Bedrock

A Sad Truth: Crooked Politicians Are No Joke!

2012-01-11T00:05:00.002-05:00

My political views are somewhere in the spectrum of conservative, libertarian or classic liberal, and independent. In some areas I'm predictable, in others not. I think for myself. I read books, articles, and blogs, and I listen to radio but watch little television. My ultimate guide is the Bible, and I regard its wisdom as preeminent. Right now, I'm reading a 1985 collection of essays, edited by Frankie Schaeffer, that asks, Is Capitalism Christian? The following quote by the late Warren T. Brooks provoked this article:

“Without the civilizing force of universal moral standards, particularly honesty, trust, self-respect, integrity, and loyalty, the marketplace quickly degenerates. A society that has no values will not produce much value; a nation whose values are declining should be be surprised at a declining economy.”

In other words, amoral capitalism is not Christian and will be corrupted by a lack of moral guidance and commitment. Crony capitalism and crony socialism both lack integrity, and arguing which is better is pointless. Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party Movements waste the energy of protestors against business or government or banks if widespread immorality, corruption, and law-breaking are common, not only among the leaders but also among the people. Neither more laws nor a fundamental change in our constitutional system is the answer; no remedy will correct the problems without honorable leaders and wise citizens to elect them. Blaming one component of the economy for economic failure ignores the real root problem, systemic moral failure.

"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this: You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians...It creates a hostile work environment."

Yeah, that one's good for a laugh (My apologies to the source, but I could not find one). I love a good joke as much as the next guy, and politicians and lawyers provide good material for lots of them. Yet, as with this one, much of the humor is painful. Why do we laugh about something as intolerable as lying, thieving leaders? Laughing at a Helen Keller joke reveals our discomfort at such difficult circumstances we fear but cannot change, however, we don't have to tolerate dishonest thieves in control of our government and our country's welfare. We can vote them out! So why don't we?

Here are a few possible answers: 1) Honesty, virtue, and trustworthiness aren't as important as other qualities we need in our leaders. 2) We accept their lack of morals because they merely reflect our own lack of morals. 3) No one but those lacking integrity are willing to serve. 4) Immoral and corrupt politicians are so deeply entrenched, that we are stuck with them (If you can think of other reasons, please let me know, and I will attempt to address them). So here's my analysis.

1) Do most people see honesty, virtue, and trustworthiness as less important that other qualities in our leaders?

Clearly some think that intelligence, education, and good ideas are most important. Obviously, a leader that is stupid, ignorant, and clueless would be a poor leader; yet if he was honest about his own deficiencies, he might still be preferable to a gifted crook. Since political campaigns hinge on the promises candidates make, their honesty and reliability are critically important; otherwise, the promises they make are meaningless. Without honesty, an intelligent leader will excel at fooling the voters; with no regard for keeping his promises, a well-educated leader may be trusted to use his knowledge and skills to serve his own interest, regardless of what he may have said. Lacking integrity, a candidate with good ideas has no incentive but his own future in politics to implement them. Add to the mix, the prevalence of party loyalty, and even when his moral deficiencies are exposed, his party will often remain solidly behind him.

Of course, exposing moral failure in one's opponent is part of the game, although it does not indicate a sincere interest in shared moral values. The lack of concern about integrity is evident in how often the the first attacks on a candidate are implications and accusations of stupidity. Even those claims aren't sincere; if they were, they would demand IQ tests and stellar grades as qualifications for public office, standards many could not themselves demonstrate.

2) I fear many of us do, indeed, accept their lack of morals because they reflect our own.

The net effect of lacking a moral standard is a lack of awareness or concern regarding immoral behavior. If I cheat on my wife, then how can I complain when my senator or governor does the same. We're just men doing what men do, right? I don't want anyone to steal my stuff, but leaders steal other people's stuff, just as I do, when I take home things from work that aren't mine or cheat on my taxes. And lying? Well everybody lies, especially politicians, although most of us don't want others to lie to us; but that's just life, right?

Actually, for most of our American history, moral virtue was considered both normal and necessary. While most understand that no one is perfect, a habit of immorality or corruption is both an affront to a decent person and a crime under the law. Vestiges of our Judeo-Christian legal heritage—perjury, stealing, and some sexual acts—are still strictly against the law, and should be. Civilization cannot exist without some controls over the behavior of people; moral values enshrined in law protect people from harm by others.

However, the departure of a virtuous standard of public service in the United States has only occurred in the last 50-100 years. Was the turning away from prayer in public schools the beginning? Actually, it was creeping in earlier by way of the rejection of God and absolute moral law, absolutes that were part of the very founding of the United States. Indeed, this experiment in government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” was understood to depend on a strong moral ethos. If the people and their leaders were not people of character—honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness—the founders believed that this effort would fail in a remarkably sort time.

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men... Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt... "Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government. No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."—Samuel Adams

According to Samual Adams, not only does the very success of our nation depend on the character of our leaders, but our people's character is so critical as to require we assure the teaching of character to our children. Sadly, such teaching has been largely removed from our government schools. Another founder, Noah Adams, warned, "In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate—look to his character." He not just referring only to Episcopalian or Baptist, he means Democrat or Republican, conservative, liberal, or libertarian, because it doesn't much matter their associations if you cannot trust them!

Here's George Washington, our first President, in his First Inaugural Address:

“[N]o Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world...”

Washington plainly says that character, moral virtue, is more important that education; I would say that intelligence and education are worthless without integrity for they otherwise merely create a smarter crook! Furthermore, Washington's prediction of the world's high regard of a government of honest people has proven true, for many of the people of the world want to be here. Their corrupt leaders, whom we often seek to appease, may despise us, as vile men often despise those of character, but who really cares what they think? We have have to deal with their power, but we must never bend to their evil.

3) Is it true that no one but those lacking integrity are willing to serve?

I suspect, to some extent, we have allowed it to become true. I know that many civic-minded, true public servants still exist, and some, with a deep concern for the future of the country, do run. What limits them is the cost. We've allowed perhaps the most important civic function in our nation to become a media circus. A largely passive electorate is manipulated by sound clips and talking points, clever ads and nasty attack pieces, and lots of money to engineer the voters. An uninvolved electorate accepts the shallow character assassination that passes as electioneering and an even shallower focus on the physical appearance of candidates. Imagine what a modern election would do to Abraham Lincoln!

Intelligent, thoughtful voters who demand integrity are far less susceptible to such techniques. We listen and read and form our own judgments. We prefer to consider what candidates have done before we take their promises seriously. We prefer reluctant public servants over career politicians; and, if there were more of us, we would have fewer career politicians to weed out and more public servants to choose from. Just listen to the scurrilous attacks on otherwise decent people, used to drive them out of a run for public office. Not only candidates and election committees but the news media create such a negative environment that only a person without a conscience who cares nothing for the opinion of others is willing to run. We've come to accept a system that encourages sociopaths to become our leaders!

4) Immoral and corrupt politicians are deeply entrenched, but we can remove them.

We must begin by rejecting a common perception summed up in, “Yes, I know he's a crook, but he's our crook.” Those who hide rather than confront urban gangs may be forgiving their fear, because the threat is real and close at hand. The attitude that people use to justify supporting a bad person who gives a token bribe back to his or her constituents is unforgivable. The irony is that corrupt politicians pay their constituents with bribes culled from the taxes they themselves pay, with a unhealthy portion dispersed into the belly of the voracious beast of ever-expanding government.

While I'm glad when corrupt Republican politicians who are exposed usually resign or get voted out. Of course, Democrats are more than willing to expose them, giving an edge to their candidates, but Democrats themselves seem more than willing to tolerate equally corrupt among their own. The attitude seems to imply that values are stupid so Democrats reject them except to use them against Republicans. Still, my point is that we must reject all who use their position primarily to gain wealth and power at the expense of the people and who lie both to gain and to protect their position. No war chest of donations can protect them if we the people demand integrity and vote accordingly; indeed, those very war chests will wither as people who demand integrity stop supporting those who lack it.

So what will we do?

One of my favorite thinkers Thomas Sowell writes

“In this age, when it is considered the height of sophistication to be 'non-judgmental,' one of the corollaries is that 'personal' failings have no relevance to the performance of official duties. What that amounts to, ultimately, is that character doesn't matter. In reality, character matters enormously, more so than most things that can be seen, measured or documented. Character is what we have to depend on when we entrust power over ourselves, our children, and our society to government officials. We cannot risk all that for the sake of the fashionable affectation of being more non-judgmental than thou.”

Here's a case where the culture of no absolutes has turned a Biblical idea on its head. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” means do not judge others thinking to make yourself look better. Judging between individual candidates, whether for employment or public office, is something we must do to find the best. If I'm hiring a bank teller, I will reject one who is a thief. If I am choosing a representative of some kind, I will reject one who lies because I cannot trust him or her. If the candidate has been repeatedly unfaithful to his wife, I will likely reject him for the same reason, knowing that if his wife cannot trust him, then who can? On the other hand, broken relationships touch all of us, and we often don't understand our own break-ups or alienated friends, meaning character may or may not be an issue we can judge. For public service, public morals may be more easily discerned, justifying the need for a public record of service for higher office. I don't believe it's the voters job to intrude into a candidate's personal life, unless that life has become undeniably public or even criminal.

We need to begin to talk about character. I care little for what people think a candidate will do if that candidate is unreliable. Nothing is easier than for a politician to make an empty promise. What amazes me is the naivety with which people believe the blatant lies of politicians, thinking that their guy, in their party, of their ideology will not disappoint them. I wonder if it amuses such disreputable leaders to watch the people accept their carefully crafted hypocrisy?

Let me finish with this. Judging character and character assassination are virtual opposites. The former sincerely seeks to find honesty and integrity and stand with those who possess them; the latter uses lies and insinuations to make a decent person seem otherwise. Our task is not to destroy those whose beliefs differ from our own; our task is to find decent, honorable men and women to advance the values we cherish. As things stand right now, I fear our nation is slipping into the kind of corruption that is far too common in the world, and our only real alternative is to find people of sterling character who value our heritage of faith and freedom and who will become the great leaders of a bright future.

Why I am NOT a Socialist

2011-11-12T01:34:00.004-05:00

(This is a work in progress. As such, I may change or add to this, perhaps in response to honest, constructive input. Please keep that in mind should you choose to comment. First revision, 11-12-11)

I could try to explain what I believe; but, as soon as I use certain words, people take off on their own understanding of those words and not longer hear what I say. Perhaps that is why the Lord gave the Ten Commandments in the negative, even though they pretty much summarize, “Love God completely, love your neighbor as yourself”--the Great Commandment. Our poor brains seem better able to focus on the negative.

I am not a socialist, first, because I don't trust people. For all the nice-sounding rhetoric, in a socialist system, a person must allow someone else control over his life, and I don't trust anyone else to manage my affairs. If at some point, if I need to give control to someone, I will do my very best to ask a person I know, who knows and cares about me, one I have found to be fairly trustworthy. I have known a few that qualify, but none of them is a stranger, politician, bureaucrat, or elected official, few of whom, if any, qualify.

I'm amazed how willing people are to trust the government, which is nothing more than a large bunch of “strange” (double-meaning intended) people. History and personal experience make it clear that a good many of those people are greedy, power-hungry, self-centered people, who say one thing but do something else. Most people would call them liars if they were honest themselves, and I especially don't trust liars, especially the bald-faced, political ones!

So, since I don't trust people, because so many of them are liars and because strangers don't have a reason to care about me anyway, rhetoric notwithstanding, I'm not a socialist. I'm not a Marxist, progressive, Communist, or monarchist. I am not a theocrat, even though I am a Christian, because I don't trust many other Christians either, not when it comes to power over my life, and the history of Christians with power isn't pretty either. I am barely a capitalist, but that requires further explanation.

Capitalism is based on believing most people will do their level best to look out for their own best interests. The charge of greed on Wall Street may or may not be true in a particular case, but it doesn't matter. I believe in godly morality, teach godly ethics, but I am not responsible for the behavior or motivations of another; that's God's business. Government isn't responsible for motivations either, unless they break the laws we pass to prevent harm to others. (On this basis, so-called "hate crime" laws are beyond the business of government because no one, inside or outside of government, can accurately judge a person's motives. Assault or murder as actions can be punished; motivation requires mind-reading skills that no one possesses).

Why does capitalism work? If government doesn't interfere (Sadly, it interferes all too often), a capitalist entrepreneur decides to market his new recipe for grape jelly. It is so delicious that he decides to charge $50 for a jar. He discovers, however, that people love the taste but don't buy the jelly. They'll settle for cheaper jelly that isn't quite as good. So he's forced to lower the price. He doesn't have any power to overcome competition, that provides alternatives, or demand, which is based on the free choices of consumers. By giving buyers what they want at prices lowered by competition, the selfish capitalist will succeed by doing an apparently unselfish thing.

Occasionally, a monopoly interferes with this; if a person invents something truly original, he is entitled to his profit. If people collude to produce an artificial monopoly, they will suffer the consequences of the laws passed against that. When the government, however, interferes to make things fairer, it inevitably makes matters worse. For example, freezing gas prices artificially low puts suppliers out of business, thus reducing supply. When people complain about capitalism, now, they need to understand how much authentic capitalism has been twisted until it's really a Frankenstein version of the real thing...thanks to big government.

So I am not a socialist because I don't trust sinful, untrustworthy people to run my life, the lives of the citizens, or the life of the economy. I favor reducing the involvement of the government in all the economic activities it has assumed, contrary to the constitution. Capitalism doesn't involve my trust because, for the most part, it requires serving the wants and needs of people for a capitalist venture to succeed, whatever the character of the capitalist, as long as the government enforces reasonable laws against theft and malice while otherwise letting the system and its people work freely.

Second, I am not a socialist because I reject the power of big government. More government means less control over an ever-increasing measure of my life. I am not a socialist because I believe in freedom, liberty, independence, and all those great ideas that oppose a handful of powerful people in control of everyone else. Democratic socialism sounds like an oxymoron to me, beyond the point where a democratic election installs socialism. What amazes me, now, is that Europe is in major trouble for spending itself into debt-heavy doom, and the United States government seems hellbent on doing them one better. Are our politicians so power-hungry or so insanely stupid that they cannot see the economic disaster that is coming? Yet, people like Occupy Wall Street want to give them even more power? That's nuts!

Both the OWS and Tea Party movements share a strong objection to the abuse of power. The power is a corrupt mix of politics and wealth, and indication of bad people willing to abuse their positions for personal gain. It is not an inherent characteristic of either wealth or government, but the more power given to government, in particular, the greater the likelihood of such corruption. Here seems to be the critical difference between “Occupy Wall Street” and the Tea Parties; the former wants government to have more power while the latter want to reduce the size of government.

Sloganeering this difference creates stupid criticisms. Smaller does not necessarily mean weaker, at least not in the most important areas, such as law enforcement and national security. Both need to be strong but carefully watched by the people. We've been getting a large dose of more laws and more regulation which are a ruse to cover corruption; we need to clean out the corruption! Neither new laws nor more demonstrations will get this done. Neither will a complicit media that is so ideologically slanted a to be useless. Just keep in mind, that 13 colonies with hardly any central coordination defeated the British because the people had a state in their own future. Getting back to a modern form of that is why I'm not a socialist.

Third, I am not a socialist because I am not a utopian. I doubt that many genuine socialists even exist. Those who do are hopeless idealists, refusing to see the fatal error in trusting untrustworthy people to be in charge. The real world isn't nice, and people cannot wish it otherwise. Worse, in this real work, people often aren't nice. Look at the people who rise to the top of Marxist states—Stalin, Lenin, Hitler (National Socialist), Castro, Kim Jong Il, Chavez. Socialists criticize the poverty in capitalist countries, but only corrupt states (and I must include Islamic states) tolerate as great a mass poverty as these leaders have created.

Marxism and its accompanying atheism have produced, in fact, the worst brutality of modern times. So where are the idealists? Just as in Animal Farm, sweet sounding rhetoric turns into better reality. Does that include the political leader, those who espouse socialist ideas, although often denying that they are socialists? Think of all the beautiful promises made to voters, and remember how few of them have been fulfilled. I believe a very limited number believe their own ideas; many merely seek to win votes on insincere promises--elitists who seek only to win power through electioneering. Power-hungry men use the utopian notions of socialism but create the wreckage of Marxist governments, both direct, ugly oppression and softer, but just as devastating economic collapse.

Fourth, I am not a socialist I because I believe the money people earn honestly belongs to those who earn it, regardless of how much. The only money government has belongs to other people. Of course, socialists believe money belongs to everyone, demonstrating that they understand nothing about money. Money is a symbol of productivity to allow people not to trade cows for counseling or apples for iPods. Most think it would be easier to have money linked to a hard asset like gold, but it would still represent the work that people do, including work such as banking, inventing, and investing. In those cases, people try to find ways to multiply their productivity to accumulate the ability to have a nicer house, a family vacation, or a comfortable retirement. In the process of trying to improve their own lives, they, of necessity, provide the means for others to improve theirs, both through the conveniences they create, the jobs it takes to manufacture them, and the services they desire to enhance their lives.

Socialism, and those who often don't understand how money and productivity go together, believe that a central government can do all this better, starting with spending the money they take from the most effective producers. Government is, for the most part, NOT a producer; it is a service provider. Sadly, socialistic government put themselves in charge of the service they provide, the cost of the service, and the goods and services of the ones they serve...the citizens. This upside down arrangement, first of all, isn't right, for taking the money of producers is theft. Second, I don't know anyone who spends money, not their own, responsibly or carefully; few enough handle their own money well. Finally, at a certain, point, under this system, people stop producing, until their entire economy collapses. This is already happening in Europe, destroy the USSR previously, and is evident in places like Cuba and North Korea. Good enough reasons not to be a socialist.

Fifth, I am not a socialist because I have yet to see an enduring and successful socialist government; I include enduring to cover Sweden which I believe to be a unique case, not reproducible anywhere else, and it is well on its way to economic collapse from spending, like so many others. Most, nearly all, have been disasters from the outset. To the extent it is the one exception, Sweden has several qualities that have enabled it to endure, a bit longer—a small population and a uniquely Scandinavian temperament. Being small, it has far less to entice those hungry for money and power. It's almost familial community spirit has kept things moving, although slow erosion seems to be leading to a noticeable decline in productivity, the inevitable doom of all socialistic economies.

Sixth, I am not a socialist because the numbers don't add up. Advocates always scapegoat “the rich,” as they are doing in the U.S. today. In earlier times, the rich were the Jews, but the math still never added up. Without motivated, productive wealth creators, there is nobody to tax to pay for all the benefits provided by the socialist state. At the beginning, they make a convenient target, but too high taxes, in the end, means these wealth produces will stop producing or find some way to escape with their wealth, making it unavailable to pay for the socialist state's largess. Replacing so-called “selfish motives” for production with threats and fear work even more poorly. The USSR could produce weapons but was not able to feed its own people.

In other words, the “rich” are the “goose that laid golden eggs.” It provides nearly unlimited wealth and power with a daily gift of a golden egg, but kill the goose and it will lay no more. The wealthy producers create wealth that blesses an entire society. Rather than envy them, we should appreciate that what they do, even for selfish reasons, nevertheless increases the general wealth of their communities. In the case of the United States, we became a lighthouse for the hope that our general prosperity anchored in individual freedom to seek wealth would enable immigrants to find their own prosperity. Target the wealthy, and soon all will be impoverished...except for the leaders who will be sure to grand a large portion for themselves.

Seventh, I am not a socialist because I reject the very idea of “fairness.” Life isn't fair, and a socialist government can't change life. Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity; everyone has a chance but even that is not “fair.” A few will become Rockefellers and Gates, a larger percentage will become successful in smaller endeavors, many will have jobs with these successful ones, and some will be handicapped. As a Christian, I believe God has gifted every person with something they may give to the rest of us. Economic success is one such area of gifting; art and music are others. Compassion is also a gift, but it doesn't make money in any way but gives. A community based on such diverse giftings is richer for what everyone contributes to benefit all. Socialism cannot recreate or simulate this for too many simply become idle, self-serving dependents.

I see nothing “fair” about given some people what others work hard to earn. Should every adult or family own their own house? Of course not! Some don't wish to own their own house. Should every one that wants to own their own house get one? Should parents give every teenager their own care when they turn 18? I would say that no parent should give a child a car, at least not till they have proven in some way that they are responsible. Saving money to buy a car is an excellent way to prove that. Doing what is necessary to buy a home is equally important. People given things generally do not value or care for them. I like Habitat for Humanity's requirement for families acquiring homes through Habitat of “sweat equity;” for the benefit of an affordable house, the prospective home-owner must work in building or renovating homes, including their own.

Government assistance requires nothing, in far too many cases. What is fair about some people getting what others word hard to receive? What's fair about requiring some to pay, through high taxes, what other get for nothing? Nearly half of the U.S. population do not pay taxes. What happens when more than half are supported by the rest? This won't be the top 1% but the top 40-45%! Not only will such a situation be grossly unjust, it will sap the very energy from our culture. I am not a socialist because I want to live in a dynamic, creative, productive society that no socialistic system has ever produced!

P. S. I'm reading P. J. O'Roucke's "Eat the Rich." In it, he seeks to answer the question, "Why do some places prosper and thrive, while others just suck?" In doing so, he stabs a pitchfork in some notions about economic systems by visiting both kinds of places. He also gives one of my favorite summaries about economics (You can read the first 3 of 10 points here). His description of Sweden's situation has grown worse, I believe, but my view came from O'Rourke, to some degree. You many find other echoes of his thought, since I am reading the book as I write. If I recognize something I should credit more specifically, I will; but, for the moment, I will simply recommend the book. It's an enjoyable and informative read.

