phased out. Any remaining income taxes should be a flat tax rate on all income above a certain amount such as a percentage of the poverty level.

You still thinking of voting for me?

Let’s talk about foreign policy:

We live in a global environment and economy. We are interconnected in multiple ways with other countries across the world—if for no other reason than our shared humanity as children of the same deity. While I believe our political and economic system is superior to others in general—especially in certain divinely inspired principles, I also recognize that an excessive nationalism or an attempt to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world is no longer viable, if it ever was. We must be citizens of the world and involved in world events and decisions. By so doing, in a positive manner, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world and a support to societies and cultures that are trying to improve the freedoms and lives if their citizens.

That said, the reality is that while much cooperation and positive interaction between societies is taking place, the world is also fractured along economic, political, and religious lines. Extremists within those factions act in ways to promote their agendas using violence, oppression, and inflammatory propaganda. Countries and societies have the right to defend themselves against such violence and oppression. Less clear is the role of other countries in exercising military force against such elements beyond their borders or as part of a multilateral international force. I am extremely uncomfortable with expending the lives of our men and women in being the world’s police force, especially when such action is taken independent of a multi-country allied force backed by international legislation.

As President, I would take whatever action is necessary to protect our citizens from foreign military action against the borders of our country, or actions against our citizens on international waters or airspace. It would be my policy to limit actions against foreign powers that threaten our interests, but not our borders, to economic restrictions, the expulsion of foreign nationals, and blockades against travel, communication, and trade from the offending country.

Military force used on foreign soil would be used as an extreme last resort and only after consultation with the international community and preferably with the multilateral cooperation of other countries.

I admit to not having all the answers to dealing with violent extremists who use terrorist tactics. I would be open for suggestions. I think there are unexplored opportunities in addressing the historic and economic sources of the hate. What I promise I WOULDN’T do is rely solely or primarily on a military response. I wouldn’t send our sons and daughters into harm's way unless I was so sure of the right that I was willing to send my own children in the front lines and lead them myself.

Other issues:

I know there are a lot of issues I haven’t touched on. What about immigration, both new immigration and dealing with the millions here illegally? What about extending civil rights to groups such as those identifying themselves and gay and lesbian or to others who’s choices and lifestyles challenge judgments about what is moral or damaging to society? Well, maybe in future installments.

So, do you think I would be elected? Do you think I might even have a significant following? Do you think either party would back me? I don’t. So let me talk about why. I believe that a representative government such as ours can never long do other than reflect the general beliefs and norms of the society it represents, good or bad. We are in the fixes we are because as a society we have been unwilling to face the hard choices it would have taken to avoid the present circumstances. I don’t think we are yet willing to face those choices.

For instance, we criticize government for excessive spending, but as a society we have the highest debt-to-income and debt-to-asset ratios of any generation in history. As a people, we seem unwilling to live within our means and save for a rainy day. We want everything that previous generations have had to work years to achieve and more and we want it now—even if we are under or unemployed. Are we really going to vote for a guy that tells us we have to tighten our belts, live without, and give up government services we have come to rely on? No, we’ll vote for the guy that says he can cut spending without cutting our pet programs and without raising taxes. We’ll vote for the lady who says she can save our homes from foreclosure even though we can’t pay what we agreed to pay. We’ll vote for the politician that says he will boost the economy with stimulus checks and extended un-employment benefits—all on the assumption that when things improve we can balance the budget and pay it all back.

As a society, we want government to protect us from all the evils in the world—except the ones we want to indulge in. Even then, if we destroy our bodies with substances or suffer the consequences of risky behavior, we want government to pay for our medical care and provide us disability benefits. Whether it is terrorists or hurricanes, we want to either be protected or reimbursed by government so that we are made financially whole. Against threats at home and abroad, we want tough talk and oversimplified analysis that make things black and white and doesn’t challenge us to see things from multiple perspectives. And as long as it is somebody else’s relative, we are OK with putting our citizens in harms way so we can punish the bad guys/gals of the world.

So, no, I don’t think I would be elected. Nobody is going to vote for somebody who attempts to tell the truth and calls for reality in government and society. We want the pretty party line that says it can solve all our problems without sacrifice and gives rights and benefits without responsibility. We will elect somebody that says all our problems are brought on us by the other guy, especially foreigners and the other party. I’m afraid I couldn’t be that person, even if I really wanted to be president.

What I Wish for You, My Son

What I Wish for You, My Son

On the wall of my office were many sayings that I'd gathered over the years. I would like to share a few of those sayings. And, from what they and other sources teach, give a gift to you of what I would wish for you as you leave home and embark upon the path of life.

This first is a statement attributed to the philosopher, Goethe. Besides a testimony of Christ, which I will get to later, I think it touches upon one of the most foundational keys of a successful life. It goes like this:

I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and a person humanized or de-humanized. Goethe

Build upon the responsibility you have shown growing up. Most of all, take responsibility for how you feel and your emotions. I cannot stress what a difference this will make in your life or your ability to achieve. And so, my first wish for you would be that you always retain your internal locust of control. No matter what you face in the way of circumstance, I wish that you would never give up your responsibility for your thoughts and emotions, and actions. Life is not what happens to you, it is what you choose to do with what happens to you.

Oh remember, my son, and learn wisdom in thy youth; yea, learn in thy youth to keep the commandments of God. Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and withersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever. Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day.
Alma 37:35-37

The second, and more important foundation stone is a testimony of Christ. If you really believe that you are a child of God, and that the church and the teachings of the Gospel have been given for you as a guide to eventually become like your Father in Heaven; if you know in your heart that Jesus Christ suffered, died and was resurrected to give you the tools to repent and return to God; if you can feel the spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost providing guidance, strength, and a testament to the truth, then what else really matters? All other things in your life are secondary. Nothing is as important, I would say vital, to you. With this foundation in place, all else will follow suit and be for your good. Without this foundation, all else is ephemeral and fleeting. And so, above all else, I wish for you to gain a strong testimony, live by it, and build upon it your entire life.

Closely related is the next saying:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Frank Whitt

And it’s companion:

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence [or mediocrity] is not an act, but a habit.
Aristotle

The older you get, the harder it becomes to change. Habits have a deep affect on the quality of your life. In the end, how we spend our time when we aren’t required to do something else, what we think about when we aren’t focused on something, are big statements about who we are and what we feel is important. I wish you useful, positive habits.

