The Real Questions

Once again I asked my children what I should post.  My oldest suggested I post something on goals.  That is a worthy subject and will likely be the musings of a future scribble, but when I sat down and put fingers to keyboard it wasn’t what sparked my passion.  Two things seemed to weigh on me.  I have said before that a person who does not understand multiple sides of an issue does not have a right to an opinion, or at least no claim to a reasoned opinion based on more than mimicry or emotionality.  If you combine that with previous claims that I feel an excessive, almost dogmatic, partisanship is bringing our country and society to a standstill, you come to the ideas I want to put forth.  In summary, I’m suggesting that we must get beyond our emotionally charged positions and come to know the interests of all sides so that we can begin to arrive at workable solutions to the quagmires that beset us.

In order to achieve this reasoned approach, I would put forth that we need to get to the root of the questions we face.  Further, I state that the roots we are looking for are seldom found in the arguments of either side, but lie in a deeper understanding of the fundamental differences in those arguments.  I could try and explain this concept further, but for the sake of brevity and easier understanding I will use some examples of key issues facing our society today and what I think is the missing profundity in the approaches to those issues.

Let us start off with a hot topic, gay marriage and whether it should be legally recognized by society.  For this discussion, my opinion on the matter isn’t of much interest; rather, let’s look at the opinion of the two sides and the supporting arguments.  Those against legalized gay marriage state that expanding the definition of marriage beyond that between a man and woman will weaken the sanctity of the union.  Further, it will undermine and disrupt the concept of family and its place in society.   They feel that a society that allows and sanctions marriages outside of the traditional nuclear view of the family will lead to the collapse of social order and bring children up without a clear definition of who they are and how they fit into an ordered and successful culture.  In summation, marriage between individuals of the same gender is not good for society and not a legally viable option and therefore should not be recognized or encouraged.

On the other side of the issue, proponents of gay marriage state that it is matter of equality and anti-discrimination.  Without a legally recognized union, their partnerships will always be either ignored, or worse, deprecated by society as a whole and in particular when it comes to benefits, ability to secure financial loans and housing, being recognized as heirs, and sanctioned in the legitimate parenting of children.  They see any attempts at limiting the ability to form legal unions as discriminator, barbarous, and backward thinking, if not outright persecution.  They see it as a matter of freedom and equality under law.

Opinions on both sides are deeply held and freely exchanged—to little or no affect upon the opinions of the other side.  Neither side, with the exception of some who come across as extremists, are willing to openly state the core difference, that being whether homosexual behavior is a moral choice.  If I believe that a gay lifestyle is contrary the laws put forth by my belief in divinity, then arguments around freedom and equity under law carry no weight.  No legal code of man can supersede or negate a commandment of God.  On the other hand, if I don’t believe that there is such a divine condemnation of the gay lifestyle and that God, if I believe in such a concept, sees my choice as valid and acceptable, then no argument about the affect on society is going to make any sense.  And so, rather than debate all the other stuff, we should confess the true issue.  If we think homosexuality is a sin, then we are against gay marriage.  If we see homosexuality as a moral lifestyle choice, then we are in favor of its legal recognition.  And there is little either side can do to influence the other without first influencing that fundamental question, is homosexuality a sin?

Let’s take another example, the role of race in our society.  We’ve come a long way from the 60’s when many still openly admitted that they thought that one race was superior to the other.  I’m not saying that there aren’t still those that feel that way, but few would dare openly express it.  Now the debate flows about the need for forced integration, or whether races long discriminated against should now be given preferential treatment or other similar programs to try and reverse the long term effects of discrimination and somehow equalize the playing field.  The reports and committees try and determine to what affect stereotyping and race profiling continue to affect hiring practices, the judicial system, and the ability to escape generational poverty, gang involvement, and inner city blight.  All of these discussions are based on very real problems and represent serious concerns to our society in both the short and long term.  While we may claim to be a melting pot, we are a long way from universal assimilation and equality.  Nor have we yet even been able to define what equality would look like as many suggest there is a need to maintain and utilize a certain level of diversity in society.