P. S. S. I welcome thoughtful interaction; indeed, I eagerly desire it. I don't claim to know everything, certainly not everything about economics and government. Neither am I ignorant. I definitely am not one who enjoys personal attacks as a substitute for intelligent comment, and will delete anything objectionable. Please keep that in mind if you choose to comment.

Why Occupy?

2011-10-26T02:34:00.004-04:00

I have a friend who has been a successful businessman for most of his life. Is he rich? Well, compared to me, he is extremely prosperous. I discovered while teaching a Sunday School class that some of the folk thought that he was dishonest; I was actually warned about mentioning our friendship. After some checking, I came to the conclusion that people, including many of our Christian brethren, easily assume that any successful business person is probably a crook.

I'm nowhere near the top 1% of American income earners, but I don't resent them either. I do not assume they are dishonest or corrupt. Furthermore, I don't see the point of “occupying.” I certainly reject the worst comments I've heard—violent overthrow, canceling all loans, anti-Jewish rhetoric, killing. Some things occupiers have said are just stupid. Print your own money? Really!

One of the things that distresses me most is the class warfare rhetoric. I have no doubt that we have our share of elitist wannabees who would happily become America's nobility, but we remain one of the more classless societies in the world. Capitalism has made this country one of the freest because the freedom to turn ideas into wealth is at the very heart of social freedom. The utopian dreams of a world of wealth without that is truly a dream; whenever it's been tried, the results are neither free nor prosperous. A wealthy “class” implies “old wealth,” passed from generation to generation, but much of the American rich are newly rich, people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, or perhaps your favorite athlete!

Does that mean there are no crooks among the wealthy? I wonder if the occupiers understand that there is no human system of government that can thoroughly prevent corruption. One thing that the honest study of human history, psychology, sociology, or government consistently reveals is the persistence of what some call sin, what philosophers have called “man's inhumanity to man.” Bad people will do bad things, and some of them gravitate to concentrations of power, money, and prestige. Of course, if some of those bad people in government helping to keep the crooks from getting exposed or caught, that makes things more difficult.

The United States is one of those rare instances in history where something better followed a revolution. France didn't fare so well, just a few years later, and I doubt the so-called “Arab Spring” will produce much in the way of freedom or prosperity, although I'd love to be proven wrong. Today, we have it so good, generally speaking, that we often do not appreciate what we truly have, especially when we talk so freely of having more.

Except no one is talking of us having more as a nation, but of taking from one group to give to another (ignoring for the moment those who just imagine more money magically appearing from somewhere). Let's face it; to most people, the “American Dream” is do well financially. Some aiming higher than others, some have better ideas or a greater degree of genius, while others are satisfied with a secure but modest income. All of those exist in this system. Are some disappointed? Yes, some are. Do some want more but choose not to work for it. Yes, they are plenty of them, but even they fare better here than in many impoverished nations of the world. Our poor often live like wealthy people in some of those places.

Why are so many of the occupiers angry? They seem to suggest that they have personally been victimized by rich people, a bank, or Wall Street. Apart from criminal corruption or collusion with the government, which may have a broad general effect on the economy, most of the 99% have not been the target of a specific crime by the wealthy. As far as the general condition of the economy, the current government cannot be ignored nor can the 15 trillion dollar debt it has increased. Spending money we do not have, taxing and redistributing wealth, punishing the successful, and colluding with the corrupt harm all of us, but a general demonstration is a poor method for dealing with those who are responsible.

I find the contrast between the occupiers and and the tea party folk illustrative. The tea party movement seems to have been far more spontaneous, and it was aimed precisely at the problem of over-spending, increasing debt, and higher taxes; yet many acted like these people were kooks or worse. On the other hand, despite the kookiness of some of the occupiers, they get praised. Among the worst offenders in this inconsistency is the media. Why? The tea parties have moved with enthusiasm and commitment into political action while some of the occupiers talk of overthrowing the system. For all the talk of being democratic, it is the occupiers who sound like revolutionary Marxists. Of the examples of that sort available—the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, none have made life for the ordinary folk better, and all have kept power in the hands of a few tyrants. Of those, China has begun to use capitalistic ideas to launch that nation into economic success, but individual freedom still suffers under the iron hand of communist government. Who would want that here?

So I remain skeptical of the Occupy Wall Street movement with all its spin-offs. I doubt that, at the core, it is spontaneous, and many who have become involved spontaneously are the ones who have the weirdest or most extreme ideas. I think their camping on public land requiring local governments to clean up after them, when those same local governments are strapped for cash, is irresponsible (At least the Tea Parties cleaned up after themselves). Destructive activity is even worse, mostly likely harming those in the 99% more than the 1% anyway I strongly oppose any talk of revolution. I have little respect for those who hate and stir up anger against a group of people where only some may being doing wrong. I'm a free market capitalist; I reject Marxism in any form, big government domination, but also crony anything, capitalist or socialist.

However, I will support those specific grievances and concerns through the avenues we offer in our constitutional system of laws—enforcement of existing law, the creation of new laws if necessary (but not executive regulations which only give power to the President), and candidates who advocate for, changes we need and then keep their promises (I'm thoroughly tired of empty an dishonest rhetoric). I'll not be camping out in a perpetual demonstration, though I might participate in a gathering to let my elected representatives know what we the people want. Beyond that, I will vote, write letters, and work to persuade others of what I believe, efforts I consider much more useful and effective than occupying.

[I am pleased to have constructive feedback. However, I will delete snarky remarks or personal attacks. I'm interested in personal conversation and documented support of opposing opinions, as much as possible. I have not linked to anything, thus far, but I expect to update this piece, perhaps with the input of my readers. Thanks. JRW]

Finding the Way Through

2011-08-10T03:23:00.006-04:00

These are troubling times for Americans, no less so for Christians. Both the United States and the American Church seem to in decline. Some might say that both are suffering from the economic situation, but it’s more complicated. The people have lost their bearings in so many ways. Prosperity has not led to happiness or to peace. Relationships at every level are contentious and adversarial; individuals are selfish, hedonistic, and narcissistic. Many no longer worship God, but they do worship celebrities, who literally give them nothing in return. Technology provides so much, but it cannot make a better human; some might even argue it’s making for an inferior kind of person. Coarseness and vulgarity seem ever more the norm, and sex without much constraint is prevalent.

According to Jesus himself, believers are citizens of two realms—one that is God’s, another that is “Caesar’s.” God’s kingdom has priority; his is our first allegiance. Yet, he commands us to submit to the authority of the humans with power over us, even conquerors like the Romans. This proves to be more confusing, in some ways, under our republican democracy than under an emperor, whose power was near absolute. The dilemma is even more enigmatic as our nation struggles to determine what kind of government it will have (or allows it to become the kind of government its leaders make it).

Recently, I was reading two books at approximately the same time (I often have several in process to one degree or another). One sought to defend and advance the ideas of individual liberty and limited Constitutional government, particularly to young people, many of whom seem unfamiliar with it and, as a result, are being led to something else. The other book also addressed the opinions and questions of many younger Americans to make a case for authentic Christianity. One night, as I lay digesting what I’d been reading, I came back to this confusion of being citizens of both heaven and earth, of God’s kingdom and of the United States.

The U.S. was essentially founded by Christians, despite popular arguments to the contrary. They surely were not atheists, and even the most agnostic was pious by today’s standards; the documents, official and not, the monuments, and the historical record all confirm this. Individual liberty held the greatest value, not as a gift of government but as a natural, inherent human right, based on divine creation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Declaration of Independence). When Jefferson, not one of the Constitution's author's, promised a group of Baptists a “wall of separation,” he meant that the government could not interfere with the church, not the reverse (Would he not be surprised, today? Actually, given his prescient wisdom, he likely would be sad but not surprised).

With considerable effort, unsupported by history, which is omitted or altered, despite the plain intent of both Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, likewise ignored or twisted, and against the desires of most citizens, voiced or not, we now live under a different set of values. Schools, government, media, and entertainment industries all promote this new, although arguably more ancient, way of thinking and governing, while still mouthing some of the original words of our heritage. Today, people argue for bigger government, more help from the federal government, and seem to rely less on themselves in a free society.
Evolutionary faith has replaced God, and life has ceased to have the value that came with Christian belief (Babies were once expendable if not desired, the injured and sick were simply allowed to die, and the inferior—women, children, slaves, or opposing tribe—were disposable). Equality of person and opportunity has morphed into equality of outcome, giving government power to impose its vision of sameness. Private property ownership, as the basis of opportunity, is less protected as government sees itself as the instrument of “equality” and arbiter of when property may be taken; the list of justifications for taking private property and money seems to grow almost daily.

The founders plainly regarded Christian character as essential to preserve the republic and its freedoms; they feared both unscrupulous leaders and uneducated or poorly educated voters, who might easily be led to give up their rights for promised gain—promised though not necessarily delivered, just as we observe today. Certain protections against unprincipled, dishonest leaders, spelled out in the Bill of Rights—free speech, a free media, a free faith, and the freedom to protect oneself—have been altered or ignored, replaced by political correctness, a grossly biased media, disenfranchised religious faith, and restrictions on the tools of self-preservation.

What is a Christian to do? What should he or she say? Can nothing be done? Most of us, I suspect, want only to restore what we have lost. Well before 1776, our forefathers had experienced the dangers of government-led sectarian persecution and warfare, a combination of religious belief twisted by power; the actions of radical Muslims speak of the same danger. However, the miracle of this remarkable nation was liberty, including and especially religious liberty. This was the beginning of true tolerance, rooted in faith, not in secular power. Atheism in charge is sectarian government, not neutral government. Leaders without a moral compass are typically poor leaders, serving themselves, sometimes trying to survey and then satisfy an equally self-serving citizenry. Without a moral anchor, prosperity has evolved into hyper-materialism; rugged individualism and a Protestant work ethic have turned into entitlement and narcissism. A can-do philosophy has given way to a victim mentality that looks to government for help rather than helping oneself. Restoration may not be possible! Perhaps going forward offers a better option, but where we are now is frightening. Abuse of power is why colonists came to America, and modern despots are no less abusive. Concentration of power encourages corruption, a growing problem as the federal government seeks and gains greater power and money.

Yet, what can a Christian do? Some would say the task is evangelism; leave politics to others. However, both the Bible and history suggest that to be the wrong choice; indeed, there need be no choice. Believers may and should do both, fulfill their divine mandate to reach out with the message of grace and freedom and express their divinely provided wisdom as citizens. I do observe a few who seem to believe their Christian obligation is to establish a theocracy; I am always profoundly impressed that our founders never moved in that direction. They had not forgotten the civil strife between Catholics and Protestants and discovered a better path. Most Christians handle power almost as poorly as non-Christians; the temptations are just too great.

Anti-christian folk would prefer we keep our faith to ourselves; they object to the influences of divinely inspired values (rejecting of course the very idea of divine inspiration). I believe those values are desperately needed today. For example, how can a nation survive if it is losing the sense of life’s value, as the United States seems to be doing? Abortion is only emblematic of a deeper abandonment. Our high regard for human rights rests on the value of each human life; those rights will not survive for long without valuing individual life itself. These arguments do not depend solely on the Bible or faith, although those are my own anchors. I am willing to make such arguments outside the pages of Scripture, but I insist that my freedom to do so be preserved. Those aligned against our beliefs—pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-faith—are already working diligently to silence us and deny us that right to freedom of religion and free speech. In place of free speech, they offer political correctness, which is intolerant in the name of tolerance.

Such efforts are a threat to everyone. This is the path to oppression. History has already proven what happens when one group loses its liberty; it becomes merely the first to do so. The Soviet Union began, supposedly, as a workers’ revolt, and those who were wealthy landowners and businessmen were the first to suffer; I don’t see much evidence that the workers ever prospered. Oppressors use whatever philosophical, rhetorical, or religious ideas they may to gain power, but once they hold power, their promises are typically worthless. Already politicians in the United States make numerous empty promises to various interest groups, but it’s easy to find their failures to follow through. Even the relatively sincere tend to overlook the unforeseen consequences their actions bring. Escalating costs for everything arise from more than greed; many are caused by impositions of government law, regulation and ballooning bureaucracy, producing increasingly oppressive interference with living freely. Could gargantuan government do anything else?

So I listen, read, think, talk, and write with these concerns in mind. I wish to see a restoration of freedom and respect for human life that goes with it. I still regard the Constitution and Bill of Rights to express the most brilliant approach to national governance ever conceived, apart from the rule of God himself. Kings, dictators, emperors, and oligarchs, whether by inheritance or violent overthrow, all share a desire for centralized power. Monarchy and Marxism, in the end, are not that different, except for the justifications. Pure democracy is too vulnerable to manipulation of the uneducated or willfully disinterested masses. Republican democracy with power vested ultimate in the people by natural right worked well for he first two centuries; restored, it will work again. I believe simple capitalism is the best economic system and itself a preserver of individual liberty, but big government and crony capitalism destroy the principles of genuine capitalism.

I have my doubts that a basis for ethical character can be found without God. Please don’t misunderstand; even with God, sin remains humanity’s most serious problem. I am a Christian because Jesus taught grace, love, peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation, and he died to make them possible. Many of the best things about Western civilization came through the actions and influence of Christians guided by God and these ethical values. Even the idea of freedom is ultimately a Biblical concept, a healthy concept of liberty that is not selfish self-indulgence.

Nevertheless, I would not vote for a “Christian” government, though I am comfortable voting for a Christian to lead under out Constitutional government. I recognize that Christians can and have abused power, whether from good intentions gone awry or from simply using God as justification for evil. Separation and balance of power in our American system protects us regardless of where the problems arise.

Having said all that, I frankly find myself still caught on the horns of a dilemma. Capitalism is the economic side of freedom; by this I mean the rights of individuals to use their own money and property to create, sell, trade, provide service, or invest to make a living and even to acquire wealth. As a Christian, I know that the “love of money” is “the root of all (kinds of) evil,” (I Timothy 6:10) such as I have alluded to above; but I do not regard money, per se, as evil. Jesus taught that we could not serve two masters, both God and mammon; but he also taught that we should make wise use of “mammon.” (Luke 16) I believe he intends for us to live well from the fruit of our labor, as he blesses. I also believe he intends that we should serve others by using well both the freedom that prosperity provides and the money we have earned. Hospitals, orphanages, counseling centers, schools, youth centers, and churches, along with a host of other facilities, enable us to help those in need and provide the means for them to make better lives for themselves.

Yet, there is “the love of money” or what we simply call materialism. Invention, technology, commerce, and advertising have taken our culture beyond prosperity into something else. For the secularist, the desire may be “heaven on earth,” but believers should never forget where heaven really is. For all that some fear the influence of the Church on government and culture—though I think they are wrong—I have as great a suspicion that our secularized culture has damaged the Western Church. Tractors, refrigerators, and washing machines freed us from the tyranny of hard labor, but commerce and advertising are enslaving us to a new tyranny—consumerism and technological dependence, if not addiction.

I could write a great deal about this problem, but others already have. As with other ills, Pandora’s box is already open, and what is done cannot be undone. Sometimes it seems that cell phones, texting, tweeting, gaming, and various computer-related technologies are leading us back into mindless ignorance, where the masses must, of necessity, depend on others to care for them. Social networking is not the same as having a relationship or living in a community. At one extreme, people don’t even know their “friends.” Trust cannot exist where people are not tangibly involved except for sex, and loneliness rules our “connected” age. On the other extreme, leaders without ethics or honesty invite us to believe their promises supported by sympathetic, even sycophantic, news media; they use technology to create their images, and one wonders how similar they may be to the stalkers who prey via the same methods and technology.

In the past, ordinary people were too busy just surviving to fight off oppressors; now they seem preoccupied with enjoying the freedoms to realize they are slowly disappearing. Aldus Huxley used the ancient idea of “bread and circuses” to explain how people are conditioned not to care or even notice as their freedom slips away; he wondered about drugs, but addiction to Facebook and tweeting may serve just as well. Those freedoms rely on an educated and engaged citizenry, not one preoccupied with posting moment-by-moment updates of the inanities of daily existence.

Likewise, the Church thrives or fails as its faithful express the life of Christ within them, which is much more and far greater than mere passivity. The combination of spiritual and political freedom combined with the powerful technologies now available offer the possibility of amazing growth, individually and collectively. However, this must occur in addition to the Biblical norms of family, brotherhood, community, and fellowship, not in place of them. Somehow, we must combine high tech with high touch. I find the possibilities exciting, if we canhas overcome the enticements of technology and material wealth.

I believe an committed American Christian has a great obligation to both the Church and the nation to advance both faith and freedom, and we powerful tools to help us, if we use them as such without becoming consumed by them. For example, email, Facebook, texting, and the like can enable us to connect in ways never before possible, but we must use them in addition to the ages old face-to-face methods of conversation and hospitality. We cells phones, social networks, and Skype people can communicate when they are worlds apart, as long as they spend real “face time” together when they're not. We can gain and share information, bypassing biased manipulators of news, as long as we show the wisdom to verify what we learn before we pass it on. These technologies offer individual freedom unlike anything before; however, we dare not lose ourselves in them so much that we ignore the dangers around us, the attempts by some to dominate these tools, or the irresponsible spending and waste that could so devastate our economy that we could no longer support, enjoy, or even afford our freedoms or technology.

I tend to be optimistic, although it's not easy, these days. I accept that one day humans may make such a mess of things that God will finally initiate the next age, but I am not inclined to doomsday scenarios, including those coming from extreme Left and Right and evangelical. I regard the threat of Islamic terrorism and the threat of Marxist domination with equal dismay. Yet I see the answers to both in faith and freedom, and I urge you, reader, to set yourself to pursue both for the sake of our nation and its people, our world, and our Savior.

Two Views of Humanity: Controlled or Free?

2010-04-10T18:40:00.003-04:00

Do you have enthusiasm for life? Are you motivated to create, to accomplish something meaningful, to express a yearning that comes from within you? Despite the inevitable problems you face, do you feel good about your life and hopeful for the future? I'm not talking about youthful optimism or having a positive personality; the question is whether you understand life as a challenge to be met or a hopeless venture where you're only a helpless pawn. Do you strive to be a unique individual, untroubled by the plans and opinions of others, or do you allow yourself to become one in the mass of humanity? Do you allow others to control the course of your life? Do you make life an adventure, or do you wait for something to make life exciting for you and often find yourself bored and disappointed?

I wish every person could see themselves in the more positive light, but most do not. Many spend their hours in mindless, repetitive activities, not much better than the drugs and alcohol the numb the minds of many others. People often approach sex in the same way. Many feel themselves to be victims, blaming others for their own misery; yet those who have what the victims lack are themselves often just as unhappy and disillusioned with life. In a world filled with misery and pain, is it possible to enjoy life? No one totally escapes the troubles and tragedies of life, but how we handle them is a choice. Is having every need met a requirement for a positive outlook? If it is, then we are doomed because no one has every earthly need met, not even the most wealthy and powerful (nor the most profoundly spiritual).

The key is how we see ourselves and others. People and organizations view humans in only one of two ways. The more common view is the one that began in a garden when a serpent used a twisted message of freedom to enslave the first man and woman to himself. Since then, our corrupted human nature, the systems of this corrupted world, and the continuing influence of that same adversary have sought to control humanity. Kings and governments do so to empower and enrich themselves. Companies seek to control their workers for profit. Ethnic groups strive to dominate other ethnic groups to advance their power and prosperity. Many churches and religious leaders, more the rule than the exception I fear, use religious fear to keep their people in line. Even in personal relationships, marriages and families do not escape the manipulations and power games of spouses or parents seeking to impose their vision of happiness on each other. The common tendency seems to indicate a compulsion to control in order to satisfy a need to dominate. Do people feel better when everything and everyone is under their control, or at least seem to be? It would seem they do not because most never stop trying to gain even more control.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a radically different vision. By grace, God liberates believers from sin that controls them and from the need to control. The only Person with a legitimate claim to power over an person has chosen not to demand subservience or force control over his children. His remarkably radical plan is to free each person to become the unique individual he created them to be and allow them to use the gifts he has given them in satisfying, original ways. He encourages us to join with others in the same freedom as communities where each individual may then contribute as he or she is uniquely gifted to the benefit of all and to the glory of the God who so blesses them.

The way of domination and pressured conformity is destructive to the individual. Whether the means is force or promise, the end is a life of dissatisfied victimization or bored discontent. The ideal subject for such intentions is a mindless, obedient drone, who will be provided the bare necessities in exchange for its work and compliance. Often a message of equality is distorted to persuade people to accept this imposition of order from those with power, but it is a false, simplistic message. Equality is an illusion and contrary to reality. Men and women are not the same; each person differs substantially from other men and women. Being equal before God or law is far different than having lives that are the same in every way. Wise parents, for example, love every child equally but recognized that each one is unique.

God did not create humans to be the same. He indeed loves each one, but he knows he made each person to be an individual as different as a snowflake or fingerprint. Is there a more satisfying alternative for such individuals than the compulsion to control? We struggle to control the one person we think we ought to be able to manage, our self, and often divert ourselves from that struggle by seeking to control the world and people around us. If we are to function in God's economy, we, too, must release those around us or under our authority in order to embrace their uniqueness and accept them as individuals. Legitimate authority may allow us to direct the activities of individuals, but does not authorize us to control the person. To free them, however, is delightfully satisfying and enjoyable as we see each unique person emerge and exercise their own special gifts and abilities, both to their own ends and in more effective service to those whom they serve.

For example, a senior pastor needs an associate. He needs very specific skills to complement his own, and the church hires a person who seems perfectly qualified. Yet, as he settles into his position and the church gets to know him, it becomes obvious that he is not a perfect match. In cases such as this, churches openly pray for the Lord to bring the “right person” to fill the position. Did he fail to answer prayer? If not, what should happen next?