The next wish is summed up well by a statement from Rudyard Kipling, it goes like this:

If
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating, And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise; If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two imposters just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to broken, and stoop and build ‘em up with wornout tools; If you can make a heap of all your winnings and risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, and lose, and start again at your beginnings, and never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone, and so hold on when there is nothing in you except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”; If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch; If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt; If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—Your’s is the earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling

Kipling is talking about how important it is to stand up and stand out, to always retain your integrity and maintain your sense of positive self, taking both success and failure in stride. I wish for you that you will always maintain integrity with yourself. While we share our lives with many people, in the end there are only two upon which we can always rely, God and ourselves.

This next statement is on the lighter side, but illustrative of something very important:

All skill is for naught when an Angel takes a leak in the Touch Hole of your Musket.

Because we can't control all that happens around us; because our best laid plans may fall apart; because life will constantly surprise us, bow down once in awhile to what man calls luck and take things in stride, accepting them as they are. When all else fails, laugh or cry, then reload your gun and move on. And so, I wish for you, when you recognize things can’t or shouldn’t be changed, to accept what is, seek to appreciate what is, and move on.

I have studied many world religions and philosophies, and from each I have garnered words of wisdom and what I think are eternal ideals. From the Buddhists I gather the following:

The path to enlightenment is to accept both Joy and Suffering with the same Grace, Humility, and Love in your Heart, realizing that both are illusions and your Choice of Reaction is the only Reality.

I do not believe that life is just an illusion. I think the probationary period that we call mortality is very real. What I agree with is the fact that most of what happens to us is illusory in nature, meaning that it will pass and has a purpose beyond the seemingly obvious and momentary. In the end, whether it is suffering or pleasure, even moments of joy, they will pass. What is left to us is the choices we make and how we chose to react. What I wish for you is that you spend less time asking why things happen or who is to blame, and more time asking, how should I react, or what should I do now to make the best of it and learn and grow. In the end, this life is a test. Our experiences, whether suffering or joy, even boredom, are the questions on that test. Our answers, despite how they may be worded or formed, will always be one of two choices Yes, I choose to do what will bring me back to God, or No, I choose to give in to selfishness, despair, fear, or hate, which will take me away from my goal to be like God. I wish that you will always make the choice that will take you back to God.

I have just a few more wishes for you. The first has to do with how you treat others and allow yourself to be treated by others, so I share with you these rules.

The Ten Commandments of How to Get Along With People
1. Keep skid chains on your tongue. Say less than you think. Cultivate a soothing voice. How you say it often means more than what you say.
2. Make promises sparingly and keep them faithfully, no matter what the cost.
3. Never lose an opportunity to say a kind word to or about someone. Praise work well done, regardless of who did it.
4. Be interested in others, their pursuits, their homes and their families. Let everyone you meet, however humble, feel you regard him/her as important.
5. Be cheerful. Keep the corners of your mouth turned up. Hide your worries and disappointments under a smile. When it is necessary to talk to someone about your problems, try to stay optimistic and always look for the light at the end of the tunnel.
6. Keep an open mind on all debatable questions. Discuss, but don’t argue. It is a mark of a superior mind to disagree and remain friendly.
7. Let your virtues speak for themselves and refuse to discuss the shortcomings of others. Discourage gossip by changing the subject.
8. Have respect for the feelings of others. Wit and humor at the expense of a friend is never worth it.
9. Pay no attention to destructive remarks and personal attacks on you. Live so that none will believe them. Remember, a common cause of back-biting is dissatisfaction with oneself.
10. Don’t be concerned about your “just due.” Do a good turn for the sake of being helpful.

She ends with this statement:

“Oh the comfort, the inexpressible comfort, of feeling safe with a person, having neither to weigh thoughts, nor measure words—but pouring them all right out—just as they are, chaff and grain together—certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them and keep what is worth keeping and, with the breath of kindness, throw the rest away.” Dinah Mulock

You can treat others the way you want to be treated, but perhaps that isn't what others want. You may treat them the way they want to be treated, but we don't always want what is best for ourselves. So my own interpretation of the Golden rule, which I will call the Diamond rule is: Treat others the way you think Christ would treat them. I wish for you that you would always view others through Christlike eyes and attitudes. Also, I wish that you would be the person that you want others to be with you. You shouldn't expect to find a princess, if you aren't a prince. I wish for you to be a prince.

There is a lot to say about standing up for yourself. There are times when a person should defend their family and stand up for your values. But always seek for resolution. Never attack individuals. Remember:

Requite Fire with Fire and the flames will engulf us all.

As you embark on a new life away from home and family, remember something about success. The longer I’ve worked and the more positions I’ve had, the more I’ve come to realize that I work to live, I don’t live to work. When your life comes to an end, nobody is going to ask how good you were in business or college. They will talk about real success:

Success:
To laugh often, and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded. Ralph Waldo Emerson.

And in looking at your career, remember one other thing. If it doesn’t provide a needed service, and allow you to do so with integrity, it isn’t worthy of you:

The real winners in life get what they want by helping others get what they want.

I wish for you an abundance of real success.

My next wish for you may seem as a curse. But if you understand what I have said above, it will make sense. Six months into my mission service I was ready to give up. I asked the mission president for a transfer back to the states, based on the fact that I couldn't seem to learn the language, and therefore felt I was accomplishing nothing. He looked at me deep in the eyes and said, "Elder, you can't go around this mountain, you've got to go over it." He blessed me and prayed with me, but then left me to conquer the mountain alone, with God. I wish for you many opportunities to do what you do not think you can do, to endure what you do not feel you can endure, and achieve what you are inclined to say can't be done. For, with each effort, fully given and holding nothing back, even if it should sometimes fail, you will stretch, grow, and come away a better person. For truly, you do not fail by falling, or by not reaching a certain goal. Failure only comes when we give up before giving it our very best. Anything with our best effort is not failure, it is a learning experience. I know life will give you many learning experiences and it is up to you whether they become stumbling stones or building blocks. I wish for you many building blocks.