In order to demonstrate what I think is the real question here, let me harbor back to a training I had many years ago as part of my employment.  It was on diversity and how to manage it.  I was a supervisor then and would later go on to serve for a time in upper management.  The trainers, in order to raise awareness, provided videos and discussions to emphasize the racially involved problems that still plague our society.  The presentation was very effective in explaining how individuals of different races viewed society and what they thought the true nature of the problems were.  During the training I sat next to an African American lady.  We had been supervisors in the same area for a time and while we weren’t close, I did know her.  At one point in the discussion she was asked for her perspective.  While she didn’t claim that anybody had persecuted her or overtly mistreated her, I was a little shocked to here her say that she often didn’t know how she fit in and felt alienated.  I had thought she was well liked and for the most part respected.  As I pondered further I asked myself what it was that separated the two of us and I came to a bit of an epiphany.  When asked what I thought, I admitted that I must be prejudice.  It wasn’t that I felt superior or inferior to her race, or any other race.  What made me prejudice what my lack of understanding of what it was like to be a black person in our society.  The same might be said about being a person of another gender, religion, or ethnic background.  Indeed what separates most of us from each other, regardless of characteristic or circumstance is our inability and often lack of desire to understand the other person’s experiences and feelings.  A failure to walk a mile in the other person’s shoes and experience life as they experience it leaves us to fall back on intellectual arguments and endless analysis of socio-economic factors and historical predispositions.  At its core, it isn’t race or other characteristics that separates us, it is the difference of our experience.

I like threes so let me illustrate one last example.  I read an opinion lately that said Abraham Lincoln was one of our most disastrous presidents because he started us down the road of big government that has lead to the major problems facing us today.  Being a big fan of Mr. Lincoln, I had a hard time coming to terms with that opinion.  Nevertheless, having studied the man and the history of his times, it is undeniable that he took upon himself presidential powers that were unthinkable to previous administrations and which many of his day labeled tyrannical.  Further, his justification for the preservation of the union by emphasizing the supremacy of the federal government over the rights of individual states, while justified in my opinion, can logically be extrapolated to contribute to the rise in federal power exhibited after his death.  So it begs the question of whether our society needs and should depend on as much federal power and oversight as we now have, or whether our freedoms are better served by a decentralization of power, a decreasing in regulation, less economic aid, and an increased emphasis on the rights of individuals and other entities such as businesses to operate as they see fit with little governmental involvement.

Here again, the usual arguments often skirt around or miss the deeper questions.  The real question is whether individual rights are going to take supremacy over the rights of society to govern itself.  On the one hand, a complete granting of individuals to do what they want and how they want to do it would easily be defined as anarchy.  Without limits, I could do what I wanted regardless of its effect upon other citizens or the environment.  On the other extreme is the idea that people are insufficient to govern themselves and societal interests can only be served by giving oversight and regulatory powers to a governing body such as a supreme council, congress, soviet, etc., or even a king or other despot.  I think most in our American society would find either extreme unacceptable, so it comes down to where we want to draw the balancing line between societal interest and individual freedom.  Even more fundamentally, it asks to what degree mankind or his organizations such as cities and businesses are able act in his or their own interest without acting contrary to the interest of the rest of society or the environment.  It might even be tied to our individual philosophy about whether or to what degree we are inherently good and cooperative in nature, or whether we are basically selfish and destructive in nature.  How different the debate would be if we conducted it around these questions rather than endless debates about government spending, the need for certain laws, or the excesses of anecdotal situations.

So, what would it mean if we debated the more fundamental issues?  On gay rights, for instance, as a larger part of the society sees homosexual behavior as morally acceptable, then arguments around the sanctity of traditional marriage will fall away and arguments about equality will gain ground.  Only the most extreme opponents will dare talk about morality and proponents of gay rights will not care to discuss it in those terms at all, unless it is to decry the backwardness of organized religion.  As for the race issue, we’ll continue to debate immigration, inner city crime, and economic inequality rather than get at the differences of experience that divide us and leave us unable to relate to each other.  Finally, we’ll debate regulation policy, government economic intervention, and the need for phone monitoring rather than make decisions about where we want to draw that balancing line in the sand between individual freedom and the good of society, or whether we as a people can make choices in our own interest while still taking responsibility for the effects upon society and the environment.

In wrapping this up, how does this relate to my two introductory themes of having an informed and reasoned opinion and in defeating the excessive partisanship that I feel is tearing our society apart?  It really comes down to two things—or maybe two aspects of the same thing.  First, we must be willing to dig down to the fundamental questions and courageously bring them out into the open and make them the focus of our discussions and debates.  Second, there must be a willingness by all sides involved to, as a popular author suggested, seek first to understand, and only then be understood.  Applied to our three examples, when we as a society decide where we stand on the morality of homosexuality, we can best decide what legal protections, if any, we give to gay couples.  When we seek to understand the experience of those diverse portions of society, then we can better know how we can change hearts, minds, and laws to support a healthy diversity and equal opportunity for all.  Finally, when we frame policy and legal debates about the role of government in terms of what personal freedoms we are willing to subject to the good of society or the environment, and vice verses, then we can really see the reason behind whether a governing policy or power is healthy or detrimental.  Thus we can put in proper check the unhealthy partisanship that is so destructive to our search for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Economic Virtue

My daughter in-law, an excellent addition to the family, suggested I write about something she labeled economic virtue.  As I understand it, she was thinking about the virtue of seeing ourselves as a contributor to society as apposed to having an entitlement mentality.  That is an interesting subject.