Often, the process of trying to force the person to fit the job begins. He wants to keep his position, so he works hard to meet the church's and pastor's expectations, even as he grows increasingly unhappy in his job. The pastor is also dissatisfied and begins to make negative evaluations and perhaps even complains to others in the church. Many members love the associate, and they begin to complain about the pastor. The struggle for control escalates into a major conflict and perhaps even splits the church. Does that sound like God has answered their prayers? Or did he?

The appropriate alternative is to believe that God indeed expressed his will in bringing the associate. Pastor and leaders should look at his areas of true giftedness and see if they might meet some other need in the church, one perhaps previously unnoticed. The associate, just like other members and leaders, must be permitted and encouraged to use his gifts, not suppress them in order to fit controlling preconceptions of the pastor or church leaders. The same principle applies to the larger issues of pastoral leadership; a congregation should be encouraged to grow according to its gifts and not by some imposed vision. Pastors, church leaders, business owners, classroom teachers, and even individuals must learn to accept the differences in their relationships and organizations and stop trying to control them. (Parents, teachers, coaches, and military instructors do have an obligation to train with discipline to create self-discipline, but that does not originate in the sinful urge simply to control children, trainees, or recruits). Husbands and wives, too, need to recognize that God sovereignly leads us into relationships for our good, however we may perceive the process. Problems may indicate a need for us to change but not entitle us to demand others change to suit us. This is a universal principle, I believe, that applies to all dimensions of life, including government and even international relations.

The United States began with a vision of freedom anchored in Biblical ideas. The founders did not create a central government empowered to rule or control the nation. Instead, they sought to shape the leanest form of government they could imagine. In this plan, the people controlled government through elected representatives with limited powers; the government did not control the people or rule the country and was intended never to do so. Kings and tyrants, oligarchies and dictators, and even many so-called democracies control, demand, and enforce obedience on the people, but this was not to be the case for the United States.

However, the urge to dominate and control infects people, deeply colors the various world views that have arisen, and remains the strategy of the devil who, unlike God, despises liberty. Those who gain a measure of power seek, often, to increase it. The elites in government, business, and academia seem to share the same agendas, working in concert even as they wrestle among themselves for control. We have reached a time in our history where their strategies are bearing rotten fruit, feeding their need to dominate by demanding increased compliance from the people. Sadly, in ignorance or in a misplaced willingness to entrust themselves and their security in the often empty promises of others, the people have allowed their leaders to become rulers, who seem to be expanding their control rapidly.

Public schools and universities are prime examples. In the training of teachers and professors and in creating curricula, students are expected to accept control as they are encouraged to trust the controllers. Compliance becomes the virtue, creating drones in the hives of a new order. Personal freedom, beyond sexual immorality and worldly entertainments, is neglected. In place of goals like hard work, excellence, and worthy achievement, students learn to accept mediocrity and lowered expectations in a social order where everyone is supposedly treated the same. Such “equality” isn't measured by a high standard, because a ruling government cannot force production effectively; therefore, no one will enjoy prosperity, excellent health care, or personal achievement except the few elites. Those at the top will steal the more and more of the resources of the achievers with less and less finally reaching the general population. Producers will lose heart and produce less. Most who have expected more will not get more, and the rulers will encourage them to blame the producers (the evil rich). Only the elites and rulers will prosper. Call it oppression, call it abuse, or call it big government; at any level of life, this view of humanity is simply wrong, and it doesn't work!

Assuming my analysis is correct, this isn't an optimistic view. What are we who accept God's view of mankind and choose a Biblical vision of freedom to do or say? Unfortunately, many of us already buy into the controlling message, lulled by the promises of good for everyone. We, who know about universal sin, ought always to be skeptical of those who make such promises. Even Jesus objected to the label “good rabbi,” saying only God is good. Clever promises of a “greater good” are just like those of the serpent, and the Bible has given us clear warning. History, too, should make us cautious because such promises have been made and broken many times and, to my knowledge, rarely if ever kept. The Hilters, Stalins, and Maos, along with numerous lesser tyrants, come to power on such promises; we recognize their evil but overlook their persuasive and charismatic rise to power, speaking words that carried no obvious message of evil. Of course, many of us ignore the lessons of history, and too few schools teach them.

Many rulers, like tyrants of the past, seek to replace God, offering a lesser kind of salvation, transformation, and hope. They urge the people put their faith in government instead of God, but the result of such trust is disappointment, disillusionment, and despair. Many in our country already see this, but it remains to be seen how they will influence the future. Others, however, remain deluded by false promises, made not just at enormous cost, but even to the mortgaging of the future with feckless borrowing. This kind of deception will never end; it is as old as the story of Eden and will only end when the Lord himself ends it!

For believers, our first and strongest response must be to choose only to trust God and to reject the alternative. In doing so, we must affirm and practice the Biblical view, that which is filled with freedom for the individual, encourages his or her personal uniqueness, and renounces the controlling model. This is crucial. The message of salvation and hope is for this world, not just the next. Those who truly believe discover a new way of seeing. The result are contrasts like the following:

Joyful poor versus Discontented rich

Hopeful uninsured versus Well-insured yet fearing death

Fulfilled workers versus Workers who hate working

Lifelong learners versus Smug pseudo-intellectuals

Free and accepting freedom versus Enslaved wanting to enslave others

In other words, freedom, contentment, and joy depend on nothing in this world. While no one wishes to suffer, whether from illness, impoverishment, ignorance or from the demands of others, we who know Christ know that our lives ultimately are his, that he loves and cares for us, and that he will do justice in the end, if not in the present. In dealing with this world's powers, he suffered and promised that his followers would also suffer. We are tempted to heed the serpent in order to escape suffering; this we must not do! As with that story, yielding to false promises robs us of what we already have; we gain nothing and lose everything.

However, our response must not only be personal and spiritual. Jesus gives us the task of ministering to those in need, our fellow-sufferers. We are called to sacrifice to meet their needs, but we are not called to yield our duties to the government or any other entity, not even a congregation or mission board. Many Americans have taken on a kind of modern indulgence by which they think to “buy off” their spiritual obligations. Is this a sin? Yes, technically, this is sin, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is also a self-destructive choice. When we make it, we move from the world of freedom and sacred accomplishment to the world of conformity and control.

I am uncomfortable with the phrase “social justice.” It too often seem to imply giving the government the task of making things right. Government already has that task as it relates to broken laws and punishing law-breakers. Social justice implies righting perceived social wrongs that cannot easily be traced to individual sinners, if they can even be proven at all. This phrase plays too easily into the hands of controlling powers, whose interest is power not justice, whatever they may say (I don't doubt there are a few sincere politicians and activists who want to do good, but they are never the ones in charge!).

For example, believers who feel the need to help those without insurance should find a way to help, not vote for leaders to do it. The record is crystal clear: private, Christian agencies accomplish far more with their resources than any huge government bureaucracy, just as private businesses work more effectively and efficiently than government-run businesses or, even worse, crony capitalism. Schools and the post office, respectively, are prime examples. I am appalled at the ease with which most parents entrust their children, their most precious possession, to government schools, where the teaching of prayer and faith are banned and where values contrary to Scripture are fostered. I guess, for those who have done so, and for those who have been so taught, trusting the government for “social justice” is a logical next step. In taking that step, we not only yield up our freedoms, but we substitute the sacrifices which we ought to make personally to help others for a kind of “shared sacrifice,” with the government determining who sacrifices and how much. Involuntary “sacrifice” is not sacrifice; it is oppression. We do not meet our divine obligation or fulfill our spiritual duty when an outside agency takes from us and dispenses by its rules, often taking a healthy share for those in charge, at the price of our liberty and personal dignity.

First, then, we must look to God for our life, joy, and hope. Second, we must reclaim our God-given obligation to minster to those in need and not continue to relinquish it to government. Neither of these need be political, although politics does encumber congregational life. The Christian life is supposed to be communal, and American churches grossly neglect community life, compared to the rest of the world. While I believe strongly in individual freedom, spiritually and politically, I am saddened by the extreme expression of individualism so common here. This is important enough almost to warrant an fourth point, but I will save it for another time.

Finally, however, I believe we do have a duty actively to oppose the rapid accumulation of power by government. Christian and non-Christians alike argue over whether the United States was ever a Christian nation. I think they miss the point. God's sovereign influence is evident in nearly every aspect of our nation's beginnings. Christian ideas, some would say Judeo-Christian, plainly speak out of countless historic documents, not the least, the “Declaration of Independence” and the “Constitution of the United States”. Others as early as the “Mayflower Compact”, “Lincoln's Gettysburg Address”, and more recently, Martin Luther King's “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” demonstrate the clear presence of divine influence. The founders may not all have been Christians, but Christian ideas are our heritage; we ought not to let it be taken from us by revisionist history or government fiat.

This is history, but it's being ignored. Schools are suppressing this aspect of our history to wipe these ideas out of our culture. Political correctness, another form of control over people, presumes to become a moral authority superior to the Bible or any other religious book or historic document. In replacing these ideas, the government is reaching for greater power over the people, ignoring that we have “certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights not given by government but “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” according to our Declaration of Independence (If you've never read it or haven't read it lately, I highly recommend you do so, here).

For believers, this line is stunning: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Politicians and jurists have tried to use the Bill of Rights to undo this, somehow, when clearly our Founders did not find such statements contrary to their own convictions or those of the people. Those who find religion a problem have tried to erase the Founders' belief in God, their assertion of natural rights, and the idea that government answers to the people, not the other way around. They would replace such ideas with rights granted by the government, putting the government plainly on top. Obviously, this should matter to citizens, but should it matter to us who are Christian believers? I say it should!

Can true believers, genuine Christians, “rejoice in the Lord” in poverty, sickness, adversity, or tyranny? They are “more than conquerors” through Jesus Christ, no matter what (Romans 8). “Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus!” Should believers give priority to charitable work, regardless of the government's or community's efforts to “provide a safety net?” Indeed, we reach people through serving them, not merely in “giving them the gospel.” Believers are wrong to turn these duties over to the secular powers, who often fail to do them well, waste resources immensely, and demand that “religion” be far removed from such activities.

With those two points established, is it also necessary for believers to seek the renewal or restoration of our civic heritage of freedom, so closely tied to faith? I believe it is although we must avoid either of two extremes. On the one hand, we must not become theocrats, seeking to install our Christianity in the government. First of all, the plan of liberty rests on a small government, on that “governs best as it governs least.” When Christians have tried to assume power, the power seems to have corrupted them, as power is so prone to do. I believe the vision of the founders was almost inspired in simply keeping the government from intruding on the Church and assuring that no religion, including atheism, overshadows any other. When the time comes for God to reign on this earth, I don't believe we will need to “install him.”

The other extreme to avoid is isolation or insularity. Too many congregations act as if they're serving God in secure little fortresses cut off from their communities. Jesus commanded his disciples to pay their taxes to Rome to fulfill their civic obligations as citizens of that empire. In our country, those obligations involve more than just voting. Every level of community and government needs the wisdom and abilities of believers—cities and towns, schools, counties, states, and the nation. As with other callings, God will call out those who are gifted to serve as representatives and civil servants, but the simple act of voting requires knowledgeable voters. We need to be aware of what governments do and stand ready to challenge them when they do wrong, “speak truth to power,” as John Whitehead says.

Perhaps no area of involvement is more critical that that of virtue and integrity. It is so easy to decry the shameful things that public figures do, but it is much harder to work to restore the moral framework that has been lost. Most people, even those convinced that religion has no place, will acknowledge that rampant dishonesty, deviance, and corruption undermine our trust in those who serve us. Sadly, instead of challenging the morality of our fellow citizens, many Christians have allowed themselves to become tainted by their moral emptiness and drawn into their sinful perspective. In other words, if we're not fighting for godly values, then we, our children, and their children will be drawn into their valueless way of thinking.

This brings us back to my initial perspective. With only two ways to see humanity, we must fight on all fronts for the view that values each individual and his or her uniqueness. I believe this is the ultimate battle we face. While the gospel, often described as simple, is the heart of what we teach, if we allow our understanding to be too shallow and too simple, we will find ourselves living under all manner of oppression and subjugation, some even in the name of Jesus! This is both a public battle that we must fight and a private challenge we must face. In the end, it is the nature of fallen humans to want others to be like themselves, to be inclined toward that conforming, controlling view of humanity. As such, it leads us to slip too easily back into that perspective and not to notice when others have done so. We must learn to see people and the world as God sees and fashion our lives, relationships, and activities in in with that view. Only then will we be leading people into that perfect way of living that is uniquely individual, fully creative, gloriously alive, and awesomely joyful, all to the glory of our Creator.

The Census, Money, and Other Nonsense

2010-02-21T14:21:00.005-05:00

Except for a few quiet, personal rants, I've not been writing much in the political area. I can't be quiet about some things, like the current ads promoting the census. Our Constitution calls for a count of citizens, every 10 years, to properly allocate Congressional districts, but you wouldn't know that if you depended on the promotional announcements the government is sponsoring. They are also incredibly stupid!

One features a discussion of a small town and the number of traffic lights needed which, of course, depends on the number of people living and driving there. Another talks about schools, the number of students, and the subsequent need of teachers, books, and facilities. Are they kidding? Do small towns and schools need the federal government to count for them? It's absurd! I would especially worry about schools that weren't capable of determining their needs; such schools certainly should not be educating anyone's children. These spots were written by morons or by arrogant idiots presuming to write for an audience of morons. Either way, what a waste! How big is the waste? A super bowl ad cost 25 million, the entire campaign 135 million, and then there's the actual waste.

Of course, the real message is in the tag line. "An accurate count determines how much money we get," or something to that effect. In truth, the Constitution says nothing of the sort since it, in fact, presumes no such redistribution of wealth that is the hallmark of this President. The founders must be ready to climb from their graves at such presumption. The very idea that a school or small community would look to Washington for its funding is diametrically opposed to the system of government created by the Constitution. Such a system of taxing, collecting into Washington coffers, and doling out as a few in the Capitol decide, with a healthy percentage kept in their hands, is an indication of how wrong things have gone.

Call it socialism, fascism, oligarchy, or statism--they all apply--one thing is certain; what our present government is doing is not constitutional. Furthermore, it is leading us away from both freedom and prosperity. They may talk about equality or the children, but the outcome will be equally less for everyone, and the children will, in the end, suffer the most.

This administration is the most deceptive of any that I have seen in over half a century. President Obama, regardless of his skin color, is adept at saying one thing while clearly planning another. Stimulus, health care, global warming, and jobs are all mere opportunities for grabbing more money and power, while he appears to care about whatever issue he addresses. The most egregious is the deficit, which he has enlarged more than any other President in history, which he now says he wants to fix. Of course, he won't fix what he broke; he will appoint a commission which, predictably, will suggest more taxes while enabling the President to break another promise.

If I were watching this on TV, I would turn it off as totally unbelievable. Mr. Ripley missed out on an amazing "Believe it or not!"

Christmas Villains

2009-12-23T15:17:00.003-05:00

There Had to Be a Herod

'Tis such an unusual Christmas season when the Senate of the United States works right up to late Christmas Eve, not to give, but to take. Oh, they would tell the citizens they will give them health care, but this present is not a little like Pandora's Box, filled with all manner of bad things.

The villain in the Christmas story is King Herod who, on hearing of the birth of the Messiah, sought to destroy his feared rival by killing every baby under 2 years old. How many more babies will die, funded by this health care bill's national abortion funding? Did the soldiers carrying out Herod's orders cringe to do their duty? Surely, the 60% or more 0f the American taxpayers, who regard abortion as destroying life, despise the thought of helping to pay for the executions.

Who is Herod? Is it Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who sold his soul for his vote in support of the bill he had seemed so ardently to oppose, because of it's funding for abortion? His answer, in so many words, suggests that everyone in the Congress will yield his or her principles, for a price! Or Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, is our Herod, orchestrating this power by the Democrat majority; never mind that an overwhelming majority of the American population oppose their tyranny. Led by Reid, the Democrats have voted down every effort to remove abortion from theie health care overhaul.

Where does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi fit in this Christmas story? Of course, the House's version is rather different, but still it takes the choice of health care away from the people. Using the excuse that some have no coverage, the plans in both House and Senate attempt to take over the entire system, rather than finding a simple way to provide coverage to those without. Providing “universal coverage” for abortion is but one element of this beastly business, involving thousands of pages of legislation and untold numbers of unknown, unpredictably results between the intended and the unintended consequences. While Pelosi has led the charge in pressing this agenda in the House, the Christmas story has no witch nor queen!

Ultimately, only one person qualifies to be Herod in this bizarre pageant. He is a President who seems to despise both the nation and its Constitution, who befriends tyrants almost as if he admires them, and who has promised this abomination of a health care “reform” as a center piece of his administration. He looks forward to signing into law this bill with all its devastating provisions. His flagrant arm-twisting, abetted by Pelosi and Reid, demonstrate their utter contempt for the people and for genuine democracy.

A despised leader who will do anything to maintain his power—is that a better description of Herod or Barack Obama. Elected by a substantial majority with empty promises of hope and change, Obama's approval has dropped to the lowest of any modern President by his first December. More than half of the people question his leadership, his effectiveness, his very competence, and the plainly fear the costs of what he has already done, trillions of dollars of debt, likely only to be worsened by this health care debacle, to say nothing of his intention to spend tax-payer dollars to fight non-existent global warming.

A House Full of Scrooges

Indeed, his scorn for what other people want brings to mind another villain of the season, Ebeneezer Scrooge. Scrooge has become an icon of stinginess, so one might ask how these profligate spenders, earmarkers, and borrowers are heirs to the evil of Scrooge. He was a private businessman, the very image of what some imagine all in business to be. Are there such mean-spirited people in business? Of course there are, but the harm they do is limited to their sphere of activity and restricted by law. Not so the Scrooges in government! They can spread their villainy throughout the entire nation and even to the rest of the world. These Scrooges don't spend their money either; they don't just spend the money of taxpayers, but they encumber future generations of taxpayers with trillions of dollars they must borrow. It should also be noted that these Scrooges fit the mold perfectly, as studies show that those on the left are only generous with other people's money and stingy with their own.

Perhaps the biggest “Bah, Humbug” from these Scrooges is their scorn for what the American public want. So many things that candidate Obama promised, knowing what the electorate wanted, he now simply ignores—transparency and posting legislation for public inspection, not raising taxes on those earning under $250,000, truly preserving the right to keep insurance citizens want to keep, or dealing with escalating unemployment. What he doesn't ignore, he simply lies about, and many of those lies are wrapped up in this Christmas present from hell called “comprehensive health care reform.” Requiring every American to buy insurance or face fines or worse isn't a gift. Setting up an unaccountable panel to regulate health care from Washington is not on anyone's wish list. Telling Americans that this fiasco is necessary to prevent bankruptcy of the federal government, especially after spending like an entire navy's worth of drunken sailors, is nothing but a truckload of coals to dump into stockings of Americans.

What should Americans give these Herods and Scrooges for Christmas in return for all they're working so hard to give the country? To start, give them the clear, unrelenting message that this must stop. This country was founded on liberty, individual liberty, and free enterprise; this “reform” monstrosity is a rejection of everything that America stands for. Secondly, give these tyrants bent on forcing their own power-grabbing agenda on unwilling voters a second message, “Your time will end ASAP!” Then, make sure you don't forget to vote these Herods and Scrooges into unemployment, starting next November. Now that will be a Christmas gift worth waiting for!

Just Shoot the Messenger: Avoiding the Real Issues

2009-09-19T00:32:00.003-04:00

A person who attacks the character of a person who holds a contrary opinion proves that he or she is unable or unwilling to defend his or her own opinion. It's actually quite childish (Remember: "You mother wears army boots?"). The most vivid example of this pathetic behavior is the current cascade of claims that opponents of nationalized healthcare are racists, itself a subset of the idea that anyone who disagrees with our first black President is a racist. The intent is to scare “unbelievers” into accept of ideas they despise, ideas, not people or races.

Personally, I am disgusted by those (Democrats and fellow travelers) who continue to accuse people like me of being a racist. I tutor refugees, mostly young people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. My experience suggests that those who dominate education, media, and government are the real racists because they treat my students poorly. Most significant is their opposition to making English language instruction the first priority for these students. Their attempt at some sort of multicultural justification makes no sense; the intent to keep these young people at a severe disadvantage without English in an English-speaking country makes much more sense. By such planned neglect, they assure that these unfortunate young people are virtually forced to do “the jobs American workers don't want to do.” Never mind that these kids would prefer to do something better!

Various social programs—welfare, jobs and housing programs, the proposed healthcare overhaul, and even the public education system—are equally racist in denying the less fortunate a fair opportunity for achieving prosperity. To maintain a (lower) victim class...and assure they continue to vote for the Democrats...is supremely cynical and racist. Despite their rhetoric, they do not evaluate people based on their character, as Martin Luther King dreamed, but on their color.

Contrary to the frequent accusation, few of us oppose Barack Obama for personal reasons; we oppose his ideas, which we have feared since early in the campaign. A person is known by the company they keep. We all know politicians use every tool available to create an electable persona; wise voters also learn to seek the truth beneath the image. Obama's troubling associates were not black; they were America-hating Marxists and radicals—Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, ACORN, Rhashid Khalidid. We don't hate him, but many of us do hate the ideas he shows himself determined to impose upon us. I don't care that he's (half) black; I would rarely think of his race if his supporters didn't raise the issue in order to silence their opponents.

No only does this false accusation become increasingly vapid, it will fail. It is already failing. The President's support for his radical agenda is gone, except among the extreme Left. While his popularity still holds, somewhat, that too will continue to fall as the people realize his insincerity. Like so many before him, Obama attempts to sound like he cares about the people and the nation, while he systematically pursues programs that are devastating them. How does a man get away with berating his predecessor for his deficit spending while he has orchestrated the largest deficit in American history? The answer is that he does not!