Let me share with you another saying, both humorous, and maybe profound:

Bloom where you are planted! Remember, the deeper the crap, the richer the fertilizer.

In Closing I offer this:

Comes the Dawn
After awhile you learn the subtle difference between holding a hand and chaining a soul, And you learn that love doesn’t mean leaning and company doesn’t mean security, And you begin to understand that kisses aren’t contracts and presents aren’t promises, And you begin to accept your defeats with your head held high and your eyes wide open, With the grace of an adult, not the grief of a child. You learn to build your roads on today because tomorrow’s ground is too uncertain and futures have a way of falling down in mid-flight. After awhile you learn that even sunshine burns if you get too much, So you plant your own garden, and decorate your own soul, instead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers. And you learn that you really can endure, that you really are strong, and you really do have worth. And you learn and learn…and you learn. With every goodbye you learn.
Veronica Shoffstall

I love you, my son, and feel confident that you will go places and make a success of your life. You will make some mistakes, but you can overcome them and improve in the process. It is all up to you now, and your reliance on the Lord, but I am also always behind you.

Love,
Dad

Secrets to a Happy Life

Happiness Secrets

The following are things that I've found contribute to a choice to live happily:

Act vs. React. Take control of your actions, regardless of the circumstances you are in or how much control you think you have over them. We may not be able to completely control our environment, but we can control our personal direction. When we react, we blame life; when we act we take responsibility. Which do you choose, the life of a powerless victim, or the empowering recognition that you always have choices?

Live in Today: It is O.K. to learn from the past and let those lessons affect your present, but otherwise drop the past and cease to let it control you‑‑forgive, forget, move beyond. Our bitterness, regrets, guilt, or longings for the past, are not our servants, they are our masters; revolt and flee to the present. Visions of the future are O.K. to give purpose and direction, but tomorrow is contingent on too many uncontrolled variables. Today is what you have to work with and today is where you are. Live today well, as if your visions were already coming true. Learn from the past, plan for tomorrow, but live and act today.

Recognize the Empirical Fallacy: All perception falls short of reality, regardless of how objective the intent. Nobody, short of God, has a total understanding of reality. When we realize that what we see of reality is the child of our perception, and not the other way around, we are empowered to change our perception and hence change our reality. Accepting a limitation or barrier in your life can be akin to self‑imposing such. True, we may have much work to do in order to overcome something, but we have the choice to look at it either as a prison, or as a challenge that will make us stronger. The difference has little to do with reality and everything to do with how we choose to think about it.

Live with a Purpose: Purpose is the difference between mere survival and truly living. Remember the question, "Why am I here?" and decide what direction you want to go. Dr. Victor Frankl, a WWII concentration camp survivor, believed that we can bear almost anything when we know there is purpose to our efforts. Even so, concentrate not on an end but on perfecting the journey. Purpose is more a direction than a destination.

Seek Balance: Balance and moderation are the keys to smoothing out life's ruffles. Monomaniacal fanaticism may lead to great accomplishments in one area, but always to the great loss of other potentialities. The ability to balance and juggle priorities is the key to life management. Having a multi‑faceted existence provides a broader base for dealing with setbacks and keeping successes in perspective. No one person is one person. This is not a lack of integrity, but the very beauty of life, variety. Losing integrity happens when we act contrary to our values, beliefs, and declarations. Balance is equivalent to running on all cylinders or putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. It is, put another way, personal synergism.

A good friend and I used to have a saying: "Tonight I will go home and clean up my room, my life, and make somebody happy." Translation: Cleaning up my room refers to taking charge of my reactions to what happens to and around me rather than circumstances taking charge of me; cleaning up my life refers to raising my behavior back up to my values in order to regain personal integrity; and, making somebody happy refers to serving people and developing loving relationships. When I'm not feeling up to par, I can usually find the answers in doing one or more of those three activities.

Thoughts on This Life

Some thoughts on this life:

1) He who dies with the most toys...still dies. Work on collecting what you can take with you.

2) It's O.K. to play the game for a valued cause, as long as the game doesn't play you.

3) Life's problems are seldom solved by lowering our standards to match our behavior, but rather by raising our behavior to match our standards. The world will always look up to those who quietly walk their talk.

4) Problems are almost always less circumstance than perspective. Systems and circumstance will only change when people change how they look at them and then act accordingly.

5) Those who retain their perception of control over their actions and reactions, control their whole world. Those who seek to blame circumstance, others, even deity, lose control over even themselves.

6) Life happens. One of the greatest secrets ever to be learned is to not ask "Why'?", but to ask "What now?"

7) Now is the only moment we can directly influence. The past is gone, and the future is a blur; now is where it's at. Sorry are those that live life thinking today is some sort of rehearsal for tomorrow, or an afterthought of yesterday.

8) The only failure is giving up, anything else is just a learning experience.

9) That which we seek to hold is eventually lost, that which we set free and share is usually expanded upon. Success shouldn't be measured by what we hoard, but by what we share.

10) Any result obtained in spite of people rather than through people is hollow at best. In the end, no one really cares how much you know or do, until they know how much you care.

Solving the World's Problems

Those who have read over other postings know that I am a religious person. I believe in God. While I have tried to not make religion or my specific religious cosmology the focus of my posts, neither have I tried to hide what I believe. For this post, I will be up front and say that I cannot address this subject from a purely secular view.

Anybody who watches the news knows that there are problems in the world. Individuals and nations are in conflict. The helpless are being abused and neglected. The environment is under pressure. Resources are being abused and are no longer as abundant. Pain and suffering, fear and hate, distrust and selfishness abound. While beauty also exists, the world is often a scary and depressing place.

So, what is to be done? Governments and social organizations theorize over the causes and solutions, implementing interventions in the lives of individuals, communities, even nations. While the more successful programs seem to alleviate some symptoms, the root problems roll merrily on, either becoming worse or changing their character to resurface as newer, and often more troubling, conditions. As a society we seem fixated on attempting to address root causes with external applications. Can I suggest that it isn’t working?

A wise man once expressed, “The world would take the man out of the slum. God would take the slum out of the man, who then removes himself from the slum. The world would change man by changing his environment. God would change man by changing his character.” Herein lies the fault, in my opinion, in how we try and change social conditions. We focus on changing the environment without concentrating on the character—assuming that when the man or woman is out of the slum, they will naturally act different. And I speak not just of a run down neighborhood.