With 25 years working mostly in the area of government assistance programs, often titled welfare, I’ve seen my share of individuals who are poster children of the entitlement mentality.  I’ve also seen the majority that use government assistance programs appropriately—meaning as a temporary crutch until they can get back on their feet again.  Somewhere in between there is an elusive line in the sand that separates what some have called the worthy poor from those that abuse the system or are content to let society financially support them for extended periods, even when they have the ability to support themselves.

Government policy makers have tried to define that line in the sand by identifying the circumstances in which people find themselves and determining who is eligible (worthy) and not eligible to receive benefits.  In addition, the receipt of employment support programs are often contingent upon policies that require individuals to participate in activities that are hoped to lead towards increased earnings and the end of the need for public assistance for that individual or household.  That, it seems to me, is a logical approach.  But, as with most things in life, the logic can break down when diving into the details.

Without spending a lot of time trying to outline thousands of pages of public assistance policy, eligibility for programs is usually based on the income of the individuals or families applying.  How much money coming in is weighed against the size of the household.  Some programs, like Food Stamps, also consider expenses such as rent and utilities as a deduction against the countable income.  In addition, most programs look at resources or assets—money in bank accounts, or the value of property that can be sold.  Countable income, less allowed deductions, compared to the household size, and the value of assets form the basic factors of eligibility for somebody applying for government programs.  Contrary to popular belief, illegal aliens are not eligible for most programs.  In addition, other restrictions can be imposed based on whether a person has quit a job, is a non-working college student, or is cooperating in collecting child support from an absent parent.  As mentioned before, some programs require that the person be involved in educational or job search activities as a condition of getting assistance.  These conditions are often waived for somebody who is aged, a child, taking care of a young child, or considered disabled by the rules of the program.

These conditions of eligibility for assistance programs form the government’s attempt to weed out the unworthy poor.  But, as with most laws, there are loop holes and exceptions to the exceptions.  It doesn’t take a lot of looking to find anecdotal circumstances that appear to demonstrate widespread program fraud or unworthy access to assistance.

Before we get to the meat of my conclusions, let me propose some definitions to some terms that people casually banter about without having any universal agreement as to their meaning.  First, the term poor.  The government sets limits of income under which a person or household is considered in poverty.  While the calculation that goes into these limits is complicated and probably makes sense at some level and given certain assumptions, it often feels like an arbitrary number.  For my own purposes we will define a poor person as somebody who cannot, with their income, meet the basic needs of food, shelter, and life saving medical care.  That definition, as with all others, is subject to a lot of assumptions about what is adequate shelter, food, and medical care.  If a person decides to live in a nicer apartment or eat more expensive food, or eat more than they need, and then can’t meet their bills, can they still be considered poor?  I don’t know if anybody has those answers when we get to applying general concepts to individual situations.

The second definition is that of welfare or public assistance.  I remember a day at work that a disabled individual came into our office and saw a sign that talked about being on welfare.  In a fit of rage, he tore the sign off the wall while yelling that he was not on welfare.  He considered that any assistance he got was his right based on his disability and therefore he was not on welfare.  I’m not suggesting his attitude represents that of other individuals determined disabled by society, but it does illustrate how different people feel differently about what is welfare.  I think most farmers or businesses who receive government subsidies or price supports would bristle at the thought they were getting something labeled welfare, but I would suggest that welfare is any assistance for which the person or organization does not provide a product or service at fair market value.  Included in that would be food subsidies, business subsidies, housing assistance, tax credits, educational grants, or government funded rebates and credits on purchases or investments.  Given that definition, most of society has received or benefites from welfare at one time or another, if not regularly.  All of these programs filter tax payer money to individuals and organizations without requiring something in return and meet the definition, therefore, of a redistribution of wealth from parts of the populace to the other parts.  I would label them as welfare.

Hopefully my ramblings to this point have suggested that the subject of public entitlement is not as simple as some would like to make it in their criticisms.  That isn’t to say that all such criticisms are invalid, but they are more often than not uninformed.  In my opinion, unless you understand enough to present multiple sides of an argument, you probably don’t have much of an informed opinion.  I would suggest that the real problem isn’t the assistance or welfare itself, but the individual and societal attitudes that allows and encourages its prolific use.  This I would label an entitlement mentality.