One of the more cynical attempts to advance his healthcare overhaul was to act as Preacher-in-Chief. As such, he tried to court the support of religious leaders, claiming federal restructuring of healthcare was a moral imperative. Those who ranted at President Bush's open Christianity silently accept President Obama's religious exhortations without a whisper of complaint. This is a frequent ruse by the Left, speaking ideas they oppose to win support for their agenda. I am morally in favor of assisting those who need help, but I oppose the government's involvement, first on Constitutional grounds. To put it simply, “It's none of the federal government's damned business!”

As with so much of the current administration's agenda, it violates plain restrictions of the national government. Energy, welfare, education, transportation, housing, business, and healthcare are all beyond the clear list of enumerated powers to which the federal government is restricted. Some might argue that it takes the power of the federal government to solve the most difficult problems, but indeed the contrary is true. In each of these ares, as the federal government has centralized control, success has decreased while costs have increased enormously. I challenge anyone to provide a single example of a federal program being both successful and cost-effective. Those who hate the military love telling stories of thousand dollar toilets, sadly true, but national defense and the military are the federal government's job. We simply do not need it burdening our entire nation with expensive, ineffective performance in areas it has no business being involved.

The brilliant Milton Friedman taught that capitalism and economic freedom are the key to individual freedom, not just a option that free people might consider. By contrast, socialism is the antithesis of freedom; when government controls, then freedom, of necessity, must decrease. “Healthcare reform” or “health insurance reform” as lately the President has taken to calling it, is a strategy to control healthcare—first the finances, but in the end, the people.

Some may remember the late 70's and the energy crisis during Jimmy Carter's Presidency—shortages, high prices, long lines, and price controls. Carter assumed, as all statists do, that the government was the solution. As soon as Reagan assumed the Presidency, he removed the price controls, and the free market self-adjusted. The only role for the central government, in such a situation, is to increase supply if possible. Limited supply or increased demand raises prices and reduces usage; the government does not need to do anything and, if fact, should not.

Neither should the government arbitrarily raise prices (by adding taxes) to reduce demand. The “Cap and Trade” legislation will attempt to do that, despite Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Again, I disagree with him regarding man-made global warming (now called climate change in the face of the coolest summer in the Midwest and Northeast since record-keeping began). I disagree that humans can change it back, and indeed the very attempt I find terrifying; I've seen too many wonderful plans go terribly wrong, and a global plan going awry would be massively wrong! If I agreed with those positions, I would still oppose Cap and Trade because it will undercut the American economy in favor of places like India and China who refuse to participate. This is yet another case of the plans of Democrats contradicting their rhetoric; despite the support of the unions and workers, this legislation will hit employers of those supporters harder than anyone.

I could probably discuss a hundred different areas where I disagree with the President's policies, and none of them has anything directly to do with race, the President's race, or racial politics. However, in addition, I also disagree with that; rather I agree with Martin Luther King, who I think would be horrified to see what has become of the Civil Rights Movement—anti-education, sadly immoral, and grossly dependent on government. This was not his vision nor the vision of those former slaves who aspired to a better life. It is a bitter irony for many American blacks that African immigrants have begun to dramatically outshine them; many of these true “African-Americans” respect education, work hard, and succeed despite the claim that such success is prohibited by racism.

Sadly, none of this matters to the race-hustlers and race-baiters. They in reality care little for the remnants of racism that may still exist in the country; they care only for the political clout that comes with deriding their opponents with the charge. The one group gains money and power through keeping racism alive; the other uses the charge of racism to deflect legitimate questions that warrant answers.

One might ask why they don't simply argue the issues, as they often claim to want. The answer is that they cannot. These elite, would-be nobility want absolute power, where no opposition may be heard. For now, they settle for character assassination, attacks on the intelligence of those who oppose them, and false charges—racist, homophobe, chauvinist, fascist; in other words, any attack that avoids engagement in the actual issues is preferable to debate.

While I must confess to being disgusted by these personal attacks, my recommendation is, as much as possible, to ignore them. I know I am not a racist; I reject the notion that, because I am a white male, I am automatically a racist. Such assumptions incite hatred, and I reject them. I also refuse to be cowed by such attacks; they are not true, but my concerns do matter. I will continue to raise them, go to "tea bag" events if I choose, criticize the President's socialistic agenda, and oppose his so-called "health care reform." I will be persistent in challenging the egregious spending that this President and Congress seem hell-bent on pursuing. I will advocate better ideas that might actually solve the problems, rather than create another over-priced, but failed program like Social Security, the Post Office, Medicaid, public housing, etc.

Do you disagree? Fantastic! I am more than happy to engage in discourse on any position I take. Prove me wrong if you can; I will not attack your character, as I hope you will not attack mine. Indeed, the civility of many on the Right might seem to be a weakness, given the virulent attacks commonly used by their opponents. Given the current crop of political leaders, civility isn't easy; some of the most visible invite name-calling. The evident double standard that the media and many left-leaning public figures use is difficult to ignore. Nevertheless, we need to discuss and argue the issues, even if our opponents prefer to call us names.

The Greedy Hand of Government

2009-06-27T00:47:00.003-04:00

Thomas Paine said, "Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry." Too bad we have ignored his wisdom, as we have ignored the collected wisdom of our founders. Of course, most taught in public schools never hear much of what our founders believed, those who fought to create this nation where every person was understood to be free as a natural gift from God.

Instead, people have turned to government for just about everything, and the "greedy hand of government" is more than willing to "provide." Except that that greedy hand is better at taking than providing, after using the rhetoric of promise, hope, and change. Our government with a totally unopposed Democrat majority and Democrat President has worked overtime to take as much as possible as quickly as possible.

Nearly every Congressman and Senator should be put out of office for the worst kind of malfeasance, after passing the huge "stimulus plan" that no one read, though in fairness to minority Republicans, they weren't given much time. Now they've done the same with "cap and trade," another huge bill, passed largely unexamined for lack of time. Worse, its ostensible purpose is to stave off climate change, despite increasing indications that the global climate is cooling, not warming. Of course, this is no climate bill; it is a bill designed to increase the cost of energy, destroy American industry, especially the industry in the heartland, and weaken the American economy competitively with the rest of the world.

The President has interfered with the financial and auto businesses, despite his lack of experience in either. Indeed, he lacks experience in anything but being a professor and community organizer. Why would someone with so little knowledge be in such a rush to do what he has done and seeks yet to do? No, he is not a genius! I doubt he is any smarter than I, except as a politician, and politicians excel at doing one thing--gaining and keeping power.

His next target is health care. The government has run Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid into the ground, and now they would "fix" health care. Nonsense! Anyone who believes that is an idiot (Sorry!). Forget, for a moment, that "greedy hand." Consolidating any endeavor into one large bureaucracy increases costs because it increases the number of people it takes to manage the huge system created. The education system demonstrates this well. The enormous federal bureaucracy is filled with the highest paid officials, who do not teach a single student. They create mandates, collect money to Washington to then dole out as they choose, increase the necessity of larger administrative departments in both the states and in each school system. By supporting unions, this has also increased the cost of teachers without a corresponding increase in performance. As all of this has developed, our American kids' educational competence has fallen.

I contend that this is unavoidable in the best of all possible situations. Big is not better! However, this is not the best. Those in charge have highly suspect motives. Forget their overt ideology. Their haste tells the story. They move quickly and in the cover of darkness (like the three hundred page amendment to Cap and Trade, this morning at 3 a.m.!). Speaker Pelosi demands her troops fall in line, and most do. Furthermore, this bill is designed to hold off some of the worst provisions till 2012, after the President runs for a second term. So much for the "urgency" of climate change!

I'm old enough that what happens may not bother me so much, although the increased costs of living, driving, etc. may not be easy for me as a tutor. I don't relish dealing with a government bureaucracy for medical care, even though I have lived without health insurance for six years. I fear that none of those government programs will offer much to me as an aging "baby boomer." Still, it troubles me far more to think that the many young friends and family I care for will suffer the devastating effects of this government's greedy hand, of these politicians' greedy hands.

Why are they doing it? This President does not see himself as a leader. By the Constitution, his job is to carry out the laws passed by Congress. He sees himself as a ruler, which the media support by treating him like royalty. Frankly, the leaders in Congress are either stupid or crooked--Pelosi both, Reid, Frank, and Dodd crooked, Kennedy, well words fail me, but he's not half the man of either of his brothers! Speaking of crooks, how many tax cheats did the President appoint? How many of his promises has he broken so far? Even the Left has noticed, and I wonder how many of the more conservative among us now realize his infidelity?

With all of that, it's still not clear why. Is it a power grab? Yes, it certainly is. This greedy hand seeks to control our country and its people, while leaving only themselves free. They seem to wish to re-create the noble elite who enjoy privilege while condemning the rest to servitude. They already send their children to private schools to avoid the messed up public system they've helped create. They will exempt themselves from the health care they would provide the rest of us. Their salaries and benefits will protect them from the economic chaos their stimulus, cap and trade, and TARP will bring down onto the country.

Yet, with all of that, what kind of leaders will destroy their own country? Greedy hands, indeed, but hands that seem, at the same time, capable of crippling and tearing down what generations have built. Stupidity, corruption, power-seeking--none of these seem adequate to explain what they are doing. I find myself wondering, though I'm no conspiracy buff, if a "Manchurian Candidate" seeks to weaken us so that our enemies might prevail.

I am, by nature, an optimist, but it will take more than optimism to deal with this. I hear too many voices accepting defeat and despair. It is time for a concerted effort to slap that greedy hand! It will take more than voting; that's only one piece. We need to set our sights on defeating every person who supports this crazy agenda. That means we must talk to our neighbors, relatives, co-workers, and any person we can engage in constructive conversation. Ideological warfare won't do it! We need to inform ourselves, be able to ask solid questions, and provide thoughtful explanations. Empty rhetoric is not the way. We must avoid angry, polarizing conversations. Instead, we must engage lovingly, thoughtfully, and substantively.

American Christians have fallen into materialistic comfort. As a result, we have lost our voice. Too many who do speak, speak harshly ("God hates fags," indeed!). When did God exchange "Blessed are the peacemakers" with "Blessed are the angry agitators?" The world has become a scary, dangerous place because of some who use religion to gain power, and our nation has become an angry, contentious place for reasons too numerous to list here. We Christians must step up and make our gentile, wise voices heard for faith and for freedom.

Paul told Timothy," I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" We dare not neglect to pray, even for those I've called ignorant and dishonest. It's clear from Scripture that their authority comes from God, and that he can and will deal with them as he sees necessary, including the blessing of our efforts to remove them electorally.

The people of this country have been generous and compassionate, helping when the rest of the world was in need, whether from tyrants or from natural disaster. We haven't stopped. I personally do not believe he is finished with the United States. Right or wrong, I know we have things we must do, not just for our own personal good, but for the good of future generations and for the rest of this world that has looked to the U.S. for hope and freedom. It is our duty as citizens of both this earthly nation and the kingdom of Jesus Christ to fight the good fight, resting in the eternal confidence we have in God.

Jefferson Had it Right!

2009-04-04T23:27:00.003-04:00

Capitalism and Individual Liberty Work

Government Control Does Not!

Thomas Jefferson was a great man although many of Americans, especially those taught in our government schools, don't know much about him. A “founding father,” principle author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third President, he shaped many of the ideas that made this a nation of individual liberty, religious freedom, and republican democracy.

Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” If only the voting citizens of the United States understood the prophetic truth in that statement! The Democrat Party, basically a socialist party, under the leadership of a new President and with the urgency of a presumed economic crisis, is working very hard to run everything in this country from Washington, guaranteeing that we will “soon want for bread,” as well as safe food to eat, affordable energy, jobs able to support us, decent medical care, homes to live in, schools capable of teaching anything, crime free neighborhoods, or an economy to support their plans. The Republican Party cannot do better or even survive until it learns to convince this generation of the truth of Jefferson’s wisdom, unless it focuses individual liberty and local government as the key to prosperity. Unfortunately, till recently most Republicans seemed more interested in getting their own piece of the power and money, acting an awfully lot like the Democrats. Frankly, I don’t care who rallies citizens to this truth, but I pray somebody does!

The Constitution gives only “limited powers” to the federal government, which Presidents, Congress, and courts have slowly but surely been expanding. Of 15 current cabinet level departments in the Executive Branch of the government, interior, agriculture, labor, commerce, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, energy, and education all operate beyond these Constitutional limits. None of these areas require national control or regulation and, as Jefferson predicted, federal “direction” generally reduces effectiveness, raises costs particularly in the expansion of huge Washington bureaucracies, and accrues ever-increasing debt. Nowhere is this clearer than in recent bailouts and so-called stimuli.

The remaining departments—state, treasury, defense, veterans’ affairs, homeland security, and the office of the attorney general—are appropriate federal functions, although some, especially treasury, have expanded well beyond reasonable limits. We do need a single voice to deal with foreign powers, provide for our “common defense,” maintain a common currency, care for our military and their families given their sacrificial service, secure our borders and protect our communities from international terrorism, and enforce our national laws. Interstate commerce and a few other matters that involve relationships between and among the various states may require some federal oversight. Otherwise, the Tenth Amendment plainly restricts the expansion of federal power: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” We do not need the federal government riding roughshod over the states in these areas, and we certainly have not amended the Constitution to authorize Washington to take over private business, whether it is financial or medical!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that the federal government is growing beyond all decent limits, attracting rogues and profiteers, many of them our elected representatives! Interest groups and influence peddlers focus their energies in Washington, bypassing the voters and often imposing on all, laws and regulations that would not pass if the voters had to approve them directly. Lobbyists wield power through huge amounts of money, some itself tax dollars, used to buy votes, by-passing the will of voters. Abetted by various leaders in Washington through their support of trial lawyers, juries, make laws, in effect, by awarding clever attorneys judgments that force other potential defendants to function as if a law was passed, for fear they will be sued and ruined financially. State and federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, also ignore the plain sense of the Constitution to impose their own opinions, which become the law of the land. No decision of this kind is clearer than Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, set aside many state laws, and created a so-called “right to privacy,” which does not even exist in the Constitution, or Kelo v. City of New London, which expanded “eminent domain,” primarily to benefit builders and investors, not the public, well beyond the obvious intent of the Constitution. I will be very interested to see what SCOTUS decides about some of the cases surely to come from the work of the current administration.

The last set of Presidential candidates and many in the Senate and House of Representatives would permit illegal immigrants to remain in the country despite the opinion of an overwhelming majority of American citizens? Do Americans want universal health care? Many want “free” healthcare and imagine they want the government to provide it, without understanding what it will ultimately cost them in choice, coverage, and speed of diagnosis and treatment. How many oppose drilling for oil on American land, again despite the wishes of the majority, because of the influence of global warming, environmental, and alternate energy fanatics? Globalists and those favoring the United Nations would go even further, tearing down borders, and moving toward a world government, even though it is obvious that the bigger the government, the poorer its ability to function effectively, the more it costs, and the more likely it will become corrupt, as it attracts, like moths to a flame, those who seek money and power. The corruption and ineffectiveness of the United Nations already proves this. In every case, Washington ignores its citizens, creates enormous, expensive bureaucracies, and reduces the end result it delivers. Corruptions plays a role, but central control doesn’t work and never has, as the lack of a single effective example proves. Bigger is definitely not better when it comes to government!

One of the schemes leaning toward “one world” purports to deal with global poverty. The United States has tried from Washington to “cure” poverty, but government cannot cure poverty. Dispensing money is not a cure but an entitlement that encourages dependency. Laws may address factors that tend to foster poverty, and governments may provide services that address particular problems in poor areas. Doling out cash is like pouring water down a rat-hole; there is not limit to how much will be absorbed with little effect. Expanding such notions to a world-wide scope merely creates a bigger rat hole. Such schemes tend to ignore the real key to reducing poverty, which is individual freedom and opportunity. Given the chance, most people will work themselves out of poverty, if those with power will just get out of their way.

Of course, now, the “rat-hole” is the global economic crisis, and there seems to be little limit to how much leaders are willing to pour down it, although some in the European Union seemed to have found it. In addition to understanding Jefferson’s warning, perhaps the people need to understand anew that only “the people” know how to make bread, whether it’s a literal or metaphorical kind. Governments print money, but productive people give it value. People and their representatives need to understand that spending what doesn’t really exist leads to disaster, beyond a credit “crunch” or “melt-down” to a literal debt disaster. Even if the entire system manages not to collapse, the Democrats’ profligate spending with no apparent limit, as yet, will burden future generations unbelievably. A government that willingly bankrupts its own people is odious; a government that will bankrupt the future is an abomination!

One of the first crises of the new nation was finding a way to repay the monies borrowed to fund the Revolutionary War. This problem revealed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation in uniting the colonies and provided the motivation to create the Constitution. Still, the states did not want to become a single State; each wished to retain a substantial measure of its individual power to control its own future. The answer was to create a system that provided only limited powers to a central government. The framers would be appalled at the way recent leaders have accrued a far more massive debt, simply because they chosen to live beyond nation’s means. Jefferson would be even more disgusted to learn that the reasons were to gain more power and wealth for those very leaders, disgusted but not surprised.

Why are the people willing to accept this oppressive assumption of power, despite the plain restrictions of the Constitution? Some are enamored of Barack Obama’s image and promises of change; they tend to believe him uncritically. A large number are woefully ignorant including many in government, knowing too little of our history, constitution, and actually manner of government. The President does not make laws although he asserts immense power (that I believe he should not) through fiat; Congress enacts laws. The President does not declare war as Commander-in-Chief; Congress alone has the power to declare war, and it should not be involved in fighting it, which is why we have a Commander-in-Chief! The Supreme Court is supposed to “interpret” law and the Constitution, not implement the personal opinions of its members.

I believe a more serious, fundamental problem has lead to America’s acceptance of de facto socialism (I believe Communism is even more the right word, but I leave that for another discussion). People have become too comfortable and simply want someone else to take care of them. They don’t want to be bothered with guarding their own liberty, educating themselves so they know what is and is not legitimate, making themselves aware of the struggles already faced and the lessons learned in those struggles, or, in many cases, working for their own physical and economic security. In their apathy and ignorance, the promise to provide equally for everyone, something very different from “equal opportunity,” sounds attractive and reasonable. Attacks on the anonymous wealthy, typically characterized as evil profiteers who have “stolen” their riches from everyone else, buy votes with no recognition of the essential economic role they provide as both producers and financiers of the jobs, resources, and technologies that have blessed our contemporary American life.

As a Christian, I reject big government, socialist, progressive secularists on principle. I prefer to live in a place where I as an individual am free to live my life, work and worship as I choose, work hard to become prosperous if I want, and accept responsibility for my own housing, education, healthcare, and retirement. As an educated man, I reject big government socialism because it does not, will not, and cannot ever work! In that light, I recommend two books by Ayn Rand—We the Living and Atlas Shrugged—the former for its stark but accurate depiction of the early Soviet Union and the latter for its clear portrayal of the struggle between producers and looters (socialists). Yes, I know that Rand was ardently anti-Christian and included their kin among the looters; some so-called Christians belong there! I don’t recommend her books for their religious teaching but for their clear insight into this dangerous struggle, which the “looters” are currently winning. We the Living is a depressing look into what happened to the wealthy, the business owners, the middle class, their families, and eventually everyone in Russia after the Communist takeover. After almost 75 years, the rejected that system amid it oppressive failures; I don’t want to see the United States go through that.

In the end, the Soviet Union had too little bread, and people stood in lines for hours just to get a loaf of bread. Jefferson knew what he was saying, and Russian history proves it. Their system worked so poorly, they couldn’t even raise enough wheat to feed their own people. Where did they go for wheat? They bought wheat from the capitalist enemy they despised, the USA, which grew far more wheat than it needed. American history from back in the Carter years, when the government tried to control gas shortages with price controls, also proves that Jefferson was right. Unfortunately, I fear we will get an abundance of further proof if America does not rise up and stop the current usurpation of Constitutional power.

Do you recall what the colonies did, a few years prior to Jefferson’s wisdom? They rejected another example of the trouble that comes with government power. For them, many born Brits who loved their tea, it was the tea tax; their response was the Boston Tea Party. Many Americans are taking a page from their book on April 15.

Neither Left Nor Right

2009-03-13T17:46:00.003-04:00

"God's view of government dictates that it carries out a specified and limited role in human affairs. The church and civil government are made necessary by the same thing (sin), but do not have identical responsibilities (Matthew 22:15-21). The humanist view of the role of government is to perfect mankind. The Scriptural view of the role of government is to protect mankind. Throughout Scripture, God is clear that civil government is charged with a limited responsibility and that good leaders decide to take a Scriptural view of government's role. We also see in Scripture that God has a welfare plan—people are to look to the family, then the church, then the community (1 Timothy 5:3-16, Leviticus 19:9, 10, 23:22). The humanistic plan is publicly funded, coercive, and creates cycles of dependency. God's plan is community-oriented, voluntary, and empowers people."—Nathan Tabor

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us. Business doesn't pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business. Begin with the food and fiber raised in the farm, to the ore drilled in a mine, to the oil and gas from out of the ground, whatever it may be—through the processing, through the manufacturing, on out to the retailer's license. If the tax cannot be included in the price of the product, no one along that line can stay in business."—Ronald Reagan

"Well, there's something known as American conservatism, though it does not even call itself that. It's been calling itself 'voting Republican' or 'not liking the New Deal.' But it is a very American approach to life, and it has to do with knowing that the government is not your master, that America is good, that freedom is good and must be defended, and communism is very, very bad."—William F. Buckley Jr.