How we attempt to change or accept our environment is greatly affected by our beliefs and our attitudes. Our feelings, too, are governed by what we choose to focus on and how we choose to interpret what we experience. Don’t believe it? Try this example. A spouse is late coming home. How should the spouse waiting feel? Well, if they imagine that the spouse is working late they may not feel much at all. If, on the other hand, they image the spouse bleeding on the freeway after a car accident, then they will feel anxious and worried. Or, they may imagine the spouse in the arms of an elicit lover, in which case they might feel angry or depressed. Finally, they could image that the spouse is out shopping for a special gift to give them, in which case they might feel happy and expectant. Notice that the only thing they really know is that the spouse is late. All the things they might feel are based not on fact or circumstance, but on their interpretation of the circumstance. Such is the basis of most of our feelings and attitudes. Even when the circumstance is more specific, we still make a choice about how we feel by how we choose to interpret it. Say the spouse is working late, we might choose to feel happy because he or she is providing for the family and working to maintain their job, or we may justify negative feelings by deciding that their working late is a sign that they don’t care about the family or being at home. Again, how we end up feeling about it is almost always a choice in how we perceive the situation.

What I would suggest is that to really change the world, we have to change the beliefs, attitudes, and feelings of individuals. As those change, they, the individuals, will in turn change their environment. I wasn’t a big Michael Jackson fan, but I have to admit that his song entitled “The Man in the Mirror” was a classic and addresses what I’m talking about. If we would change the world, we should focus on changing ourselves. Now, here is the rub. I propose that there isn’t much a government or community organizations can do to change attitudes and beliefs. It can legislate against excesses and enforce such laws. It can offer assistance to those who are choosing to change their environment. It can create an environment conducive to change, thereby offering some hope. But, it can’t force people to change their character, which is the sum total of their attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and actions. And, the sad fact is that the majority of people won’t spontaneously change. There is inertia in feeling a victim, in feeling self justified in hate, prejudice, or self righteousness. That inertia is not easily cast off.

It is here that my religious cosmology comes into effect. There needs to be some force that can change the human heart, that when applied can remove the slums of ignorance, hate, and fear from the person. I believe that force to be God, and more specifically, the healing and saving force of Christ’s atonement. As man accepts the will of God in his/her life, he becomes free of the inertial negative forces and free to choose the love and courage that will ultimately solve the world’s problems. While we, without God, may do good in the world and serve others, we will mostly fail in the goal of really changing the world, and indeed, of changing ourselves.

I would plead with all who read this to seek the peace and love that comes from sincere religious belief and expression. All the great religions of the world, when stripped of fundamentalist radicalism, have as a basis of their teachings the philosophy of love, brotherhood, and mercy. Most also presuppose a life style that avoids the hurting of others and acts in the best interest of the community. It is only through these principles that we can heal our societies and begin to solve the world’s problems. For those wishing to know my own belief of how accepting Christ can change our hearts and character, go to www.mormon.org and look over the teachings of Christ as we understand them. May heaven bless you in your efforts and searching.

Rights and Responsibilities

A few years ago I served a term on a local city council. I quickly learned how varied the interests of even a small town could be. I wasn’t excited about running for the position, but felt compelled to get involved in something I cared about. I also wanted to provide a wordless sermon to my children about making a difference rather than just complaining about how things were. The first two years of service went by without much pain. There wasn’t a lot of controversy, but neither did we get much done. I spent my time trying to learn the processes and policies that governed the running of an incorporated city. By the end of the two years I had been elected council president and had been approached to run for mayor. I didn’t desire the position of mayor and convinced others who I thought would do a good job to run instead. The next two years were a much different experience.

In the second half of my term the city was faced with some very difficult decisions on upgrading infrastructures. We also revised a number of controversial ordinances such as the city junk ordinance and weed abatement. While all but the most radical individualists agreed there was a need to have ordinances that limited what an individual could do on or with his/her property, those limitations soon became flashpoints when applied in particular and not just in principle. In other words, we as a city should make my neighbor clean up this and fix that, but don’t tell me what to do on my property! The debates were extended and often emotional. Every concession given in the wording of an ordinance seemed only to create new concerns from one end of the perceptual spectrum or the other. The feelings got so heated that I was even referred to as a Municipal Natzi in the local press. I also quickly learned that people were quick to quote laws that either didn’t exist or were grossly misinterpreted, including the state and federal constitution. Well, at the end of my term I gladly let others take my place, convincing them to run rather than seek re-election. While at the time I thought I would stay more involved, I haven’t—a matter that carries a certain amount of shame with it and that I’m in the process of fixing.

Where is all this going? The great difficulty in living in a society is balancing the trade offs between individual rights and responsibilities to the community. It has been said that we are living in an age where everybody is quick to point out their rights, and very slow to admit their responsibilities. I am a great believer in rights. Our law-given rights protect us from excesses of the majority and the corrupted use of governmental power. The problem comes in determining what is and is not a right. The U.S. constitution says that the government shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion. Does that mean that there must be a strict separation between government and all religious beliefs or practices? Some have suggested that we can’t legislate morality, but aren’t all laws based on somebody’s definition of what is right and wrong? The constitution states that the government, in order to maintain a well regulated militia, shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. Does that mean that we shouldn’t require a background check and registration of guns? No place in the constitution does it mention a right of privacy. Privacy rights have been inferred from other constitutional language and the development of judicial interpretation over the years. How much can or should a government know about its citizens in order to protect them and regulate criminal behavior? These questions go on and on, and while we may have our personal opinions, who is it that must draw the line in the sand?

A French philosopher stated that when America ceased to be good, she would cease to be great. Others have suggested that apathy will be our ultimate downfall, meaning that the less people get involved, the greater the possibility that a minority will be able to exercise tyranny. Notice that neither idea suggests that we will be conquered by an army or driven underground by fundamentalist terrorists. Our strength, and our weakness, is in the degree we recognize and act upon our responsibilities as citizens and members of a society.

