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?

The Nature of Suffering

All people in life experience some form of suffering. The form and intensity will vary greatly, but all will experience it. This mortal experience is rife with examples of cruelty, disaster, and tragedy of all sorts. For those who believe in some form of divinity, there looms the question of how a loving God can allow his children to experience so much suffering.
A wise man once taught that suffering comes from three sources in life. First, and if we are honest with ourselves, foremost, we suffer from the decisions we make and their subsequent consequences. We will often seek outside ourselves for blame, but at some level of honesty we realize that nobody else chose the purchases we made that lead us to financial ruin, the lack of competence that lost us the job, or the bad life style choices that lead to poor health. For these sources of suffering, success is in honestly admitting our mistakes and then dealing with their consequences and correcting them in our future choices. As long as we seek or accept the role of victim, we condemn ourselves to a life of hopelessness and despair and deny ourselves the opportunities that are only taken by those who choose to accept responsibility for their actions.
A second from of suffering comes from living in an existence where others make decisions that affect us and where the natural environment is prone to disasters. A driver runs a stop light and hits us. A dictator starts a war that leaves us homeless. Our child is killed in an accident. Severe storms rob us of our property and livelihood. In these things we really are victims, but the way beyond them is much the same as with suffering from our own decisions. The path of the victim is always down. The path beyond is always to take responsibility. In this case, we may not be responsible for what happened to us, but we are responsible for what we do now. We can choose despair and discouragement, or we can choose to rebuild, move on, and from doing so become stronger. Despite who may be to blame for what happened, we are to blame for what we do next. Nature is our example. As winter snows may destroy and bury life, nature uses this time to rebuild and turn the freezing snow into life giving moisture when the sun again comes out, as we may hope it always does as long as we continue to live.
The third form of suffering connects us back with God. Almost all the major world religions view suffering as a tool for refining the spirit. As such, suffering brings with it a deeper meaning. While I do not believe God wishes for his children to suffer, he does recognize and allow it for the greater good that comes of it. To understand that greater good, we must see this life not as a random flash of existence, but as a well designed test. In order to return to God in the fullness of joy, he allows us to be placed in situations where we will be forced to demonstrate the nature of our spirit. Two people can be placed in the same circumstances and react totally opposite. One may choose future happiness and joy, another despair and destruction. The nature of the experience is the same, but the choice of reaction is individual. Whether it be a concentration camp, or the birth of a child, all experiences leave us with a basic choice. We can choose to return to God through living love, or we can dam our progression by choosing selfishness in all its forms of apathy, hate, or fear. Such is the nature of our test. When seen from God’s perspective, all the trials of life become not some form of punishment or retribution, but opportunities to choose how we will spend the eternities. The question is not why we suffer or experience joy, but whether we use that test to come closer to God, or, as Job’s wife told her husband, “curse God and die!” Whatever your trial in life, choose happiness and joy through love.

The Nature of Evil

Having talked a little about God, maybe I need to say a word about the Devil, or more accurately, evil in the world. There is a philosophy growing in popularity that states that there is no such thing as good or evil, only actions and consequences. It further states that people, all people, act in their own best interest and according to their knowledge and abilities. The bottom lines seems to be that people aren’t wholly accountable for their actions and that their parents, society, the government, whatever, has messed them up and they are just doing the best they know how. So, rather than judge them and apply labels of good or bad, we should just try to understand them and fix the situation that made them like they are.

Well, I will admit that people are complex. What’s more, most of us do act in our best interest, whatever that interest is. I’ll even go so far as to say that we are influenced by the environment and people that surround us. Then again, not all people who are abused, abuse others. Not every poor person stays poor and not every rich person stays rich. Not everybody in a riot or natural disaster turns to looting. The bottom line is that regardless of our situation, education, or environment, we retain the ability and responsibility to choose how we will react and what actions we will take. And while the degree of culpability may vary, we remain accountable for our actions. It is that accountability that brings us to a definition of evil.

While I won’t quote him or give him full credit for my definition (he might disagree with me on particulars), I do owe gratitude to Dr. Scott Peck and his books, especially The People of the Lie, for one of the best secular discussions of evil. I admitted that we all act in our best interest, but evil comes in with how we choose to see our interests. The goodness of our existence comes when we see ourselves as not just individuals, but citizens and fellow citizens in a world outside ourselves. That world can be as narrow as with a spouse or a friend, and as broad as fellow residents of planet earth. Goodness demands that we recognize those external people and communities and consciously weigh the affects upon others of the decisions we make. Further, it demand that we do so without justifying pain or lose to another so that we can experience pleasure or gain. Evil, then, is taking action without considering others. Pure evil is taking action which we know will cause harm to others, or even ourselves, but we do so anyway because of what we think to feel or gain. And, the purest form of evil are the actions which not only recognize the destruction our actions may cause, but actions with that destruction as a goal.

Take a character like Hitler. People with the no-evil philosophy would say that Hitler’s persecution of the Jews was a result of a Jewish person criticizing his paintings and of being raised in a culture that saw Jewish gains as loses to the good people like himself. Maybe he was even told that Jews were bad because the crucified Christ. They would go on to say that Hitler’s actions were then justified, in his own mind, and not any type of evil intent on his part. Finally, they would say that if we can just destroy discrimination from our society and teach children to not result to violence or hate, that all the little Hitler’s would instantly be fixed. I believe that while such a view is appealing, it is unrealistic and ignores human nature. While a person who didn’t grow up surrounded by discrimination and hate might have less of a chance of turning out like Hitler, it still can and does happen because individuals are free to choose to give in to evil and to let evil govern their actions.