"The government is best which governs least."—Thomas Jefferson

"The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.' The right subscribes to the American formula, 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable. The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions... The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal, but the right values liberty, a man-woman based family and other values above equality."—Dennis Prager

I have a strong aversion to labels I think labels are used, far too often, to replace meaningful discussion and understanding of other people and their views. Many have the attitude, “I have my mind made up; don't bother me with the facts!” I think many are afraid to hear the reasons others might have for different positions and ideas. Undoubtedly, many conversations about Left and Right demonstrate that very problem. Those who have power use labels and name-calling to avoid real discussion of ideas. Ordinary people, led by ideological leaders, often echo this strategy. My personal preference is to discuss the issues, but that can be very difficult when people are accustomed to name-calling.

In mediation, an important part of facilitating reasoned discussion is to distinguish interests and issues. Ideologues and politicians intentionally confuse such distinctions, speaking of issues which conceal their own interests, such as gaining power.

I often wonder “Why do some prefer ‘the Left?’” Why do they say that they are “liberal?” Is it anything more than thinking the word itself sounds good? I observe that many people have such a preference because they perceive the choice as open-minded or progressive in contradistinction to the narrow-minded, reactionary Right, but many on the Left are no more open-minded than some on the Right. I hope those who know me personally realize that I am not narrow-minded or reactionary; I try very hard to avoid knee-jerk reactions or appeals to ideology for its own sake. I try to listen and consider thoughtful opinions, evidence, and logic.

To the extent that my views lean right, it is because I believe certain things, and people decided, at some point, to label them “right-wing.” Indeed, it seems to me that labeling is part of a strategy to demonize or marginalize those with conservative or, at least, non-Leftist beliefs (a strategy that may be used by either side although it seems to come much more from the Left).

The truth is that I am largely libertarian or classically liberal, because these descriptions have their roots in the word liberty. Unfortunately, both of those terms, as well as many other labels, simply enable people to pigeon-hole a person. I would rather explain what I think about specific issues rather than have people assume they know my views because of a label.

I favor individual freedom, and I have a healthy fear of anyone or any system that seeks or accrues great power, especially government. I believe humans are naturally sinful, and that any great source of power attracts the worse kinds of sinful people, who will use that power—at the least, to serve themselves, and, at the worst, to harm others. The greater the power, the greater is its potential for serious harm because “power corrupts.” One of the greatest threats is the restriction and destruction of individual liberty. Those with power cannot tolerate the threat posed by free people; the lessons of tyrants make that abundantly clear. “Not by might, not by power, but by my spirit” (Zechariah 4:6) also tells me that this has a spiritual dimension, and it means I favor power on the Right no more than I favor it on the Left. Earthly, political power is dangerous regardless of whose hands hold it, except for God himself.

So many of the issues, that seem to distinguish the Left from the Right, involve taking power, choice, and freedom from the individual. Perhaps, in some cases, this begins innocently enough when zealous people, believing in their cause so strongly, think they do right to make any other position illegal at the highest level of authority. Those who favor such issues enjoy the freedom to hear, evaluate, and choose what they wish to think and do; yet once they elect representatives who agree with them, they seem to prefer denying that same freedom to the rest of us. So many issues—abortion, global warming, evolution, poverty, economics, to name a few—involve “solutions” that take freedom away from individuals. Even worse, they don’t want free and open discussion; for them, the matter is settled, no one may make another choice, and freedom is a little less free.

One of the reasons that the Left seems to be more effective, many times, in winning elections or in winning support of unthinking people is that it tends to be monolithic and cohesive. Against them, the so-called Right is made up, largely, of a diverse assortment of people and issues who often disagree among themselves. One clear division is between social and fiscal conservatives, between the religious, mostly Christian groups, on the one hand, and economic, pro-business concerns, on the other. While at times they have worked together, as when led by Reagan for example, at other times their diverse priorities enable the Left to gain an advantage.

Secular progressives, who make up the majority of the Left, dominate education, the media, and the Democratic Party, as well as the unions, the environmental movement, universal health-care advocates, the pro-abortion feminists, and the gay rights movement. Their opponents are not correspondingly unified, even though they may share many of the same opinions.

One of the popular myths of this polarized view of things is that the Right favors the rich while the Left cares for the poor. This view is largely rhetorical, but the class warfare, so created, has become very real. Reality suggests that there are calloused, greedy rich people on all sides, and in fact there is more honest charity on the Right than on the Left. Furthermore, while I am closer to the poverty level, by far, than the rich, I still oppose the income tax, especially the graduated tax, not because I want rich people to keep their money but because high taxes destroy the economy, lower employment, eventually cause inflation, ultimately lower overall tax receipts to the government, and harm everyone. Even JFK understood this and lowered taxes. More fundamentally, I oppose confiscatory taxes because I don’t the government has the right to take anyone's money merely to support a bloated federal system that was not Constitutionally authorized nor should ever have been! Even more, I oppose the use of tax policy and government programs to redistribute wealth when the ultimate purpose is to empower the redistributors!!

I believe in “e pluribus unum,” that is, one out of many. This means I oppose both the divisive rhetoric of “hate the rich” and the multicultural agenda, which includes the race-baiting that has become so prevalent. I don’t accept the idea that America or any nation is nothing more than a collection of victims oppressed by a handful of wealthy victimizers; if there is any oppression it rests in the government more than in the wealth of private citizens or business, for the most part. I despise the tactics of the Left when it pits one group of Americans against another just to gain votes. That is sick at the least and evil at the worst. Even more, I despise those who call a person a racist, simply because they have an honest argument against their agenda (an not uncommon example of the name-calling I mention above).

This assault by personal attack has become the favored method of the Left in dealing with any who attempt to argue rationally against any of their favored views, whether it is global warming, environmentalism in general, capitalism, free trade, religious freedom, big government, race, open borders and illegal immigration, Islamist-led terrorism or the war on terror, or welfare. My views on each issue may place me to the right, but I have thought about and studied most of these issues. My positions are do not flow simply from a single ideological position. I think, investigate, and form my own opinions. As a result, I am neither Left nor Right. I am just me!

I would like to comment on one final matter. Those on the Left believe that the government is the answer to their concerns and look to the government to do what is necessary to achieve them. I suspect such people assume that those who oppose them also look to the government to achieve their goals. This is a huge difference between Left and Right. Many of us, presumably on the Right, want to reduce government, not empower government to achieve our wishes.

The idea that we are fascists comes from such thinking. I won’t deny that some fascists may hold seemingly conservative ideas, although many have more in common with the Left. However, true conservatives and certainly libertarians reject fascism because we reject powerful government. We want to take power and money away from politicians and bureaucrats and return it to the people, or at least to more local levels of government, where such power must be exercised. For me and those like me, fascists, communists, socialists, oligarchs, and dictators are equally objectionable, even if they attain power under the guise of democracy.

By the way, the recent attack on so-called “Christianists,” Christians who wish to impose their beliefs and morality by way of government on everyone else, comes from a similar assumption, under the circumstances I’ve just described, a reasonable one but still as wrong. Christians do not want to impose their religion on anyone. In that sense, we are nothing like many Muslims who have a goal of universal shariah law throughout the entire world. For a genuine Christian, the hope is leading people to faith by persuasion, ending in a free choice without any coercion. We do want the freedom to do so, and that makes us political conservatives or libertarians, for the most part (To be honest, I do not understand evangelical Christians, Catholics, or Jews who find Leftist or socialist thinking acceptable).

Issues like abortion and gay marriage have challenged such Christians. Life, marriage, and family are sacred to us, and having our country move toward positions that endanger them is deeply troubling. We believe life begins at conception, and to destroy that life is murder. Male and female and the joining of them in marriage is one of God’s oldest creations, and redefining it to legitimize homosexual behavior is unacceptable, despite the uncertainty of the cause of homosexuality itself (as yet still unproven to be inborn or genetic). We regard a traditional family as the best place for the rearing and protection of children, and we see the increasing promiscuity in the culture to be offensive, degrading, and ultimately harmful to both men and women. Most of us would prefer to maintain the wholesome culture that characterized the United States and the West for most of its history. At the least, we demand the freedom to life and act as we believe without being forced to accept a morality contrary to our faith. Some would accuse us of imposing our values on everyone, and this is not altogether untrue. After all, every law is an imposition of someone’s values. In a democratic society, with the privilege of free speech, we merely have the chance to persuade our fellow citizens to our way of thinking.

In the end, regardless of the specific issue, I favor freedom and faith over an ever-increasingly powerful and ultimately oppressive government. That certainly doesn’t make me a fascist, and it generally means I’m not right-wing as many perceive such to be, in that I do not want government to impose my wishes on everyone else. In other words, I’m neither Left nor Right.

Civility: A Bedrock Value

2008-10-08T23:26:00.002-04:00

Civilization is impossible without the “civil.” Civility is critical for a large number of people to live close together, especially today where fast, cheap travel and easy communication brings us even closer. Sadly, our shrinking world seems to be growing less civil. Intense rivalries, huge infusions of money, and perpetual competition have overshadowed sportsmanship, the civility that once ruled athletics. Biased media and an endless assortment of talk shows “amuse” us with angry guests and promote spite and vitriol among viewers and callers. Campaigning and party politics, never shy of distortion or untruth, once had a sense of “civil service,” well-mannered conduct among “respected colleagues” and statesmanship among those who at least called their rivals “the gentlemen (or women) across the aisle.” Today winning seems to be everything. Is it any wonder that civil discourse is becoming an increasing rarity today?

What is causing this degeneration of civilized behavior? Power always invites the worst sorts of conduct, and a chance at winning power—athletic, political, or ideological—justifies cruder methods. It will demonize a respected adversary is as inferior, evil, or even contemptible. To achieve arguably worthy goals, advocates become unable to express even begrudging respect for a person who represents defeat. Instead, ideologues attack character, belittle opposing values, and impugn the reputations of their adversaries. The attitude seems to be “Anything to win!”

Using division, propaganda, and manipulation to win speaks poorly of both the content of the ideas and the basic character of those who use such methods. If we really believe that the core beliefs a group advocates are better, then those who hold them would seek to persuade others of their merit. Using domination rather than persuasion implies that a group doubts its own beliefs or that perhaps the group has a purpose apart from those supposed beliefs. For example, does everyone who cites their concern for racism or gender bias really care about those issues, or are they merely a means to gaining power?

Closely tied to doubts about group’s core values is the possibility that people actually come to see their rivals as inferior. Since many who think of themselves as “liberal” are highly educated, do they come to believe that they are smarter than non-liberals? The rhetoric suggests that many do. Cintra Wilson’s screed is a good example. Her writing is angry, vile, and contemptible; but, despite her implications, her ideas are not intelligent, far from it!

I get weary of the hate-filled contempt spewed at President George W. Bush. It began after the 2000 election with claims of “stealing the election,” though every count and recount in Florida confirmed that he won and would have won without intervention of the Supreme Court; but the Court was right in ending the legal shenanigans perpetrated by Al Gore’s allies. President Bush has not been a perfect President, and I have huge areas of disagreement with him. However, he is not Adolph Hitler incarnate, and his leadership regarding the War on Terror has not been filled with lies, especially concerning Saddam Hussein and the likelihood of WMDs, opinions shared by President Clinton before him. The steady drumbeat of antipathy is political and ideological, and it is unworthy of American civilization.

The recent attacks on Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, such as the one mentioned above, are equally disrespectful, political, and mean-spirited. The values espoused by the Left are not the dominant values of the citizenry, even if those who hold them dominate the media, academia, and the Democratic Party. The “Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a governor” line is not only incorrect and irrelevant; it is absurdly foolish. Christians still constitute a majority of Americans, granted of many different denominations, but disparaging Jesus is just dumb, to say nothing of continuing the messianic pretensions of Barack Obama. By the way, most of us think Jesus was far more and far greater than any "community organizer."

I am a Christian, conservative if not libertarian, and traditional in most of my values. At the same time, I have some very progressive ideas, in certain areas. I am willing to discuss anything. What troubles me is that hardly anyone really wants to talk. Many like to argue, but despite our phraseology, no one typically “wins” an argument. The very nature of such exchanges tends to set peoples’ positions in concrete, from which they will not budge. For Christians, this need to be right is nothing less that arrogance and pride; when it permits the expression of disrespect and hostility toward fellow believers, it is sinful. Furthermore, the wisest method for determining wisdom and the will of God is consensus, a state we cannot achieve through argument and strife.

I have invested more than 20 years of my ministry life in Christian or Biblical peacemaking, using methods such as negotiation and mediation to help people resolve disagreements. I know it is possible to have thoughtful, civil conversation regarding difficult issues without anger, insult, or accusations. The question is why aren’t such dialogs more common. I have already suggested 2 of the primary reasons. Party or ideological candidates seeking power only want to win and will use whatever they deem necessary to gain victory and the power it assures them. Otherwise, most people just don’t realize there is a better way, not only to choose candidates, but also to find the best answers to difficult problems.

At a church dinner recently, I sat with a couple that I don’t know well. The wife sings with me in choir, and we got into a friendly round of comments about several groups that would meet while we were in rehearsal. We both agreed we might be too outspoken for the discussion of election year politics (Just because I’m a peacemaker doesn’t mean I always act like one!). I went on to make a couple of comments, only to find out that my friend from choir disagrees with me regarding which of the candidates we support and regarding abortion. The amusing thing was that she let me blather on before wryly advising me that she didn’t share my opinions. The manner of our conversation, however, demonstrated the very thing I’m getting at, here. We can disagree amiably, with humor and civility.

American culture has lost a great deal in rejecting its Judeo-Christian heritage. We have rejected authority, common decency, and mutual respect, qualities that are largely well-regarded in much of the rest of the world. In the name of progress, civilization has actually regressed into a kind of paganism that is often visceral, angry, and even violent. The ultimate irony is the angry rhetoric of many advocating “peace.” Intolerance is common among those promoting tolerance. William Watkins made his point well when he titled his book The New Absolutes. Thomas Sowell nailed it, too, when he wrote of The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, about those who seem to think that only their perspective is legitimate. Such thinking encourages incivility and the decline of civilization.

While it isn’t clearly related, ignorance is obviously another mark of the decline of civilization, and it is related to the anger and hostility that is becoming more common. In a strange alignment with the elites, ignorance also breeds intolerance. The one group does so condescendingly, thinking themselves superior; the other does so simply by knowing nothing, a condition encouraged by the elites through a poorly performing, pubic education system, a failure that may well be intentional. I especially enjoy the charge of ignorance directed at people like me, not because I lack education—I have 2 degrees and read extensively—but because I hold values they, the educated elite, reject. By believing what I believe, by their view, I am ignorant (not unlike a similar conclusion that, by nature, being white, I must be a racist, despite my extensive history as a ESL and refugee tutor).

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this decline is that parallel, synchronous decline among Christian people. I am saddened most by the anger and hostility I hear from my brothers and sisters in Christ. Whether from fear or despair, I have too often observed ardent pro-lifers or gay right opponents speaking abusively of or to those who advocate contrary opinions. We don’t win arguments that way. We don’t win people to Christ that way. Jesus didn’t deal with his worst adversaries that way. His harshest words and actions were reserved, not for unbelievers with opposing views, but for supposed religious leaders.

I have a suggestion for my fellow Americans and for my fellow Christians siblings. Try talking kindly to those with whom you disagree. Be patient, persuasive, thoughtful, and engaging. In place of scorn and disrespect, try honoring your adversary with attentiveness; listen with a goal to understanding what and why they think as they do. Then you may respond in a manner that encourages them to understand what and why you believe as you do. Mutual understanding is a good first step toward civility, and it is also the best way to win converts to your way of thinking.

As I intimated above, one reason for the antagonism between us is a fear of being wrong. When a person is confident in his or her beliefs, there is no need to hide behind rudeness or disrespect. My fellow choir member mentioned one particular reason for her opinion about abortion, and it is a concern I will explore. Even if one's view of an issue is correct doesn’t settle all issues and questions. With abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, both sides share an interest in reducing the number of abortions; civil interaction might allow that goal to be achieved, without necessarily resolving the overall issue.

I do relish a future that continues the trends toward incivility I see today. I am not encouraged by the prospects of a Church that abandons respectful and loving conversation, even with adversaries; and, frankly, many have difficulty dealing with disagreement among believers! I do believe we can turn things around. There is a power in love, as the old song goes, "wonder working power." Yes, it is centered in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but it is available to all who would love as he loved. In such love, I see a renewal of civility.

Keep Our First Amendment Freedoms Free

2008-09-07T20:40:00.003-04:00

Imagine this: You have an opinion. Since we live in a land guaranteed freedom of speech, you express your opinion. Now a government agency comes along and says, “Wait, you may only express that opinion only if you arrange to have someone available to express the opposing point of view.” “Ridiculous,” you say, and you are certainly correct. We don't have our free speech rights threatened but not by that absurd arrangement, at least not yet! That only applies to radio, at least if some get their way.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you don’t recognize them, those are the actual words of the First Amendment, the top of the original “top ten list” of the rights of citizens. In the intervening 217 years since they were ratified, in 1791, a lot of silliness has altered the common perception of their meaning. Like the Bible, the Bill of Rights has suffered from the interpretations of experts, when a plain reading will understand it. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws to restrict religion institutions and religious liberty, freedom to speak, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably gather; it also protects the citizen’s right to tell the government to back off, when it intrudes where it doesn’t belong and isn’t needed (That’s what redress of grievances means).

Nothing has changed to warrant any other interpretation, except that the courts have taken on legislative powers that were plainly denied the Courts. Our founders would undoubtedly express shock and horror at the expansion of judicial power, as well as at the size and power of the federal government, all strictly and plainly prohibited by the 10th Amendment.

Perhaps one area is different. Freedom of the press is wholly inadequate to offer the protection that the media need today. Radio, television, and Internet were not even imagined in 1791, but there is no doubt that the founders would have included them, had they known. One undeniable need is to extend First Amendment protections to those areas. The Broadcaster Freedom Act is one way, and we should support it. I personally would favor a Constitutional Amendment that adds the phrase “freedom of any form of information transmission (speech, press, broadcast media, electronic communication, satellite delivery, or any future forms of communication), without government interference or regulation” (Fairness Doctrine indeed!).

The inconsistencies of judicial “interpretation” make it abundantly clear that we need to elect Presidents and representatives who respect the original meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and render judgments that hold to that meaning. We ought to begin to voice our opinions in phrases like “If it protects raunchiness, then it also protects Rush” and “Freedom of speech covers the words of political ideas more than the work of pornographic images.” Censorship is a bad thing, most critically when it censors the people attempting to rein in the ever-growing power of the government. The Fairness Doctrine, hate speech laws, political correctness, and campaign finance reform all tread on our First Amendment freedom, as do court decisions to silence the prayers of students at their own school graduations.

As with so many things, clever people have figured out how to turn common sense on its ear, so that limits on the government's power have become restrictions on the people's liberty. If it’s not clear enough anywhere else, it’s plenty clear in the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution gave no branch of the federal government the powers that they exercise today. With the Bill of Rights, it plainly prohibits the President, Congress, and Supreme Court, as well as their respective surrogates, from doing most of what they’re doing today. Career politicians have largely become snake oil salesmen, who are selling a cure when, in fact, they are the disease! Education, energy, transportation, business, housing, urban development, health care, the environment, poverty, aging, drugs, disability—none of these are the government’s job or the responsibility of politicians, and the people without the government’s interference can do a better job dealing with each of these areas. Furthermore, the government's monkeying in these areas has caused many of the problems, especially the inflationary costs of most of them, by requiring all sort of extraneous provisions and regulations that ordinary folks would eliminate for the sake of accomplishing the primary purposes in each area. A case in point is public education, which neglects the effective teaching of the basics, encumbers teachers and classrooms with ideological indoctrination, and often teaches what it teaches so poorly that it has become unimaginably (and unimaginatively) boring! Then end product of government management is poor management.

The Constitution delegates to the federal government only security, foreign relations, defense, a national currency, controlled but limited immigration, and a few other areas that require a “united” and coordinated approach Those duties are clearly spelled out in the Constitution; you will be hard pressed to justify most of what the government over-taxes us to provide and restricts us from doing as we choose. The dominant issues of the current election campaign are national security, energy, the economy, education, and health care. Except for national security, virtually none of that is the President’s responsibility. Furthermore, by meddling in them, rendering them less effective and more expensive, Washington elites, at the same time, neglect critical duties that are to keep us safe, constructively engaged with the rest of the world, but sovereign over our own future.

Those who covet the power of a bloated, ever-expanding federal government would prefer to silence any of us who not only object but also do so with clear Constitutional justification. That is undoubtedly why the First Amendment is first! The new media have kept the elites from doing what they seek to do, things they have often done in the past, without much notice, since their friends largely controlled the old media, the only sources of information. The original “Fairness Doctrine,” which ended under Reagan’s FCC, prevented radio and then TV from airing contrary views by requiring “equal time.” Indeed, the original federal management of broadcast frequencies was largely a ploy to prevent unrestricted free speech. The proof is how little they care, today, about crude speech while they are intensely concerned about critical speech.

Equal time is not a provision of the First Amendment. If more people hold a particular view, then they will naturally express it more than perhaps a small number who think differently. We allow those with minority opinions to express them, but nothing guarantees them “equal time.” Indeed, the idea is ludicrous. A few people may still believe in a flat earth, but they don’t get equal time with the prevailing scientific opinion. The real intent of “fairness” and “equal time” provisions are to silence opinions that those in power might prefer to remain unheard. This is precisely what the First Amendment intended to protect. If left-leaning, pro big government activists did not dominate some courts, this would not even need discussion. All judges should protect the plain sense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; we should impeach judges who do otherwise, for they are plainly violating their primary Constitutional duties.