What are our responsibilities? I feel they fall under the following areas: Knowledge, Involvement, and Vigilance. Let’s start with knowledge. While nobody expects every individual to be a lawyer, we should be familiar with the laws of our land in general and know how to look them up. Every citizen should be familiar with the constitution, including its history and how it has evolved and been judicially interpreted over the years. Beware of making quick assumptions based on your own interpretation of the wording. We should understand how our local, state, and federal governments are organized and work. Who are your representatives? Do you know how to contact them? We should keep abreast of issues and legislation that we care about or that may affect us. And may I suggest that we aren’t too quick to form an opinion. Take the time to learn the different sides of an issue. When you can argue a point either way and understand the ramifications of action not only on yourself but on others, including those you may disagree with, then you are approaching a point you can have an informed opinion. Otherwise, your opinions are nothing more than ignorant babble—regardless of how emotionally you may express them.

Involvement is the key to a successful democracy. I had a political science teacher who taught that if you did nothing more than vote, even if your vote was informed and not just based on party affiliation, then you would be nothing more than a C student in your governmental responsibilities. I’m not suggesting that everybody run for office, although doing so isn’t a bad idea, but get involved in local caucuses and committees. Speak out on issues that you care about. Help somebody you believe in campaign. Outside of elections, write letters to representatives. Attend local council meetings. Write letters to the editor, although I ask you to be civil and reasoned and avoid such terms and Municipal Natzi. J As much as we complain about those we elect to represent us, I firmly believe that our government can never be more than what we allow it to be. If government is corrupt and our representatives not being representative, then we must bear the responsibility for allowing it to happen, which brings us to the final responsibility.

Vigilance can have many meetings. In this context I think it has two primary applications. First, we must remain up to date on what is happening in our society and be ready to react and act appropriately. As a recent movie suggested, governments should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. But why should governments care about those who don’t care enough to turn off the latest mindless reality show and read a paper, watch a news program, or browse legitimate informational web sites. To the degree we don’t care to watch, we have little to complain about what happens. Vigilance also means that we take part in maintaining a law abiding society. There will never be enough police organizations to stay on top of all that is happening. While I’m not suggesting that we go peeping in neighbors’ windows, I am suggesting that we stay aware of what goes on around us and not be afraid to report something suspicious. Join neighborhood watches, organize with others in your neighborhood who care to make a difference and not allow destructive elements to spread unchallenged. While you should avoid violence in both word and action, don’t be afraid to stand up for what you care about and believe.

In summary, while our society should not abandon the rights we give to the vulnerable, our ultimate success will depend not on our rights, but how we exercise our responsibilities. In Kennedy’s words, slightly altered, think not what your country can do for you, but what your responsibilities are to your country, your communities, and our society at large. As we learn what we need to learn, act ethically and with compassion, and maintain our vigilance, then the powers of destruction, from within or without, will never gain the power overcome us.

Mortgaging our Future

As we dive deeper into recession, everybody wants to know who is to blame. Financial institutions point to a bursting equity bubble that they couldn’t have foreseen. Others point at individuals who tried to achieve affluence through credit and now aren’t able to repay the loans. And of course, everybody points at the government for excessive spending and the relaxing of credit rules. All of those criticisms have truth to them. None alone can take all the blame.

Let’s start with government. It is true that back in the late 80’s and through the 90’s there was a move towards relaxing credit criteria. It was noted that it was getting harder and harder for low income people to achieve home ownership under the more stringent criteria. Perhaps loosening the criteria would let more people own homes, which would help out other sectors of the economy. It was a risk, but it seemed to be a risk worth taking. While it achieved the goal of getting more people in homes, now many of those homes face foreclosure and banks are being crushed under the weight of defaulted loans without the equity to cover them. So, is it government’s role to fix everything?

The financial market cannot argue that too many loans were made to too many people without adequate credit worthiness and without adequate consideration of the ability to pay after adjustable loan interest rates began to increase. It was assumed that as long as property values continued to rise that bad loans would be covered by equity—encouraging financial institutions to approve loans of more even than the value of the equity. Rather than a system driven by credit worthiness and ability to pay, it was a system fueled by speculation. When the property values stopped rising and the ability to pay didn’t match the rising payments on adjustable loans, the system fell apart. Despite the mistakes of speculation, with both corporate and personal bankruptcies looming, and so many jobs on the line, not to mention the trickle down effect on the economy, shouldn’t somebody rescue the financial industry?

Many borrowers see themselves as victims. That is more often than not a sophistry. Contracts were too often entered into without consideration of any possible reversals and with wishful thinking about wage increases and future equity values rising. Isn’t it dishonest to borrow money that one isn’t sure they can repay or that the repayment thereof can only be accomplished with wage increases or equity appreciation hopes that are far from guaranteed? Like the financial institutions who gambled on the future, so the individuals gambled and lost. Should somebody else’s money now bail them out?

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being offered to financial institutions, individuals, car companies, and other entities who claim that they are bordering on failure and that the failure will hurt employment or spread to the economy as a whole. Government seems almost eager to borrow from our future in order to save our today. Whether it is a mortgage bail out, secured loans to car companies, or a stimulus check to individuals, let’s call it what it is. It is a government loan that has to be paid back with taxpayer money—in most cases by the taxpayers who didn’t over-borrow, or don’t work at the car company, or don’t have stock in failed financial institutions. And it isn’t just the taxpayer of today, but our children and their children who will still be bailing us out after we have retired or passed on to our graves. Do we care so little about the legacy we are leaving them?
Let us be careful and think clearly and honestly before we act. If we are expecting government to react with financial assistance, let us make sure that the money goes directly to the place it will have the most affect, and that those who made the decisions which lead us to today are not rewarded in the process. Maybe it might be better to let economic nature takes it’s course, even if it means a few years of recession to right the ship. We have weathered such storms before. But, if we bankrupt the country and mortgage our future to bail ourselves out and fail, we will be looking at economic damage that may literally take decades to resolve and put our democracy at risk.

Governments & Economies

I recognize that in this great country of ours, and I do believe it great, there is little tolerance for those that speak in terms other than democracy and capitalism. Nonetheless, if I can beg your indulgence for a time, can we have a discussion about some of the different economic and political systems that humans have created? Can we set aside our prejudices and see what strengths and weaknesses each have?