So, here is my thesis.  We have become, as a society, too dependant on welfare for our daily life.  Further, this reliance on entitlement programs represents less the fault of government programs and more on a society that expects outside forces, and especially government, to make every set-back in life right.  This is an entitlement mentality or attitude that says I’m entitled to the basics of life regardless of my circumstances or even the efficacy of my decisions.  It goes beyond economic assistance programs to the attitude that we should be able to experience whatever the majority of society is privileged to experience or have, even if we haven’t the means to access it.  It manifests itself in many ways such as children who want most if not all of what their successful parents have without the years of hard work and sacrifice that may have gotten their parents to that point.  It is expressed in the employee who demands they be rewarded the same as others who put in more effort and were more proactive in learning the job and in producing better results. 

I would suggest that a government that offers more and more assistance programs is doing nothing more than responding to the demands of voters who reward such behavior with votes while often proclaiming the opposite in their opinions.  Many, especially those labeling themselves as conservatives, want cuts in welfare programs, but we continue to elect those who support us in the way we feel entitled.  In the mean time, we criticize and pass judgment on those that get other types of assistance.  As an example, most people don’t know or don’t choose to remember that the Food Stamp program (now called SNAP) was established not primarily as a hunger relief program, but as a way for the government to offer price supports to farmers and distribute excess commodities, hence the fact that the program is administered by the Department of Agricultural and not the Department of Health and Human Services.

So, what can be done?  How do we, as a society, starting with individuals and families, begin to wean ourselves of a mentality that says we are entitled to so many things in life?  It is hard.  It is really hard to look at somebody who has just survived a hurricane and is without home, or a farmer who has suffered through years of drought, or a businesses who despite their best efforts are falling behind competition using cheap foreign labor and say to them, “tough, life isn’t fair, deal with it as best you can, but the government can no longer afford to help you or continue to enable an entitlement mentality.”  It is hard to draw a line in the sand and say that everybody on this side are the worthy poor and everybody on that side should fend for themselves.  At some point all those judgments have to be made as best the decision makers can.  But I am suggesting that the solution is not found in finding where, exactly, to draw that line in the sand.

I believe the solution starts in the hearts of individuals and families.  In individuals it goes back to President Kennedy’s declaration, “Ask not what your country can to for you, ask what you can do for your country!”  In addition to the word country, insert words like family, neighborhood, city, county, state, etc. . .  When we can turn our focus away from what we feel entitled to (our rights) and towards how we can help ourselves and others (our responsibilities), we will begin to free ourselves from an entitlement mentality.  As parents and caregivers of children, we must set aside the temptation to provide them with everything we can, and instead focus on their basic needs and then teach them work and reward for effort in getting the finer things.  Tie allowances to efforts.  Teach the consequences of not valuing things and money.  Say no to the latest thing or the nicest new toy—be it childish toy or grown-up toys.  Involve children in budgeting and finance.  Be an example of staying out of debt, living frugally, and preparing for a rainy day with adequate insurance and savings.

We all know of wealthy people who flaunt their economic advantages.  We’ve seen how even the richest people can end up bankrupt.  I read an article recently that said that the majority of highly paid sports players end up bankrupt within a few years of leaving their multi-million dollar salaries.  Why is that?  Some of us have also seen wealthy people who don’t live extravagantly, whose children hold down jobs in their youth and help pay for their educations.  This isn’t a question of what we have, but how we use it, and what our attitudes are towards what life has blessed, or cursed, us with.

Until we, as individuals and communities, can start to look in the mirror and begin to correct the attitudes and behaviors that have gotten us to this point, we cannot realistically expect societies and governments to change and solve the problems that face us due to our entitlement mentality.  Before we are tempted to talk about big government, the unworthy poor, or all the money wasted on hand outs, whether they be to individuals or corporations, may I suggest we shut up and put up in the form of our own houses being put in order.  Is getting out of debt and staying out of debt your priority?  Do you live within your means, even if it means doing with only the basics in food, shelter, and necessary medical care?  Do you look with charity on others, while holding yourself to the highest standard of self sufficiency?  Do you lobby for and vote for politicians who tell it like it is, meaning that no budget will be balanced without cutbacks in even your favorite program?  Finally, do you practice what you preach to others within the confines of your own home and heart?  Only such will battle and ultimately win against the entitlement mentality.

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.