Freedom of religion has also been turned upside down. The Bill of Rights has no “wall of separation.” Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church using this phrase, but that is not in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but no one had any business using it to “interpret” the First Amendment. The amendment's words were the ones debated, chosen, and approved as an amendment, not some letter, regardless of who wrote it. Such “interpretations” opened the door to further departures from the words and plain sense of these documents; today it may be the laws of other countries or the feelings of the judge himself or herself, making the Constitution a “living document,” paramount nonsense but a powerful tool in the hands of a judicial activist.

As a preacher and interpreter of the Bible, I have long advocated that ordinary people read and seek to understand Scripture for themselves and not depend on any teacher, no matter how good or wise. I urge the same regarding our national documents. We may learn for well-educated experts, but not all experts agree. Our religious and political orientations may swayed any of us to “find” our biases in the words we interpret. The framers intended the First Amendment to enable a free and informed citizenry to decide for themselves, speak the minds, and vote their consciences, free of oppressive government interference or domination. Christian people, who were intimately involved in creating them saw a limited government as a protection for religious people from having one religion exercise coercion through the government, the very coercion the non-religious are using today.

The only way we can preserve these critically important protections or hope to restore them to their original state is the use them now, while we still can. We can no longer afford just to vote; we must speak to our families, neighbors, co-workers, and anyone else we can reach to persuade them to demand, in every way possible, that our leaders protect these freedoms. The United States of American has nothing without them, and the prosperity we have enjoyed, a direct result of free enterprise, will wither into the same economic blight much of the rest of the world lives in. We must especially work to educate our younger citizens who, thanks to the contrary biases of the elitist-run public schools, understand far too little of this. Of course, you may yourself be poorly taught. The resources to discover the facts are right at your fingertips. I urge you to use them. Then use your voice, your right to assemble, and your right to demand that our leaders to what they swear to do, “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Hopeless Change or Hopeful Progress?

2008-09-03T21:23:00.003-04:00

The roles of race and women have come to dominate this year’s Presidential election; as a result, many choose, thinking to advance the rights of the supposedly disadvantaged. Some support the first black nominee, primarily because of his color; Pat Buchanan has asked what will happen if he loses, in fact, suggesting a lose/lose scenario. Some for similar reasons favor one, who might have become the first woman nominee, for similar reasons, and their disappointment may be major factor in the outcome of this election.

Hope, change, and leadership, often in very non-specific terms, are virtually meaningless bases for choosing a candidate, and many contrary contrary indications tend to make one wonder. The reality is that our country has been changing, in the areas of race and gender especially; unintended consequences provide a warning to us as we consider the future that any nominee or prospective representative proposes. Do they actually seek to lead us somewhere specific? We need more than a vague hope for a better future, the kind of hope with which people play the lottery. Changes can be bad or good; change in itself means nothing. In fact, when it comes right down to it, many of us don't like change; and that is true regardless of ideology.

One of my roommates observed several young women walking by our home, and he was appalled by the way that they talked. We all have heard girls with mouths like sewers, the result of poor parenting and r-rated media, among other things. Is this the gender equality the movement had in mind? Did the rhetoric seek to lower the feminine to the worst of the masculine? A man who speaks with a limited vocabulary filled with crudity and cursing lessens his effectiveness in conversation; seeking power, perceived as macho, in offensive words actually reduces his power. It is even worse for a woman, who corrupts her femininity by taking up the lowest of masculine expression. A strong woman may be tough, speak firmly, and deal with others actively without being crude and offensive.

Words are only a more visible indication of this equality by lowering. The inner reality is far worse. Men have been the hunters and the soldiers; by virtue of their greater size and strength, the male has been the punisher and, when necessary, the life-taker. He has often suffered for it, with post-traumatic stress, flashbacks, and physical and emotional scars and handicaps. The majority of violent criminals are men. This is not an aspect of life that women should want to embrace, just to be equal; unfortunately, they have. Women have become life-takers rather than life-nurturers.

In particular, feminism has embraced abortion as necessary for equality. The movement has long passed the notion of abortion for the sake of a woman’s health; it has taken up the cause of abortion for the convenience of a woman, who prefers not to have a child or to avoid the actions that conceive a child. The meaningless rhetoric about when life begins has become irrelevant; every woman and a good many men know that aborting a fetus kills a living organism. Killing a baby, regardless of its stage of development, is worse than the coarsening of speech; this is a hardening of the female heart. The defense of partial birth abortion and other kinds of infanticide, as well as the well-publicized cases of mothers killing their children, show where this is headed and, to some extent, has already gone. Woman in this don't become equal to men, in taking life, but less; life-givers have evolved into life-takers.

Others have noted that women, now prevalent in most workplaces, enjoy many of the same symptoms of stress that men have suffered—greater incidence of heart attack, shortening life expectancy, neglected relationships—all so they could earn more money, have careers, etc. Is it worth it? The early feminists claimed they could “have it all,” but they have learned that it's all about trade-offs. To gain in these areas, other areas suffer. Children grow up in homes without any parent; instead they have childcare with all the new problems that represents, such as the foul-mouthed girls I noted above. Two working spouses have even less time for relationships; good relationships take time. Is it any wonder that so many marriages fail? Those who don’t marry have even less enduring partnerships. For the sake of equality, women have careers, children they seek to raise alone, and often less material wealth than if they were home-makers. Still, the corruption of the woman as nurturer into destroyer is the worst un

The racial equality movement has yielded similar “unintended consequences” for black families, which are even more broken, although non-blacks are working hard to catch up! Government entitlements for the presumed victims of slavery and prejudice have arguably wrecked even greater havoc on American blacks, driving fathers from the home, encouraging out-of-wedlock births to sky-rocket, and creating dependence on welfare. Subsequent generations of black children blame racism for their plight, encouraged to believe this myth by politicians who need their loyalty to win elections. These politicians are the greater racists, whether they believe that blacks are incapable of self-sufficiency or just prefer to keep them dependent for the political benefit. The inner cities have become cesspools of poverty and cultural blight caused more by government and political strategery than by racism. The proof lies in the success of recent African immigrants who work hard, get their education, and prosper, despite whatever lingering remnants of racism may touch them.

If all of that isn't enough, abortion is a huge factor within the black community, too. Some have suggested that the so-called "pro-choice" movement is a kind of quiet racial genocide. Certainly, the eugenics movement leaned in that direction, including Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. The more overt aspects of this attitude is the encouragement given to parents of unborn children with disabilities to abort them.

Positive change is desperately needed, but little is evident in the current political rhetoric. The need is opportunity unhindered by government fixes. The more the government is removed from the social fabric the better. Sufficient remedies already exist in law to protect the rights of women and minorities. More “programs” to assist them actually only assist career politicians in gaining power by keeping those they would “help” dependent on them and their largess.

Many leaders in and out of government love to mock religion and traditional values. Of late, a favorite claim is that some Christians desire a theocracy, government dominated by religious values. They like to compare radical Islam and Christianity, as if they were similar, but they are not. Christians, with very few exceptions, prefer to persuade to convert. We want the freedom to do so and then to practice our beliefs freely. A few failed experiments long ago proved that even a genuine Christian government is as likely to oppress as any other. Most result in a corruption of true faith as oppressors use religion to advance their own agendas, much as some radical Muslim leaders are doing today. Until God himself takes charge, most of us prefer the American way—republican democracy.

We need genuine leadership, men and women who actively seek to restore limited constitutional government. We seek leaders who believe that American liberty and opportunity can solve a problem better than any government program, who lead us away from more centralized power, and who recognize the dangers that too much government create. For women and minorities, the best hope is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” equally available to every citizen. The notion, implied by the harsh criticisms of the current President, is that he or she ought somehow to be able to keep us safe, make us prosperous, prevent natural disaster, and assure our individual happiness. Any candidate who implies he or she will do all that is an idiot, a megalomaniac, or liar. Any voter who believes a President should or could do all that is stupid, crazy, ignorant, or a fool. People who deny the hope and power of God, who yet put their faith in a fallible or even evil human, are not unexpected, but they are making a dangerous choice.

Many well-meaning citizens are naively putting their “faith” in empty rhetoric. It is sad when people do that and destroy their own lives; it is frightening when they collectively choose such a course and potentially threaten the very security and existence of an entire nation. Socialism in a small nation only robs its own people of freedom; socialism in a world power, whether it was the Soviet Union or will be the United States, threatens the freedom of the entire world as well. In such a circumstance, change will destroy hope, and leaders will become tyrants.

I hope for a different kind of progress, not toward bigger government or a one-world authority. I would like to see a change away from the course our culture has been slowly following that has produced foul-mouthed girls, life-taking mothers, and devastated black families, among many other sad and tragic results. I hope for leaders who want more freedom for us and not more power for themselves, true civic-minded, civil servants that have become a rare breed. Spare me the empty rhetoric! Show me you know how to take us to a truly brighter future where freedom and faith not only create prosperity but a better citizenry. That kind of hopeful progress I will support whole-heartedly.

Memory & Sacrifice

2008-07-19T19:50:00.004-04:00

Just before Memorial Day, my Guatemalan student asked why we had a holiday to remember dead people. It gave me a chance to explain that it was intended to remember specifically those who died defending our country and our freedom. I didn’t recall when the custom began, so I looked it up. It started during the American Civil, and in fact southern states didn’t follow the practice until World War I gave them common cause with the rest of the country.

Of course, we never simply “remember dead people.” Those whose loved ones have died will never forget them, and a special holiday is unnecessary for them. The rest of us aren’t just remembering them; we are remembering their sacrifice, and not just of those who die but also of those who leave behind loved ones, careers, and safety at a cost of injury, lost opportunity, and missed time with family. As soldiers continue to risk everything in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of not forgetting their sacrifice is surely better than the media using casualty figures to oppose the war. John Whitehead wrote a terrific commentary on this very attitude of risk and sacrifice.

There is no nobler act that to give one’s life for another. Such a sacrifice is rare because it is natural to hold on to life. Most such acts are impulses of the moment, where love, kindness, or compassion moves a person to risk their own life for another. To make a considered decision to risk or give one’s life is even more remarkable. Soldiers make that choice, knowing the risk but generally hoping to survive (unlike those who kill themselves in order to kill others). That is the way of young people, and youth is a necessary qualification for an effective fighter. Their youth, strength, and vitality give them a better chance at survival as well as enabling them to be more skillful in the arts of war. Make no mistake, though; they know they may not come home. Yet most not only choose to risk their very lives for their families, communities, and country; many re-enlist even after they have experienced the realities of combat.

In our selfish, narcissistic age, many find this sacrificial mentality hard to understand. I have been appalled at how little even parents today are willing to sacrifice for their own children. They want a child much like the child wants a pet. As long as its fun to play with or nice and cuddly, they will pay attention to it, but when it poops and pees and cries and needs affection or care, it’s time to call a nanny or day care. If people won’t sacrifice their time and convenience for the own precious children, then how would we expect them to understand the greatest sacrifice of all?

At one time, I would have denied I had ever had the chance or occasion to sacrifice, in any substantive way. My generation’s war was Vietnam, and I would have been a most reluctant soldier. I did not oppose the war, but I objected to the political interference that kept us from winning it, much as it has been with the Iraqi War. However we come to be fighting, once engaged, we need to give our military the freedom to prosecute the war through to victory. Too many bad things happen when we lose the will to win, and politicians have no business playing political games with war at a cost of American lives.

I will admit that the idea of warfare was frightening to me. I was probably not cut out to be a soldier; I’m not sure I could kill someone unless seriously threatened. I did become a pastor, and that probably says something about my temperament and character. I used to wonder if I had the courage to face martyrdom or deny my faith, until I realized that I didn’t need courage until I actually faced that choice.

Recently, though, I learned something about myself that may give you a similar insight into yourself. I believe that God will very likely give a passionate concern about something or someone to people who serve Him (or at least something greater than themselves). For me, it was peacemaking; although I hate being around angry, quarreling people, I have a deep desire to help them resolve their differences and be reconciled. However, except for those people who came for help, my passion was nonspecific until I met those seeking help. Still my commitment to the idea was costly.

Then about 7 years ago, I came across a request for refugee tutors. When I followed up on it, I became involved with Sudanese “Lost Boys.” My life has not been the same since. I immersed myself in helping them learn English and do their homework; I also learned everything I could about Sudan, the war, and all the terrible things that the southern Sudanese, often Christian people, had suffered. The Lost Boys were just the beginning. Since then, I have tutored kids from all over the world and faced the reality of oppression, conflict, and modern slavery, among many horrors that devastate people and scatter their families. I have also discovered that, however generous our intentions, refugee children face a new kind of suffering and loss here. My call to peacemaking led me into a previously unknown area of alienation.

For some inexplicable reason, many public schools don’t bother to teach these children. Laws require them to be enrolled, but laws also require the schools to teach them appropriately, starting with English at the level of their need. Around here, anyway, schools simply ignore the law. They take the per-pupil funding; but, even in schools with large populations of English Language Learners (which they would be if anybody bothered to teach them), they end up in regular junior high and high school classes, without English and often without the grade level skills necessary to perform well, even if they spoke English.

It was a shock to realize that I was to “assist” these young people with homework that they could not possibly understand. In the after-school-hours available, I couldn't bridge the language barrier, provide the English language training needed, give them remedial math or other instruction, and complete daily assignments, projects, and test preparation. I reached a point where it seemed the only useful thing I could do was teach them English, since everything else depended on that.

Some schools take great pride in their bilingual support; the larger schools often hire “tutors” who speak the native languages of various students. If asked, most of these students understand they need to learn English and want very much to learn it. Colleges that accept foreign students require English language proficiency, but American secondary schools seem to have a different agenda or philosophy, one that is not in the best interest of these students. Furthermore, what is the value of the diploma a school gives a student who is functionally illiterate in English and could not honestly pass most of the academic classes that they “passed?” What is the point of that diploma? What good is it?

For over 5 years, I have invested my life, my time, and my livelihood (or lack thereof) to try to help some of these young people. I haven't changed the world. Sometimes I wonder how much good I have done, even for my students. In this environment, the task is virtually impossible. I would like to start a school for refugees and immigrant children, perhaps adults, too. Does my sacrifice, even if I cannot, have any value? I could say that sticking with these kids cost me my home, many material things that a better income would provide, and sometimes simple peace of mind (when I'm not sure how I will pay my bills). This isn't like equivalent to the sacrifice of our war dead, but will anyone remember my sacrifices?

Like money and power, honor or recognition is a common motivator. We often talk about a President's “legacy.” Still, I don't think soldiers die to be remembered, although no one wants to be forgotten. I doubt that parents sacrifice for their children to be remembered, but I suspect they haven't forgotten the sacrifices of their own parents. I hope my students remember me fondly, but that's not what motivates me to help them. In fact, I suspect sacrificing and memorializing come from the same motivation, love. Perhaps a better word would be passion, not unrelated to another motivator, compassion. Call it “heart” but recognize that, today, many don't have it.

We aren't necessarily born with “heart;” whether from sin or survival instinct, an infant is undeniably self-centered. I am sure that living with and seeing the unselfish giving of parents and others, along with specific lessons and stories to inspire the ideas of sharing and sacrifice, teaches children generosity. An element of all of this is gaining a perspective of something beyond oneself, something greater, and of people other than self, a sense of their feelings, needs, and wants. The combination of experiencing the sacrifice of others and seeing unmet needs inspires a heart to sacrifice (Perhaps nothing helps us appreciate sacrifice and giving like coming to understand the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, who gave His life for all who cannot satisfy God in their own goodness).

“It's not all about you, kid,” isn't a familiar message anymore, to many Western children, and that is sad. Not enough training or modeling promotes memory and sacrifice in our culture. As it has abandoned God and morality, grace and love, we have fewer able to look beyond their own wants. An often-aired public service announcement suggests that the giving spirit is still alive, but it's in the older generation, the very generation that has mostly gave up the sources of self-sacrifice. Indeed, that generation has pushed hard toward the idea that the government is the answer to every problem and that we are merely supplicants waiting for the government's largess. No wonder no one says, “It's not about you.”

Before I finish, I need to ask one important question. In a culture or society, who are the guardians of our important shared memories? In ancient societies, almost before organized communities existed, the history, for that is what shared memories are, was passed on orally in stories, many by parents to their children, others by a community’s storyteller. Eventually, teachers and schools took over this critically important task; so we might imagine that is the job of our modern schools. Don’t bet on it! Modern educators, textbook authors, and government bureaucrats are working overtime to revise our history. I will write about this, another time, but you might check out Neal Boortz’ Somebody’s Gotta Say It. I just read a chapter that summarizes the problem, quite well.

Needless to say, we cannot memorialize the sacrifices of others if we systematically forget or suppress them. We won’t appreciate the cost of the freedoms we enjoy if we never hear about those who paid the price. If we don't appreciate the sacrifices of others enough to remember them, then we will never learn the value of sacrifice. If we can't see a difference between voluntary sacrifice and government-forced “sacrifice” (in quotes, because something a person is forced to do is not a sacrifice), then our society is doomed to become something very different from our past, something with far less, if any, true freedom.

And that is the ultimate value of sacrifice and memory, to enable us to preserve the very principles that made this nation, in many respects, the lighthouse of the world, and to keep us from becoming people with no heart.

What Future?

2008-07-14T18:22:00.004-04:00

Most adults understand that life has few guarantees. How well folks see and accept this reality determines a great deal about how they operate in the world, including choices they make at the ballot box. What amazes me is that candidates make promises and people believe them. Politicians will say anything to gain support and thereby power. Politicians I can understand; they act in their own best interests, regardless of what they say. Those who believe them are harder to comprehend. Children usually trust what adults say, as long as they keep their word, but eventually we all learn that it's much easier to make a promise than to keep it. Even young adult voters should know this.

Before I continue, permit me to add this. If we actually held candidates to their promises and their “feet to the fire” when they didn't, we have them making far fewer empty promises. As long as enough of us are gullible and let them off the hook when the truth comes out, they will keep making the same kind of worthless promises. It's not enough to forgive “your guy” and proclaim the failures of “their guy.” Any leader, regardless of party or ideology, is worse than worthless if he or she is nothing more than a liar!

Campaign promises are regularly made and broken. Not surprisingly, some of us have become rather cynical about politicians, but why then aren't all voters far more skeptical ? Why are so many willing to spend their hard-earned money on snake oil salesmen? More to the point, why are so many Americans willing to give up their precious freedoms for empty promises and purposeful lies. The saddest, perhaps, are young voters, flocking to Barack Obama, convinced that they can have hope in a leader for the very first time. Good looks and smooth talk are typical traits of a con man. Why do they trust this one, especially as time and circumstances reveal his fecklessness?

What do people want? They generally want love, money, security, and health. Often we lump them all together and say, “a future;” but what future? Politicians haven't figured out, yet, how to promise us love, or they would be doing that, although insincere claims of caring and compassion come close. Many people connect money to jobs, so candidates promise jobs even though most jobs and all profit comes from private and not public labors. Profit provides income, which the government then taxes for its revenue. The government can only provide jobs by taking money in taxes to pay for them, which most politicians today are happy to do. This process is much like the goose who laid golden eggs. Free enterprise is the goose, and capitalistic profit is the goose's productivity. They point of the story is that killing the goose is not the best way to get rich, and neither is killing free enterprise by taxing it to death. The former Soviet Union tried, and it ended up an impoverished entity incapable of maintaining its existence. Much of the rest of the world has learned the lesson. Capitalism virtually ended religious conflict in Ireland, turning it into a marvel of prosperity. India and China both have turned to capitalistic activities, so much so that their enormous populations pose a huge threat in use of resources, such as oil. Even Africa is seeing similar movement, though many may not have heard over the never ending focus on war in the Sudan, AIDS, and starvation seemingly everywhere. Yet here in the United States, we seem driven like lemmings toward the suicide of socialism and the empty promises of self-serving politicians.

Many of their other assurances are also hard on the goose. Free health care is an impossibility. The government taking over the entire system will assure that it becomes less effective, more costly, and less accessible, which is the case in every country with so-called universal care. Efficiency maximizes profit. Profit encourages skill. Competition reduces prices. Freedom leads to innovation. Without efficiency, profit, competition, or freedom, health care becomes just another ineffective, user-unfriendly bureaucracy. The United States already has many of them—the Veterans Administration, the Social Security Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and most state motor vehicle and welfare agencies.

Perhaps the scariest are the promises regarding security. If I were a cartoonist, I would illustrate here with a foolish-looking ostrich with head buried and tail feathers providing a splendid target. That is the frightening image that comes to mind as I listen to our benighted, so-called leaders offer their plans for dealing with foreign and domestic threats, largely from Islamic terrorists. A “religion of peace” didn't destroy the World Trade Center. Suicide bombings are not the tools of ordinary war or resistance. While a soldier may risk his life for his country or beliefs, only an insane person or religious fanatic will kill himself or herself to kill indiscriminately to create terror, believing “god” spoke to them and will reward them in paradise. Ignoring or sugar-coating such threats doesn't speak well for the wisdom or sanity of leaders promising to deal with them diplomatically. What kind of diplomacy, exactly, does one use with a mad man?

While the rest of the world is learning from us or flocking here to have what we have, we seem bent on emulating failures—the USSR, Europe especially France, and Mexico. This is another form of delusion. The Soviet Union collapsed and parts of it, at least, have rushed to adopt American-style constitutions, despite the fond, rearward looks of some hardliners. Europe needed our help to survive the last two wars and now seems committed to self-destruction from low birth rates, the thoughtless admission of Muslims with no desire to assimilate, and almost faddish anti-capitalistic policies on the environment, in particular. I suspect that elites here want what Europe used to be, even while we work toward the same suicidal policies. The question unanswered is whether we will drown ourselves in Islamic immigrants or Latino illegals, some of whom, both, despise America.