I am not an expert on political systems or economic theories. I’ve taken the classes and learned some definitions of terms, but frankly I wonder if even academia has come to ground on what we really mean when talk about such labels as communism, socialism, fascism, democracy, etc. For the purpose of this blog, I will assume not and give myself license to express the concepts and label my opinions valid, albeit not authoritative.

Let’s start with making some distinctions. Some labels refer to political systems, or how a group governs itself. Other labels refer to economic systems, or general rules about how commerce is enacted. Some labels bleed over into both categories.

Let’s start off with capitalism: Capitalism is an economic model that assumes commerce is self governing. Production and distribution are motivated primarily by profit. It is regulated by competition, the idea that if you don’t produce the best value, that somebody else will. The decision on what to make and how much can be charged for it are based on what the business organization expects to get as a return on the invested capital. Capital refers to the resources put into production and distribution and may refer to buildings, equipment, money, the cost of labor, etc. In short, it is a system that is governed by projected profits hoped for from the capital put into the system. Government’s role, if any, may be in regulating its excesses.

The promoted strengths of capitalism are that it rewards initiative, that competition encourages efficiency and creativity, and that it increases the value for the consumer. It is also the claimed that capitalism is most conducive to sustainability and growth. In other words, as business organizations are more successful, they return more capital into the economy in the form of wages and shared profits, which in turn increases the consumer’s capacity to spend more on consumables, thus creating an upward spiral in the economic standard of living.

The weaknesses are that capitalism’s self regulations either don’t happen or are damaging to the shared priorities of societies. For instance, if the desire to decrease costs and increase profits results in a company choosing to use child labor, or pollute the environment, there is nobody to discipline the company on behalf of the public good. Along the same lines, the spiral of prosperity created by capitalism can break down. If a few companies, for many possible reasons, are forced to cut back on their investments or workforce then profits stop flowing into the system. The reduction in wages and shared profits result in fewer consumer dollars being available and other companies can’t sell as much. Soon the upward spiral goes downward, throwing the economy into a recession. It was once thought that such downturns were normal and would always be short lived. The Depression of the 1930’s proved that wrong. Today’s financial crisis is again challenging the system.

What about communism? Communism is both an economic and political concept. It assumes that all capital is owned by the group and not individually. Individuals donate their labor and resources and receive an equal share of the production results. All suffer or prosper together based on the results of their common labor. In terms of politics, political decisions are made by consensus of the group and in theory at the most local level possible. Representative councils act on the desires of the whole when direct decision making of the group is impracticable. In short, groups act for themselves in governing and economic production for the benefit of the whole.

In theory, the strength of communism is that it creates a more equal society rather than having class structures based on the accumulation of wealth or aristocratic background. One part of the population does not oppress or take advantage of another as all actions seek to be for the good of the whole. Power is decentralized so that all can share in self government. Economically, wealth is shared by all, eliminating pockets of poverty and economic injustice.

In my opinion, the primary weakness of communism lies in its flawed assessment of human character. The majority of people, over time, have never been able to set aside personal good for the good of the whole. Marx predicted that a centralized government must exist for a time until the population was organized into a communistic model. However, once in power, the great revolutionists of the communist movement, whether Lenin, Mao, or others, chose to keep the power centralized and even enhance it, always using the excuse that they were implementing the ideals of the revolution. In reality, they were just craving, and usually abusing, power. On a more local and individual level, people seldom view their individual contribution as equal and therefore resent the equal distribution of results. And certainly it is true that some work harder than others. And how do you value in economic terms different types of work? How could the pride of the skilled worker allow him or her to take equal profit with the unskilled common laborer? What is the incentive to be more skilled, efficient, or productive? Hence, basic human character, which is usually self serving and competitive, cannot long devote itself to the good of society without some other motivation to do so.

Since the two are often confused and even used interchangeably, let us make some distinctions about socialism. Like communism, socialism is both a political and economic approach. Like communism, socialism claims it works for the good of the whole and for the equalization of society. And, it is true that most self-labeled communistic governments were really just socialistic governments. So, what is the difference? The primary difference lies in the centralization of decision making and ownership of capital. In a socialistic government, centralized ruling bodies sometimes called committees or bureaus, make decisions on economic and political matters. Some responsibilities are delegated to more local committees, but decisions remain under central oversight. All means of production are governed by the central government. Production is controlled by mandated quotas and the allocation of resources. Workers may be paid in rations or coupons which allow them to access products. In short, the centralized government controls economic and political life and acts for the good of the society.

The strength of socialism, again in theory, is that centralized control tends to be more responsive and efficient than decentralized control. Centralized governments acts for the good of society and is able to do so from a bigger-picture perspective. Trained and experienced decision makers are more likely to make successful decisions and can be more responsive to changing societal needs, economic or otherwise.

The primary weakness of the system is that centralized power tends to be corrupt and act more for its enhancement than for the good of the whole. And, as with communism, there is little incentive for individuals to act for the good of the whole or to improve their circumstances through enhanced skills or hard work. In the end, socialistic systems tend to collapse under the own weight or resort to maintaining power through force, intimidation, and increased control.

Let’s talk about democracy. Democracy is a political vs. an economic concept. In its pure form, democracy means that all political decisions are made by the vote of the majority of those governed. Since all people can’t realistically vote on every decision, at least above a very local level, most democracies are representative democracies or republics. In republics, the people elect representatives who then govern on behalf of those who elected them. Government officials are appointed or elected for a short time and then are subject to another vote or appointment if they are to stay in office. A republic attempts to keep the idea of democracy in a more efficient and manageable decision making structure. As long as leaders are subject to re-election, they are thought to be accountable and responsible to those they represent. In addition, republics tend to describe themselves as governed by laws. This means that actions by the government are based on laws which limit or allow specific decisions or actions. In the United States, a portion of the government makes and modifies the law, the congress, while the executive branch, the president and corresponding bureaucracy, enforce the laws. Most Western democracies are similar, although they differ in how easily the laws can be changed and in how much authority the executive is given to act outside the laws.

The strengths of a democracy are that it is accountable to the people, while still achieving some efficiencies and responsiveness. The rule of law seeks to ensure individual liberties and limits the government’s power. Through the election process and communication with their representatives, all citizens can be involved in the government. Centralized power is limited through law, term limits, and political checks and balances.