So how will evil be overcome? Here is the controversial opinion. I don’t think it ever will be in life’s present manifestation. I believe that it is the nature of our existence that some will always choose evil. I also believe that evil has been introduced or allowed into this life with the purpose of giving our probation here a choice. This goes back to my beliefs on the nature of life and our relationship to God, so I won’t go further at this time. I will say this. In terms of offering and making choices to not pursue or accept evil, we need to be governed by something akin to Asimov’s laws of robotics, adjusted to fit the situation. First, we should never do anything which causes pain or lose to another unless failing to do so would cause even more lose and pain. Even then, extreme caution should be taken since we can’t see the future or know all the ramifications. Second, when we can reasonably act to decrease pain or lose, we should do so. Failure to do so can be construed as allowing or promoting evil. Obviously there is a lot of evil out there and there is only so much we can do, but for most of us, we could do more. Third, we should not do that which results in evil to ourselves, unless failing to do so breaks the first two laws. Taking care of ourselves when it isn’t in conflict with the first law is almost never evil and the third law must be balanced with the second—life is not in need of many martyrs. There is, of course, a single word for the three laws. It is Love.

Is There a God

Is there a God? Let’s get right to the point. While religionist cannot offer conclusive evidence as to the nature of deity, neither can science prove God’s non-existence. The reality is that scientists have yet to establish the causal factor for existence. Not even string theory provides causal information, just some potential answers on the mechanics of the universe. Causal information is still a mystery. Even if I didn’t have strong spiritual feelings, I would have to at least admit to being a deist and bow to the mystery that science so far has not been able to touch. So yes, Virginia, there is a mystery that so far can only be answered by the concept of God.

Those who argue against religion, which is not necessarily the same things as a belief in God, say that religion is merely man’s attempt to ritualistically explain things that are outside his ability to understand and codify. Whether it be the Mother Goddess of prehistoric humanity, to the dwellers of Olympus, or to the pantheon of modern God’s and Godheads which continue to be the objects of worship, humans seem to have a need to see our existence as ordered and influenced by omnipotent forces that mortal man can comprehend and appeal to. God, then, becomes our conceptual attempt to order, and even influence things that would otherwise be beyond our control and outside our ability to comprehend. This argument rings of firm logic. I would only say that effect does not prove cause. As logical as it may seem that Religion is man’s attempt to explain the unexplainable, It is just as logical if we accept the concept of God, that man’s propensity to religion is God’s genetic gift to keep man in search of the creator.

Moving from logical to emotional arguments, detractors might ask why, if there is a God, does he/she/it allow so much suffering and catastrophe? And why all the mystery? If there is a God, why doesn’t he just show himself and settle the debate? These are also fair questions and I’m not sure I have all the answers—in fact, I’m sure I don’t, but I am willing to make them subjects for future posts.

Psuedo-intellectualism aside, I do not apologize for having strong spiritual feelings that are based on my personal belief and experience. I believe that our existence in the dimensions we occupy to be purposeful and part of a more comprehensive plan that can track the essence of our being long before our birth and that will influence the eternities beyond this brief mortal probation. Perhaps more on this later.

Which Political Party is Better

You notice I didn't say which party is best. No political party has a monopoly on correct thinking nor is devoid of mistaken perception. I serve in a non-partisan city council position in the small Idaho town where I live. I have come to see that there are seldom black and white realities to deal with. Political decisions are plastered in shades of grey and skewed by conflicting and often passionately held priorities. Some of those priorities include short term gains or losses weighed against long term needs and goals. There is always the judgement of how many minority interests should be sacrificed to the desires of the majority. And one of the hardest considerations is deciding when equality under the law isn't very equal and needs the flexibility of discretion in the face of individual circumstance. In the end, the best a politician can hope for is to gather enough accurate information to make a reasoned decision and hope that it turns out for the best, knowing that the sometimes harsh and often capricious hand of history will write the last word. I don't believe in party lines or grand philosophies that ignore individual circumstances. Sometimes the better decision is to do what is best for the majority, at other times, the better is to defend the minority against the majority. Many times the better is to do what hurts in the short run in the hope that it will make things better in the long. In other decisions, what makes a difference now is what matters. And while law, theoretically, is the great equalizer, a law founded on incorrect or narrow principles can ultimately only harm and deny justice.

You've probably guessed, by now, that I'm not going to start naming the better political parties. I personally don't feel a strong kinship with any party and can find both good and the repulsive in all the parties. As citizens of a free and representative democracy, we have the responsibility to get involved in the political process, to share our views, and support those individuals and groups that best represent our ideas of good government--being humble enough to admit the possibility we may be wrong. I would end by saying that those who don't work to get a well rounded view of the situation and then get involved and work for their idea of the greater good, lose the right to criticize and must accept the decisions of those who pay the price to be part of the process. Perhaps the better party is the willingness of the citizenry to be educated and involved.