I have worked with and come to care deeply for both Latino and Muslim students. My concern is not from hatred or bigotry. I simply don't see in those cultures a better future than the one we have already created. Islamic countries are oppressive, third world throwbacks to the days of slavery, the subservience of women, and ignorance. Latin American countries have held on to domination by a few wealthy landholders and corrupt governments. Many who leave for the better conditions in the West are looking for us to adopt what they have sought to escape, so why are we? What kind of future is that?

I have been addressing the kind of future, the false promises that politicians make, and the gullibility of those who believe them or trust their ability to deliver what they promise. Of course, they nearly always promise utopia, a better future, and hope. The irony, right now, is the hope and change candidate that seems to offer the hope of a better future while at the same time saying we can't expect to enjoy the good things we have been accustomed to...like “our SUVs and food!”

In other words, besides meaningless promises, many candidates make promises for one thing while they support policies that are exactly oppose those same promises. They promise jobs and a better economy but advocate business-destroying regulation and prosperity-robbing taxation policies. Obama takes it one step further, daring to tell us we cannot expect to enjoy prosperity any more; we must sacrifice it for the rest of the world to have more, while we have less. {http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-05-25-1.html}

Like I said earlier, those who follow such ideas are like lemmings. Is there a self-destructive idea in this? We seem to have a large number of those with anti-American sentiments. They seem to believe the communist notion of capitalism that takes from others to profit itself (That sounds like politicians to me!). Many of the extremists on the Left endorse ideas that would damage us, and they not only accept but seem to want that. Start with global-warming, not science but a religion. Having a background in both, I recognize the difference. Solutions, a misnomer if ever there was one, all hurt the United States to the exclusion of pretty much every other country. Of course, they argue that we do the most damage so we owe the greatest compensation. If that were true, then all plans would include provisions to prevent other fast-growing economies like China and India from going where we supposedly have gone; they do not. In fact, we are the only nation, unless you count the declining communities of Europe, to accept our own self-destruction. Of course, they are more than willing to allow us to do so!

Look at every other movement—veganism, animal rights, alternative energy, even feeding the poor, to name a few—and you will see the same suicidal march, following almost religious ideology without waiting for the genuine confirmation of science, whether it's climate, nutrition, medical, genetic, or economic science. Let's face it. Numerous groups would like to create a future that is very different than the present, and, in my opinion, not a very attractive future. What is worse is that they want to determine a future for everyone rather than allowing us to enjoy the individual freedoms that enable us to make our own choices. Too many of our leaders and, surely, at least one of our presidential candidates have signed on. They promise change, but carefully listening to them suggests that the changes they will bring, if they can, won't please us, including many who follow them today. This goes beyond trusting their empty promises; this involves accepting the promises of an empty future. That is not the future I want. What future do you want?

Half Truths and Other Lies

2008-07-09T22:13:00.002-04:00

A “half truth” is an intentionally deceptive statement that contains some element of truth; a half truth is not truth. Such a statement is like a doctor saying, “Half of you doesn't have cancer; therefore you don't have cancer. A half truth is half lie, and like water that is half sewage, it isn't fit for consumption.

Politicians are masters of half truths, and Barack Obama is no exception. In my own personal life, I give people the benefit of the doubt; in other words, I try to trust people and assume they are being honest with me. However, once a person lies or fails to keep his or her word, that person must prove worthy of further trust. I can accept that people would want to trust Obama; he has an image that invites trust, and he is making promises that many find appealing, promises of hope and change.

What I don't understand is how people, who desire something different and upbeat, can continue to look to him, now that he's shown his dishonesty, switched positions on issues, and abandoned people he once claimed as important to him. Even if one allows that the change he promises is desirable, how can anyone believe those promises now? Will he meet with Ahmahdinijad or not? He has said both. Will he pull our troops from Iraq immediately or after some ever-increasing length of time or never? Do we believe him when he claims to have cut welfare in Illinois, or do we accept that he voted against the primary bill and opposed it? Is he running as a black candidate encouraging division, or is he truly a unifying candidate that non-blacks can trust, too? Is he a man who understands people, or is he a man who was fooled by several of his closest friends for years?

Half-truths, equivocation, subtle deception, typical political rhetoric, and evasion are not the hallmarks of an honest man. These behaviors are the normal fair for the kind of politics as usual that he keeps saying he wants to change. Is the only change ideology? Is he just “not Bush?” These are the same kinds of promises the Democrats made in 2006. The were going to bring honesty to Washington, but the brought as much if not more sleaze. They were going to bring the troops home, but two years later, despite their majority, they have not. The President has low approval numbers in the low to mid 30%, while Congress has dropped to below 10%!

If you have been an Obama supporter, I ask you, “How can you trust this man?” If you are not, I ask you, “How can you not be challenging those who are?” There is nothing more frightening to me that a nice, attractive fraud. They used to call such people “snake oil salesmen,” who sold totally phony remedies in order to steal from widows and the elderly, anyone gullible enough to buy their empty promises. Now such frauds sell their phony cures and get-rich schemes on 3 a.m. infomercials. Obama sells his worthless merchandise on prime time political ads and stadiums filled with the desperate and naïve.

If you want real change, check out American Solutions where Newt Gingrich is leading a growing number of thinking Americans to find answers that will work, and he's doing it without seeking the highest office in the nation. As for hope, I would not invest my hopes to strongly in any person, and certainly in not in a deceitful politician of half truths, untruths, and dubious promises. I see no reason to trust government more than the bare minimum necessary to deal with external threats and domestic order; I do not rest my hopes in the power of government for surely that power will serve its holders far more than those from whom it is taken.

One final question is the most difficult to answer. Does a Barack Obama believe his own rhetoric? Is he the kind of politician who will say anything to achieve his own selfish agenda, or is he the rarer sort who genuinely believes that he can make the system work? The former is evil; the latter is naïve if not ignorant or delusional. I'm not sure which frightens me more in a President. Fortunately, the balance of powers still protects us somewhat from both evil and inept leaders, but both the evil and inept, thus far, have been working overtime to erode those protections. We need not to give yet another of that kind the power to do further damage. We need to begin turning things around. Unfortunately, neither major candidate is likely to do that.

For this cycle, we need to choose the most honest candidate, and we must elect as many others to the Senate, Congress, and state and local offices who are honest and, if possible, aware of what our nation needs most, that is, to begin to return power and the quest for solutions back to the people. Candidates with half truths simply won't do.

News Ignorance Must Go

2008-07-08T21:37:00.003-04:00

Will Rogers said, “All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.” I wonder what he'd have to say now, nearly 75 years after his death? Certainly, a person can't expect anything remotely like simple, factual information in today's media, print or broadcast. What passes for news is heavily slanted opinion in most venues. Anything like objectivity is long gone.

Forty-plus years ago, my school sent me to a summer workshop in journalism to prepare me to edit my small-town high school newspaper. I remember vividly the basic tenets of news writing. They taught us the 5 W's of reporting—who, where, what, when, and why. Then, the reporters job was only to present the facts. Opinions didn't belong in news but in features, editorials, and columns with a by-line to identify the person presenting an opinion. Teachers drilled objectivity and impartiality into us, again and again. Little did we realize that the day of such unbiased reporting was already fading.

For me, it was many years later until I fully recognized the change and learned where it had originated. My generation, and some who taught them, decided that journalists would no longer settle for reporting the news or simply explaining what was happening in the world. They would become agents of change, shaping the news, using the news to influence people and change their opinions.

I hate trying to navigate in this environment. It is clear that, for many in the news business, it is not even enough to report facts and give one's opinion to support them. Stories abound of reporters who falsely report, twist the facts, and even fabricate events. Inaccurate information goes into a story, and other outlets use the same data without confirmation or correction. Slanted stories continue even after firmly established facts warrant correction or clarification. I will give two examples here.

A decade or so ago, a young Latino man died when he appeared to aim a gun at police who sought to deal with him. His gun turned out to be an extremely lifelike toy. Initial reports stressed the number of bullets that hit the man, implying overkill, that he was Hispanic, suggesting racial bias in the firing of so many weapons by several officers, and, of course, that the gun was a toy, hinting that any competent officer should be able to tell the difference. The Latino community was outraged and demanded investigations by the state police and F.B.I.; all investigations exonerated the police officers involved.

No one found any indication of racial bias in the incident. F.B.I. training, the source of procedure for most law enforcement agencies, teaches officers to shoot suspects who appear ready to fire a weapon until they are disarmed or incapable of shooting; what might appear to be unnecessary is based on experience when an apparently injured party still manages to fire a weapon and take a life, a principle intended not only to protect the officers themselves but others in the line of fire. Pictures of the “toy” gun made it clear just how real-looking it was, sufficient to fool an expert, especially at a distance in less than full daylight. Even so, subsequent stories reported the same implied questions, long after thorough investigations had settled those very questions.

It occurred to me that no one bothered to ask why the young man, himself, had pointed a weapon he knew to be fake at armed officers. Such behavior is obviously suicidal, and I learned from a friend who knew the family that, indeed, that was probably the intent. The man was not a hapless victim, as if any armed man under such circumstances might be considered a victim; he was most likely seeking to be killed intentionally. Unfortunately, such obvious facts are irrelevant to those who want to promote anti-cop rhetoric, find racial bias where there is none, or promote the disarming of cops or citizens.

The second example, more recent, is reporting on the war in Iraq, particularly the question of weapons of mass destruction or WMD's. The scope of the distortion and deception is huge, involving not only what the President, his administration, his predecessor, and members of Congress said, believed, and did, but related stories such as that regarding Valerie Plame, “outed CIA agent,” as they like say, and her husband Joseph Wilson. As with the local story I mentioned, the agenda is ideological: Bush, conservatives, even war is bad; anti-Bush, progressive, and peace-loving is good.

Were there WMD's in Iraq? Apart from the historical evidence that everyone believed, not just George Bush, I have always wondered why Saddam Hussein acted like he had them, refusing full access by inspectors and sitting in Baghdad waiting for the United States to get him and his sons. Like the young man above, he knew whether he had them or not, and he sure acted like he had them. It stretches the imagination beyond credence to think he behaved like he had them, but didn't, to prove his machismo. He had them before, he used them, our soldiers prepared, believing he might use them again, and yet we found no weapons. So, obviously to accept the biased reporting, “Bush lied!”

I am thoroughly disgusted by MSM pretending to report what they know to be incorrect. At the worst, the President may have been mistaken or mislead, as was Bill Clinton, on record as saying Saddam had WMD's. The lengths, however, to which the media will go to push their anti-Bush agenda includes another even more overt fabrication involving Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson. This one ended a man's career while Plame seems to be doing just fine, in the same job she had before.

Agent Plame appears to be a Washington bureaucrat, working for the C.I.A., but regardless of the degree of “covert” to her assignment, a prominent reporter admitted that he “outed” her, not due to any scheme or agenda by the Bush administration. Does this stop any reporter anywhere from keeping the same line alive? Ideology trumps truth in the news business.

In politics, this goes one step further. Take the “Baby Alex” ad. In the ad, a young mother holding a baby says, "Hi, John McCain, this is Alex and he's my first . . . So, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can't have him." John didn't say that, and he certainly didn't suggest fighting for a hundred years. News ignorance makes this ad dangerous. People who don't listen to news but hear this ad will believe McCain did say what he didn't. That should not be allowed; free speech should not permit flagrant lies, not even in a political ad. Of course, if the people weren’t so ignorant, gullible, and even willing to be misled, this wouldn’t be a problem.

Lou Reed wrote in a song, “Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." I would add, “Don't trust anything you cannot verify, independently, not the news nor political ads, candidates, emails or web sites, or your best friend. Get a good history text, written over 50 years ago, and read about our American heritage; don't accept the garbage that left-leaning teachers use to indoctrinate their students. Get copies of our historic documents, and read them. If necessary, find a good reference to help you understand what they meant, when they were written. Be a skeptic, but become an educated skeptic.

Liberty and democracy require a minimum of knowledge and judgment. Those who care more for their own agendas and power prefer to manipulate a dummied-down electorate, which by complicity or incompetence the public educational system is providing in spades. A generation more concerned with text-messaging, My Space, trashy music, and even trashier celebrities, and rendered ignorant by a combination of biased teaching and apathy, are worse than sheep when it comes to the wolves that would misuse them. Like chickens in the hen house, many appear ready to elect foxes to guard their interests.

I understand the wish to trust those who promise a rosy future, if only you put them in charge. The people of the United States still have the potential to fashion a future that is secure and prosperous--the people can, not the government! Governments, no matter how well meaning or blessed with good folk, cannot do what we want or need, despite the confidence of candidates and their media allies.

Again, a knowledge of history proves this; ignorance leaves us open to passive gullibility. The bigger and more powerful the government is, the more prone to waste, bureaucratic inefficiency and incompetence, and ultimately corruption and abuse it will be. We already have abundant evidence within the numerous agencies of our federal and state, even city governments, as well as many foreign governments and the United Nations. Big business is not immune, but it is encouraged to be big by the monolithic size of government over-regulation. Big unions are equally prone to incompetence and malfeasance. Even large charitable organizations fall into the same traps

Unfortunately, you will read little of that in a newspaper or hear it on the six o'clock news. Politicians only tell you of the failures of the opposing party, though it is obvious that all are comparably guilty (Political parties are also large, powerful organizations prone to misconduct; it sometimes seems that is their only purpose!). The biased coverage of people and issues by news media is beyond scandal; it is a travesty of their historic role of providing accurate information, impartial reporting, and thorough, incisive investigation. Our city newspaper is a joke, worse than the small town paper where I grew up (I won't even start on the abuse of the English language I see printed and hear used in broadcasting ).

I would prefer not to celebrate the demise of the Main Stream Media; TV broadcasts and major newspapers, in particular, are losing audience and subscribers rapidly. Talk radio and the Internet are filling the gap, although they are not necessarily more trustworthy. This process of change will not end well unless we people begin to discriminate and demand factual, unbiased reporting, serious impartial investigation, and simple truth we can trust. They won't change unless we do.

A Patriot—To Be or Not to Be?

2008-07-06T18:04:00.002-04:00

Another July 4 has passed, as usual with impressive displays of fireworks filling the sky with color and our ears with the sounds of battles. They offer an interesting irony, as does the day itself in this present age. One of my refugee students asked me to explain this holiday, reminding me that many of us call it “The 4^th of July,” “July 4^th,” or just “The Fourth.” We have dropped the meaning from the day, just as many of us have dropped our appreciation for what the day should commemorate—freedom and the price in lives that it cost.

Unlike nations with many centuries of history, the heritage of the United States is in the vision that created it, not in venerable age or a long-established culture. How strange it is that some of our own people want to return to the very places from which our ancestors came. What is it about the Continent that so captivates the imaginations of elitists here? If Europe is so great, how did the United States manage not only to become the world's only remaining superpower and dominant economic power but also the one place on Planet Earth that attracts so many immigrants?

What is a patriot but someone who loves their country. While others have may have language, culture, and history, the United States has something unique. We have a heritage of freedom and faith. Here people found opportunity to make a life for themselves without tyrants restricting their choices, stealing their livelihood, or restricting their religious lives. For many years, we had no truly American culture. English came from Great Britain. Our music was an amalgam with roots in the many nations of our ancestors. Even now, we have a comparatively few American artists and composers that will stand the test of time, but American culture has begun to assert its influence. Television and movies, Nashville and Hollywood, broadcasting and advertising, and satellites and the Internet are spreading American ideas throughout the world. If I am a patriot, however, these are not the things I love about my country.

What I love is the Declaration of Independence, the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King's “I Have a Dream” speech. I love John Smith, William Bradford, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan. I love places like the White House, Mt. Vernon, Mt. Rushmore, and Arlington Cemetery. I love treasures like Plymouth Rock, the Liberty Bell, Mt. Rushmore, and our red, white, and blue flag, so rich in symbolism. I love places like the Smoky Mountains, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and the Rockies. I love the men and women, both great and virtually forgotten who fought, some to the death, to win for us freedom and a history that I appreciate more and more as I grow older, a history that our schools are failing to pass on to successive generations.

As much as I love the vision that made America great, many hate these very same thing. They want a different kind of America. They have a vision that not only is vastly different from what our forefathers created, fought, and died for, but one that will ultimately fail. Theirs is not a vision of equal opportunity but of equal outcomes. They do not seek a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” but a elitist government, a patronizing “Just trust us and we'll take care of you” kind of government. That kind of system will rob us of the very dynamic vitality that has fueled America's greatness and achieved its amazing prosperity. To them, the best days of the United States are behind us; nothing is left but to divide and use up what our predecessors created.

I love what the Bill of Rights established—free speech, free press, and freedom to worship, among others. Those with an alternate vision are slowly taking those freedoms from us. Political correctness, empty secularism, and a extremely biased media, supported by judges with too much power for a constitutional democracy are “redefining” and, thereby, destroying our freedoms.

I don't see burning the flag as free speech, since no speech is involved. The flag doesn't represent a particular party or ideology; it represents the country itself and the ideas that define what the United States is and was meant to be. To me, burning the flag rejects that heritage, and people who burn the flag are rejecting the very idea of America. I don't love the flag, as such, but I love what it represents.

I'm a Christian. I don't worship the flag or any of the other things about my country that I love. Still, I am proud of this nation, my homeland, that made it possible for my faith to thrive and reach out to people all around the world. America has never been a fully Christian nation, but it has been a nation where truth and compassion, the life's blood of Christianity, have been able to exert a powerful influence. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the United States is home to a generous people who have given more to the rest of the world than any nation before it. We have stepped out of isolation to stand with our friends, and we dared what none have done before and rebuilt the communities of our enemies, making them our friends. Those who hate us, don't hate us for our failings, generally, but for our successes.

Progressive, non-traditional thinkers and leaders have found it fashionable to attack a caricature of Christian values, not its compassionate and generous influence. They imagine we want to run the country, create a theocracy, and force Biblical values down the throats of our neighbors. How little they understand our beliefs. Unlike those who threaten us today, we Christians believe that a person must make a free choice, accept salvation by faith, and choose to obey God's commands. While we might prefer not to have immorality flaunted everywhere about us, we see little value in forcing people to live by values they don't understand or accept. As it says in the oft-quoted 13^th chapter of I Corinthians, whatever we do without love is empty, pointless, and useless. We may slip on occasion, but we know that force and oppression are grossly contrary to our faith and to our God's commands.

The genius of the American idea is that our constitutionally protected freedoms allow free and open discussion, the practice of one's own beliefs, and opportunity to persuade people that our faith is worthy of their consideration. That's all wrapped up in the country that I love—freedom and faith, faith and freedom. To those values and that heritage, I am committed. Those define the heritage that I love. That is the ideal that I will fight for. Those are the values that make me a patriot.

Legislating Progress...NOT!!

2008-06-23T21:13:00.002-04:00

Have you noticed that the so-called progressives don't have a clue what progress is? For most of us, progress is advancement or getting ahead. Progress is making things better, but progressives seem determined to make things worse. Like an inept doctor, progressives have a cure that is worse than the disease; but like snake oil salesmen, they're pretty good at selling their hokum to gullible, unsuspecting people.

Last week, I listened to a young man say that the thing to do about the energy crisis is to raise the price of gasoline, significantly. I was sitting outside at a coffee shop, and he and a young woman were carrying on an animated conversation that I couldn’t help but overhear. I haven’t heard that suggestion, offered seriously, in a long time. Except for those with bizarre political views, those who see raising prices as a solution know very little about economics, science, or people. Where does such naiveté come from? I suspect is comes from the brainwashing that passes as public education.

In this boy’s case, he seemed to think high enough gasoline prices would wean Americans off the American automobile. Only a healthy young person could imagine everyone trading in their cars for bicycles. Others believe that such a plan will force the development of fuel-efficient vehicles and alternate energy sources. These notions have as much merit as the idea of forcing prices down by taxing oil profits, freezing prices, and rationing. All of these ideas have one thing in common: none of them will work! They will place unnecessary hardship on the poorest and most vulnerable people and put more of our private lives in the hands of a bloated, uncaring government bureaucracy.

Science discovery, engineering progress, and invention cannot be legislated or driven by social policy or wishful thinking. The most effective tool for producing new ideas is the profit motive. People who stand to gain by creating something new are most likely to discover or invent. Creativity comes from within people but cannot be forced from them, no matter how great the demand, threat, or law used to compel it. For years, many have dreamed of the cheap energy that might come from cold fusion, but the reality will only happen if and when someone unlocks the key to the process. When I began as a student, computers took up entire floors of buildings filled with machines and climate controlling equipment; we saw small computers on Star Trek, but we had no idea that laptop computers would become commonplace or that an entire computer could exist on a microchip. Progress came as ingenious people made unexpected discoveries. The same is true for all manner of technological and biological advances; no one can truly predict them until basic science discovers a fresh insight, gains a different perspective, or creates an original process. These breakthroughs are unpredictable, no matter what ideology a person has.

Too many Americans, like that young man, arrogantly assume they can “have their cake and eat it, too”—reduce global warming, protect the environment, continue to enjoy prosperity, and make sure everyone has all good things equally. This is the insidious lie of socialism that public schools inculcate into the minds of children without teaching them any sort of critical thinking. Most of us understand instinctively that our ancestors would regard modern life as filled with magic because the inventions so far surpass their comprehension. Such is the nature of discovery that the spark of creativity is a mystery, often unique to the discoverer or sometimes a very few. They often build on earlier knowledge and discovery, but some have flashes of pure genius that no one could predict or anticipate. Let's face it; most of us don't understand after the discoveries either, but we surely enjoy the convenience and benefits they bring

In How William Shatner Changed the World, Shatner credits Star Trek for many modern devises like the cell phone, a version of the show's hand-held, flip top communicator. He makes a good case for saying that. Gene Roddenberry’s vision inspired a generation of geeks, my generation in fact, to create the things he imagined, within limits. So far, no one has developed a phaser or a transporter. May they also be in our future? Who can say? If they are possible, yes, but fiction is filled with impossible ideas that have never and will never happen. Neither a dreamer nor a bureaucrat can distinguish true possibility from scientific absurdity; sometimes neither can scientists, although the better of both groups may project trends and imagine a credible future.