Among the weaknesses of democracy are that it is limited in efficiency and responsiveness. Decisions usually take a long time due to debate and controversy. Some would say this is also a strength, and so it is, but it is a two edged sword at times. Democracies sometimes act in short-term vs. long term perspectives. The need to retain power when subject to re-election or recall, encourages representatives to make decisions which are good for today, but maybe not good for tomorrow. Democracies, to work, require an informed and involved populace. To the degree citizens do not stay informed and involved; the democracy can fall under the control of special interest groups which polarize action away from the good of society to the good of smaller groups. Finally, since government is by the majority, individual or groups with minority views or backgrounds can be subject to suppression by the majority, thus creating classes of unrepresented individuals and groups. Examples of this in include black slavery and the disenfranchisement or persecution of Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and some immigrant races, nationalities, or religious groups—not to mention gender.

So what do we have left? I think I mentioned fascism, but I won’t spend much time on it. In a nutshell, fascism is a social and economic system where the ownership of capital is kept private, but which is highly regulated and controlled by a centralized government. As a sort of combination of socialistic government and capitalistic economy, some have suggested fascism could be a highly successful system since it retains many of the advantages of competition that capitalism has, while retaining the long term goals and regulations of a centralized government. However, as was seen by the Nazi regime, the centralized control is subject to corruption and extremism and was not accountable to the people or the greater long-term good.

We haven’t mentioned monarchies, theocracies, or a number of other systems, but they are mostly variations on the themes already discussed where political power and economic control are centralized or decentralized, and whether capital is individually or collectively owned. For the ultimate purposes of this discussion, we can set them aside and not elaborate.

What was all that information about? I guess my thesis is this. In their pure, conceptual form, none of the systems discussed is inherently evil, despite what proponents tend to claim when talking about any system other than their own. All, if successfully implemented with the principles and visions of their central purpose, could result in healthy societies. On the other hand, each and every one breaks down when the interests of the individual person or sub-group tends to take priority over the good of the whole. An otherwise healthy capitalistic business society begins to cause more damage than good when it relies on unfair competition or the exploitation of labor or the environment to gain profit. When democratic elections become primarily influenced by political contributions or the pressure of special interest groups, true democratic representation is sabotaged. When the interests of the majority result in the suppression and oppression of the minority, the society is weakened and individual freedoms are made a mockery.

Since every system can be corrupted and all are potentially successful, which do I support? I am, in my heart of hearts, an American. Short of God coming to earth and setting up a theocratic political government with all things held in common for the good of all, I feel that representative democracy based on constitutional law is the best form of government. And capitalism, tempered by government regulation and supplemented by social security for those unable to contribute to the economy, is our best hope to alleviate the excesses of poverty while proportionally rewarding the contribution of individuals and groups to the economic benefit of society. I just wish we could find a way to do it without all the commercials!

And finally, it is my firm belief that our society and economy will succeed or fail not on the system we choose, the party we elect, or how well we are represented, but on the character of our people and their willingness to put aside their self interest and think and act for the good of society and the world we live in. The reality is that in a representative democracy, our government will always be but a mirror of our society and can never long rise above or below the intentions, actions, and morality of the society it represents. There will be leaders who are corrupt, and others that temporarily rise above the society that elects them, but in the long run, our government will always give us exactly what we deserve. I have seen the enemy. I have seen the temporal savior. And, they are us.

The Fight Against Terrorism

Around the year 200 AD, the emperor Lucius Siptimius Severus attempted to dominate the Caledonian tribes of present day Scotland. Despite superior technology, he lost thousands of men in a horrific guerilla warfare that left the elite Roman troops decimated and demoralized. The Caledonian people knew the land and lived in roaming groups that always seemed to be just out of reach of the Roman patrols. While a few Caledonian towns were burnt to the ground and all their inhabitants put to death, the Roman attempt to bring the Caledonians into submission with brutality and force were largely reversed when the tribes fought brutality with brutality and horror with horror. So frightened where the Roman soldiers of falling into Caledonian hands, that they would kill a wounded comrade rather than leave him behind to be tortured. In the end, Severus died before he could launch a full blown campaign and Scotland remained outside of Roman rule.

Even without the horror born of cruelty, guerilla warfare can be effective. In the American West in 1857, President Buchannen sent an army over the immigrant trail to the Utah territory to subdue what had been reported to him as a people in rebellion against the United States. Brigham Young, Utah territorial governor and prophet/president of the Mormon church, heard of the approaching troops. He sent his followers out onto the plains with orders to harass the army. While they were not to kill the soldiers or get into a battle, they were given free license to destroy supply wagons, steal horses, and do whatever else they could to slow the army or discourage it altogether. Low on supplies and food from the harassment, Johnson’s army was forced stop their progress and spend a cold, hungry winter at Fort Bridger. By the time they were able to complete their march the next spring, negotiations had come to a compromise and they entered the populated portion of the Utah Territory without fatal incident.

Long before Brigham Young or the Caledonians, guerilla warfare was recognized as a way for a substantially outnumbered or outgunned minority to effectively combat an invading force. All that was required was stealth, patience, a superior knowledge of the environment, and a will to fight and sacrifice in defense of one’s home. In today’s world of high tech weapons ranging from satellite monitoring to infra-red night vision, it would seem guerilla warfare would finally be outmatched, but it has proven not to be so. Today’s guerilla’s spend less time hiding in jungles and more time walking city streets disguised to look just like those they fight. While guerilla warfare has always been a form of total warfare, today children are strapped with bombs and sent on suicide missions to blow up the enemy. How does even the highest tech army fight against such misguided resolve?

Guerilla warfare has never been a matter of military victory or defeat on the field of battle. Rather, it is an attempt to make the conflict so costly that the “invaders” will choose to cut their loses and leave rather than continue the struggle. While it may be counter intuitive to military ideology, attacking a guerilla force with increased numbers and firepower may only further strengthen their resolve and provide them a greater stage upon which to present their theatre of intimidation.

In the past, it seems those most successful in combating a guerilla force did so by fighting fire with fire. In the Hollywood production “Apocalypse Now,” a renegade American commander sequesters a fighting force deep in the jungles of Cambodia and resolves to mimic the Vietcong tactics of horror and deadly intimidation to garner support for their cause among the local population. While the movie suggests that his tactics are successful in matching the enemy’s powers of persuasion, it also questions of whether such tactics can ever be justified or condoned, hence the protagonist’s mission to terminate with “extreme prejudice” the renegade commander.

So, what is the answer? How does a force committed to avoid guerilla tactics defeat a guerilla force? We live in a time when victories on the battlefield are secondary to the victory of propaganda. As long as there are fanatical individuals who are completely committed to destroying anybody who disagrees with their creed, there will be a potential for guerrilla warfare, or its application that we now call terrorism. I would suggest that the only hope is in self protection and winning the battle of ideas. These, however, are hardly panaceas.

Self protection, or what we now call homeland security, while seemingly a given, begs questions about how much freedom of unmonitored action will be given up to obtain security. Are we willing to give the government access to monitor all our communications, financial transactions, and observable personal behaviors in order to allow them to spot attacks in the making? Are we willing to bear increased security and inconvenience to make sure nothing slips through? Do we trust government to use this access only for the combating of terrorism and not for increased potential control of the population? These are hard questions that will not find a consensus of opinion. And even with complete access, there will be those that still get through the net and succeed in promulgating violence. Are we willing to accept the risk without always having to find somebody to blame somebody when the inevitable happens? I wish I had better answers to those questions.

So that brings us to winning the battle of ideas. There will always be extremists who see guerilla or terrorist violence as a means to control and influence. But the real battle is in the minds and hearts of the populace of the differing countries, religions, and persuasions of belief. I wish I had the answer to diffusing the irreconcilable differences between the children of Abraham: Muslims, Jews, and Christians. How do you convert somebody away from a world view that says that my beliefs and ideology are superior to that of others and therefore justify mistrust, hate, even violence. I myself think that what I believe is the truth. And while I may see truths in the beliefs of others, I would claim that the fullest expression of truth is in my own belief system. Does that mean I’m willing to go out and destroy those who disagree with me? No. But I would defend my beliefs rather than compromise to avoid violence by those who would suggest I convert or die. Does that make me part of the problem?
Maybe the best we can hope for is to promote understanding and tolerance, and allow others to believe what they will without being forced to accept our beliefs. Then again. . . do I support tolerance for the beliefs of others when I feel strongly that those beliefs potentially result in damage to individuals or society? If a man’s religious beliefs say it is OK to steal or have sex with children, should he be tolerated in his beliefs and actions? While I’ve heard some say that you can’t legislate or impose morality through government, all our laws are based on somebody’s definition of right or wrong. Abortion, the legalizing of certain drugs, the legal recognition of gay/lesbian unions, all of these issues are on the front line of these fundamental questions and I don’t have the answers as to how much government should prohibit or allow. I know what I believe about the morality of these issues, I’m less clear about society’s role in imposing one group’s morality on another. Nonetheless, it is going to be our ability to tolerate and integrate differing and sometimes apposing views while at the same time making a stand about values that define our society, which will define our success in combating the root of terrorism at home and abroad.

How Would I React?

It has been a few moons since I posted anything. The time stresses of three jobs, family, volunteer work, and a bad case of writer’s block have left me out of the loop for a while. I’m also basically a lazy person and writing is work. Oh well, back at it. . .

I watched a war movie last night. Actually, the movie was less about battles than the psychological struggles of the participants. How does it feel to go into battle? How would we handle the fear of knowing that in the next few moments you could be dead or wounded and in great pain? Some saw it as a great game and went forward with a grin and a yell. Is that courage? Others became physically ill, some to the point they were taken out of the battle. Were they doing it on purpose to avoid a fight, or was their reaction real? Many prayed. Some huddled in fear or moved forward only when ordered to do so. Some just moved forward, hyper-alert to what was going on around them, trying to stay alive while doing their duty. I wonder which category I would be in? I don’t fear death, but I fear dying. I fear pain. I wonder how I would react. I wonder, is there a way to react that demonstrates real valor? I don’t know.

The battle progressed and the shooting started. Some died instantly. Others were cut down with wounds, some of them fatal, others just painful. The participants who didn’t die reacted differently to those around them and their own wounds. Some tried to ignore it all and move forward, almost like they were wearing blinders. Some rushed to the aid of their fellows, screaming for medical personnel. Where they trying to help, or just avoid the battle? Some fell to the ground, quivering in fear as the bullets whistled around them and the mortar shells exploded, spraying dirt and the blood of those hit to cover their prostrate bodies. Wounded men screamed in pain, over and over. Some cried for their mother or for God. Others lay in stoic silence, their faces clouded with pain. Some begged for help, others demanded that others be attended to first. A Colonel radioed to move forward while a Captain tried to explain to him that they were getting slaughtered. Again, how would I have reacted? Would I have huddled behind a clump of ground? Would I have doggedly moved forward into the hail of bullets? Would I have turned and ran? Is there a time when courage and sacrifice must be outweighed by the stupidly of a suicide assault? I don’t know.

Time passed and the battle was won. The survivors patrolled the enemy’s camp. Prisoners huddled in small groups, some crying, some defiant, others staring off into space with faces portraying unbelief. Some of the soldiers ransacked the camp, stealing whatever they could find. Others beat prisoners, venting their anger and frustration at the battle and friends who were killed. Some harassed the prisoners, belittling and trying to humble them. Still others gloated and goaded the prisoners. A few went around offering comfort and assurance to the defeated. How would I react? Would I gloat and humiliate, feeling it my right as the victor? Could I fight like the savage devil and then, at the battles end, give up the savagery and offer compassion to those who I was only moment’s ago trying to kill? Is it tough and macho to kick the defeated when I have them in my power? Is it a measure of my inner character how I react when I finally have others in my power?

Finally, after weeks, months, even years of enduring such experiences, watching friends die or go home horribly wounded, after having killed and destroyed, how would I change? Could I maintain my optimism, my faith in a loving divinity, my love for my fellow man, including the enemy? Would months of separation from loved ones justify infidelity? Could I endure the dreams, somehow purge my memory of the horror? Could I find a core of love to hold on to, or would I give way to despair, anger, or apathy? How would I change and could I control the change? How would I react? I don’t know. How would you?