Unfortunately, ideas have consequences, often unintended. The idea of legislating progress is a good example. The power of public opinion is persuasive; the power of government is coercive. Persuasion preserves freedom of choice, as long as those persuaded are not government leaders. Legislation reduces freedom. Freedom is not only the oil of democracy; it is the oil of progress. The progressives' vision of the future requires progressive restrictions on freedom, on everything from energy to the kinds of vehicles we drive to the foods we eat and, certainly, the manner in which we spend our money.

The young man with his desire to raise gas prices doesn't matter; there are always a few people with ideas so absurd that they find few supporters. Unfortunately, that young man and many other comparably deluded voters probably supports Barach Obama, a candidate who promises change and a better future filled with many equally damaging proposals. If those of us who see and understand do nothing more than vote, without making some effort to open the eyes of some of these clueless folks, we will find ourselves in a very different United States.

To the present, we could afford to be generous in our tolerance of foolish ideas. Gas was cheap. Food was plentiful. America was prosperous, even for the poor, compared to the rest of the world. People were remarkably free to enjoy life in nearly limitless ways. However, the vision of progressives, who are wholly undeserving of the name, have been “progressively” changing all that. Environmentalists have so restricted energy production in this country that we are no caught funding the very nations that despise us, our liberties, and our way of life. Multicultural ideas and political correctness not only stifle our freedom of speech but also threaten our very ability to defend ourselves from our enemies. Identity politics discourages discussion of ideas in favor of candidates who represent the right group—blacks, women, soon it may be gays. Global warming deserves its own special place in this discussion for it, more than any other, would shift power into the hands of government, not even American but global government.

True progress offers better solutions to each of these problems. People who trust powerful leaders and huge bureaucracies to make a better world are foolish beyond belief. Centralization of power guarantees oppression and corruption, soon or later. I see signs of it already. The genius of this nation was its creative alternative to that. Our constitution, the literal document not a “living entity” subject to the twisted reasoning of progressive judges, created and assured real progress. If we everyday, ordinary citizens fail to assert our “inalienable rights” and work to prevent it and even restore it, this nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people” will perish from the earth.

Making Our Case Successfully

2008-06-08T21:44:00.003-04:00

Citizen Action: A Bedrock Value

As I read and listen to people discuss the current candidates for President and the prospects for a Democrat Party domination of Congress, one thing seems clear to me: the substance of the issues is probably well over the heads of many of our fellow citizens. I don’t say that to be insulting or condescending. As a pastor and preacher, I realized, many years ago, that educated people tend to express themselves in language often unfamiliar to everyone else. A person like Barach Obama plays to that; he uses positive sounding generalities that seem to make sense. In response or reaction, those who read past his rhetoric, disagree, and oppose him tend to use terms that many hear only as opposition. If Hannity says it, then it’s conservative, pro-Bush, and Right-wing; they never really hear the content of arguments he attempts to make.

For some people, all the want to hear is Obama's promise to leave Iraq because that war was wrong or all war is bad. Wouldn't be nice if we lived in a world where we could play by those rules. Such people seem to miss a most fundamental point. People who hate the United States often hate us for imposing our rules and our view of the world. It doesn't matter to them who imposes them--President Bush or a President Obama--or which American values they are—vegan environmentalism or capitalistic freedom. Of course, the prefer those whom they regard as weak, such as Obama, because they will thrive while such a man leads the most powerful country in the world.

How do thoughtful people communicate ideas and persuade with rational arguments when we live in a Rod McLuhanesque, “the medium is the message,” kind of culture? I believe the tools I learned to become a mediator and peacemaker are the answer. To people who may merely react to words like big government, socialist, communist, or liberal, we need to learn to “preach” less, listen and ask questions, and help people understand the substance without using such words.

Christians seeking to discuss their faith with Muslims must do a similar thing. Words like Christian and church often create an immediate antagonism to the speaker, partly because from history and some unfortunately bad experiences with early missionaries. Those words have come to be associated with the Crusades, and, for good or ill, they regard the Crusades as proof of Christian inferiority if not evil. Attempting to deal with those prejudices, head on, leads to argument, anger, and counter-productive attitudes. Loving Christians (Camel Method, Secret Believers) have learned to start with the Koran, with the positive statements in makes about Jesus, and deal with the love of Christ at the heart of the gospel apart from history and rhetoric. I believe something similar is necessary if we are to prevail in making our case for the conservative and traditional American values we treasure, for a future of freedom and prosperity, and for ultimately giving the majority of Americans what they really want when they respond favorably to the big government socialism of progressives like Obama.

Unfortunately, we cannot assume people understand the meaning of words like conservative or liberal, progressive or reactionary, socialist or capitalist. Even democracy and republic are often misunderstood. Most people don’t take the time to learn the meanings of important words, and leaders with “malice of forethought” intentionally misuse, confuse, distort, and contradict true meanings to create misunderstanding, make false promises, and manipulate an ill-educated and gullible public. An era of instant messaging and sound bites discourages depth of meaning. Ad slogans and “talking points” replace thoughtful analysis. If we who know words and understand concepts fail to engage our neighbors, co-workers, and family members, without provoking their knee-jerk reactions programmed by skillful spin doctors, we all will pay a dear price.

To much of our cultural and interpersonal conversation tends toward winning arguments. After candidate debates, the analysts always ask, “Who won?” Winning a debate or dominating an argument doesn't make the winner right, it merely means they played the better game. Winning or striving to win is not what we need; we need our finest values to prevail—integrity, freedom, wisdom, and decency. Unfortunately, those values are not even well represented among our own leaders!

Barack Obama is the ultimate image candidate, often compared to John F. Kennedy, who would be rolling over in his memorialized tomb, if that were possible. Kennedy was a hawk who faced down the aggressive designs of the Soviet Union; Obama wants to negotiate with a terrorist sponsor like Iran and walk on the Iraqis, who've already lost so much. Kennedy stopped the placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba; Obama seems indifferent to the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran. Kennedy was a Democrat, as is Obama; but the Democrat Party is a very different kind of party today.

Obama may use image and appealing rhetoric, but he does believe something. Wise people will try to be sure they know what that is before they vote for him. I learned, a long time ago, that utopian visions are pipe dreams; a positive future is the product of ideas and hard work. “Give peace a chance” was the utopian mantra of the 60’s; Reagan’s “peace through strength” ended the Cold War. Obama’s idealistic rhetoric won’t defeat or defuse radical Muslim fanatics who regard the United States as the “Great Satan.” Fascist dreams of global domination didn’t come from failed American policy; they arose in the evil hearts of would-be oppressors who use the Islamic religion to cover their anti-religious malice and thirst for power.

I do not trust Barack Obama. A man that slick and superficial could simply be shallow--skillful with words but lacking substance. I rather thought that to be the case with Hubert Humphrey. The alternative is that he is cleverly masquerading and hides a dark side, and I wonder about that. Too many things about the man and his associations suggest darker intentions than his rhetoric reveals. However, if he were only a typical politician, grasping after power and prestige, I would be troubled, because his method for winning votes is to promise what can only be given through socialism, big government, high taxes, and a loss of freedom. He represents one of the biggest dangers of pure democracy—the people voting themselves the good life, regardless of the cost, which he is willing for taxpayers to pay.

Words mean things, but too many people don’t know their meanings. Liberal means free, but modern “liberals” favor all manner of freedom stifling ideas and programs. One might assume that progressive promotes progress, a good thing, but often it sees progress as a rejection of the past with its traditions and proven values of liberty and faith. Democrats have often successfully characterized Republicans as favoring the wealthy few at the expense of the many poor, but it is elites from both parties, supported by wealthy secularists, who make empty promises to the poor while growing further and further out of touch with ordinary people. I am a conservative, and I’m by no means wealthy, never have been, nor ever expect to be. I am not opposed to progress; indeed I believe progress is the fruit of freedom, individualism, hard work, and faith. America has enjoyed enormous progress through its history, based on this simple formula. Socialism claims to seek the common good, but it uses government control to redistribute rather than foster true prosperity. Under socialism, progress ends because people receiving the government's largess, possible only by taking from those who are productive, stifles the urge to work toward a better life. If no one is producing, progress soon ends. I have yet to see socialism succeed.

As a mediator and peacemaker, I have learned that neither physical force nor forceful words change minds; instead they promote defensiveness and intransigence. When we are pushed, we instinctively push back. I listen to conservative talk radio, but I get really frustrated when hosts “push” their callers. Perhaps arguments and rudeness makes successful programming, but it defeats our ultimate purpose in winning over people to a better way of thinking. Whether people have been ignorant, gullible, honestly misled, or feeling without thinking, we must help them learn and understand without provoking defensive barriers that we then cannot breach.

I am finding it harder, every day, to care about this election, and I think that the majority of the American public feel the same. Shallow political rhetoric from shallow politicians does not instill confidence or optimism. Somehow, I doubt that Barack Obama is the epitome of Martin Luther King's dream of a man judged by the “content of his character,” as race surrounds his campaign. Those who oppose his ideas will be called racists, and those ideas will not be discussed or challenged, for the most part. The media have made him their darling, so will will get nothing meaningful from the media.

However, this country is not just politicians, party hacks, or left-leaning media personalities. The future of this nation is still in the hands of its citizens, if we assert the power we have, if we take the time to understand the words and ideas that can make or break us, and if we demand our leaders to be men and women of integrity, who represent us, not the other way around. To do that, we must stop playing their game, their way. We must start talking to our fellow citizens wherever we can, in a manner that gets to the substance of the issues and away from the sound bite superficiality of the present system. In the process, we will have to confront the poor state of publicly educated people from schools where indoctrination has supplanted teaching.

It starts with the words I mentioned earlier and other words like them. It builds on intelligent questions and thoughtful observations, where those words are considered but not mentioned. It continues by suggesting that we need to verify that candidates stand for what they say and that their words are not empty rhetoric, spoken for the sole purpose of gaining votes. It ends with us electing representatives from the top down who indeed represent the values and character we need. Then, the United States will continue to be the truly free and progressive nation that blesses both its citizens and the people of the world, a place where we can safely seek our futures without fear of foreign aggressors or internal oppressors.

Living in the Real World

2008-03-25T15:17:00.002-04:00

I have enjoyed escaping the real world into fiction, all my life. I having been reading science fiction, fantasy, mysteries, adventure, and suspense for entertainment and diversion from the moment I learned to read. I enjoy other world in good movies, television, and animation, and sometimes even some that aren’t so good, but I avoid message movies, unreal reality shows, and tortured relationship stories, which often pose as reality but are anything but. One thing always remains clear to me: I know what isn’t real! I may enjoy fantasy, but I prefer to live in reality, harsh as it may be, at times.

Are people losing touch with the real world, ignoring truth for fantasy? Of course, the idea that a person can choose their reality is the very nature of “postmodernism,” prevalent in our culture. It makes an intriguing philosophical premise, but one not so useful in the real world. Our choice doesn’t change reality, and I doubt that many people actually think it does. Yet, many act as if live in a make-believe realm, until reality comes back and asserts itself, often painfully. Michael Savage entitled a book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, rightly diagnosing this tendency as nuts!

American freedom, prosperity, and the media may shape a false sense of reality that can be difficult to ignore. Prosperity insulates many of us from the ugliness of need the reset of the world knows well. Freedom and law keep oppression at bay. Very little that we see on television or in movies is real, true to life, or an accurate picture of how things are; not even news and documentaries are faithful to the facts. Perhaps worst, public schools generally teach an ideologically altered view of history that tells neither the true patriotic story of the United States nor the success of capitalistic freedom, the source of American prosperity. Distortion, exaggeration, and outright fabrication are everywhere.

I find it strange, though, where it turns up.

For example, on an episode of CSI: New York, lead Detective Mac Taylor says to a particularly bloody serial killer he has caught, “That’s between you and your own personal god,” something I doubt anyone would say or even think in real life. Even stranger, though, he follows that remark, a short time later with, “Go to hell!” People say such things as meaningless expressions of disgust, but the inconsistency makes the point. God and hell are part of what some of us still know to be reality, a theistic worldview. The idea of a god that is a personal choice is absurd.

Science provides another especially bizarre example. Global warming, in particular, has become scientific dogma—both an established opinion and, worse, an article of faith. The faithful refuse to listen to contrary opinions or even contradictory evidence. As such, global warming moves from the real world into the realm of religious fantasy because genuine science never rejects evidence, although the dogmatic have often done so, both the religious and the pseudo-scientific kind. People like Al Gore prefer to see a world that suits their agenda and political aspirations; the real world continues without regard to his or any other opinion.

The scariest indication of this tendency to live in the realm of fantasy relates to politics. Far too many people accept and trust empty political rhetoric. Presently, one of the emptiest is a promise of change, assumed to be offering an unspecified improvement over the present. Assumptions are always risky, in any context. Rarely are things what we assume them to be; only careful inquiry and study will provide useful, substantive information about people's thoughts, opinions, wishes, and intentions, as well as their ability to accomplish what they say or want. Those who promise change without both identifying to what they plan to change and how they plan to accomplish it are encouraging gullible, trusting voters to assume the candidate wants the same things as the voters, despite the obvious fact that voters themselves don't want the same things.

Worse, some of what candidates promise clearly comes with a price, at the very least, one of “unintended consequences.” It's rarely obvious whether the consequences of political choices are intended or not. Some well-meaning leaders may naively assume they can accomplish the things they promise without negative effect; many, I fear, know very well that their programs will be costly in direct and indirect ways—in higher taxes, inflation, lost jobs, and less freedom. Most who are obviously socialists want the power of control over as much of the nation's life as possible. Many seek to buy the support of voters to assure that their time in power lasts as long as possible—such is the nature of career politicians. None of this should be a surprise to any but the most gullible.

The frightening part is the willingness of people to believe they can “have their cake and eat it, too.” Candidates routinely promise the sun, moon, and the stars like some sort of bizarre lovers, and people listen like teenagers infatuated by their first loves. Most of us look back on those juvenile experiences with regret and wisdom; we know they were not realistic feelings or expectations. Unfortunately, people listening to candidates don’t seem to understand that.

I have been a long time student of King Arthur and Camelot legends; I have a rather substantial collection of stories from Mallory’s Le Morte D’Arthur to some of the most recent variations like Marion Zimmer Bradley’s The Mists of Avalon. I recall the comparison of Jack Kennedy to Arthur although I never completely understood it; I understand the comparison to Barack Obama, even less, except to observe how much people are drawn to idealistic fantasy.

The utopian Camelot really grew out of Rogers and Hammerstein’s musical vision of Camelot, but most sensible people know that such places don’t exist in the real world of imperfect humans. The attraction of an idealized fable is ironic given the caricatured evils of the Bush administration. Sometimes it seems as if the perception of good and evil comes more from Hollywood than from the real world, so it sees relatively decent man like George Bush as worse than the architect of 9/11, the Iranian President who threatens another Holocaust, or the long-time dictator of Cuba.

JFK and Obama both have “star quality,” but we’re not living in a movie. Yet like a movie, a political campaign creates an image using a mix of truth and illusion to tell a story. We should know that a film is not reality not matter how genuine it appears. That is the “magic” of modern movie making; it can make magical realms, alien worlds, or long extinct creatures seem real. It can take any historical or scientific subject and re-write it to entertain or mislead. We should know that about movies and television, and we should know that about political campaigns.

The real world is neither Sherwood Forest nor Neverland. I have always enjoyed the swashbuckling figure of Robin Hood in his many incarnations, but I doubt anyone non-fictional character is trustworthy enough to take from the rich and give to the poor. A well-intentioned thief is still a thief as are the myriad of socialists with a similar agenda but far less civic-minded. The rich are not evil for having wealth, and the poor aren’t good for being needy; there is little justice in redistributing wealth and great injustice in the guilty hands of government-sanctioned theft. Robin Hood should stay in Sherwood Forest.

Peter Pan, on the other hand, is a tragic figure as is any child who remains childish and immature and sees the world without adult understanding. The “Lost Boys” were orphaned and lacked a mother to love and care for them, but citizens are not children to depend on a government that neither knows nor really cares about them. That is the most desperate and awful fantasy, on that can only disappoint. Adults face the world and care for themselves. In friendships, families, and close communities, they help each other, encouraging self-sufficiency, caring for those who truly cannot care for themselves, and lending a hand when temporary circumstances call for it.

Freedom and capitalistic enterprise offer the greatest gain for all; socialism promises utopia but delivers shared misery where everyone gets a small piece of a shrinking pie. In the real world, there is no “free lunch,” unless it’s just bread and water. Social Security will never be “happily ever after,” and universal healthcare can only be rationed, inadequate care. Political promises are fairy stories (to put it kindly, lies is closer to reality), “change” is an empty legend, and “wishing won’t make it so.”

Somehow, we must help our fellow citizens to get back to reality. The real world may be harsh, at times, but only in reality can we make a good life for ourselves, only in reality will we enjoy the fruits of our labors and the satisfaction work brings, and only in reality are we safe from those who prey on those naïve enough to believe in fairy tale places like Camelot, Neverland, and Sherwood Forest. People need to see that Obama isn’t Arthur or Kennedy, Hillary is more like Captain Hook than Robin Hood, and, no, I don’t have a character for McCain!

Nasty Nanny

2008-02-13T23:28:00.002-05:00

"The more help a person has in his garden, the less it belongs to him."—William H. Davies, poet

This fable is plays on our worst childhood images—wicked stepmothers, scary witches, and helpless innocent children, and even a few ugly stepsisters. It features the worst elements of Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, and Snow White. Unfortunately, this myth looms beyond the next sunset, the evil is our own government, and you may not be the hero or the victim but one of feckless characters, whom we recognize as more bad than good, reminiscent of “the boy who cried wolf.”

In the real world, children must grow up or they will be retarded, handicapped in the strongest sense of the word. When a child fails to mature, wise parents usually seek professional help to correct the problem. On the other hand, some parents, well-meaning or themselves emotionally troubled, smother their children stunting their emotional growth or sparking rebellion. Most of us understand instinctively that healthy maturity, independence, and self-sufficiency are the signs of adulthood to be cultivated and not discouraged.

So it cannot be an indication of a healthy society when people seek perpetual dependence on, if not actual addiction to, government care. An increasing number of American citizens seem to prefer dependence on the government to independent self-sufficiency. Permanent childhood permits a person to remain naïve and ignorant, avoid responsibility, and allow others to do all the hard work and make the tough decisions. It sounds great, if you can trust those you allow to take charge of your life.

Ironically, most teenagers rush to be free of their parents’ authority, rules, and power although they often still want their resources. That desire for a “free ride” apparently transfers freely to the government, when that government is willing to trade taxpayer funded perks for votes. Many parents seem willing, for a time anyway, to continue allowances without other demands although some may expect passing grades in college. Governments are not such loving benefactors; they inevitably expect something in return and tie their generosity to limits of other kinds. Thus, we are seeing all manner of new laws and regulations to control trans fats, smoking, soft drinks, and even fast foods, all deemed appropriate in exchange for government provided benefits. Already a generation ago, most states passed laws requiring seatbelts, justified by Medicaid and disability provided by the state. Once government takes charge, it will limit anything it deems necessary.

I never had a nanny when I was a child; I am glad I had a Mom. Hiring a person to care for a child, so that the parents can live without parental responsibility, isn’t good parenting or loving care. Nevertheless, I am sure there are excellent, caring nannies, but that is one person in direct, daily contact with the child. The government as nanny has two of the worst characteristics of third-party caregivers; it is impersonal and authoritarian, and the quality of care is deficient. The wealthy will pay generously for quality care, but governments quickly find it necessary to limit resources. Regardless of common assumption, governments are not rich; governments have no money except what they take in taxes from generally reluctant citizens.

What amazes me is how easily people overlook the obvious facts. Nobody, who is dependent on government provided services, ever finds them exceptional. Instead, we hear stories of callous bureaucrats, excessive paperwork, incomprehensible communications, long waits, run down facilities, and less than adequate provision of necessary things. This is not what people expect from universal health care, but it is what they will receive. The proof is well-documented from other countries with government run medical care systems; our own government-postal service, state drivers licensing agencies, veterans’ facilities, and Social Security programs all demonstrate the inability for a government-run program to be efficient, cost-effective, and creative in meeting its mandates, whatever they may be.

Yet, our populace seems determined to move into more socialism despite the failure of every socialist experiment, anywhere in the world. I’m not using the word socialism for emotional effect, as some accuse; I use it because a “nanny state” is socialism. Looking to the government to take care of us trades freedom and excellence for minimal benefits; we will get a nanny, but this nanny isn’t even nice. This nanny is nasty.

You see in this “family,” there is no absent but wealthy parent paying for everything. In the real world, “nanny” takes from what one brother or sister earns mowing grass or delivering papers to provide for other siblings. Even in families where some of the children are sick or handicapped, this creates division and resentment, even more when the recipients are perfectly able to work and earn their own money, worse still if the neighbor children move in for a cut, and worst of all when “nanny” takes an even larger share for herself!

Walter Williams has said, “Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What's their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives. ." In other words, they are offering their services as the ultimate nanny, pretending they will make things better, when the truth is they can only make things worse. Indeed, much of what’s wrong know arises from the government’s meddling in the economy, medical care, retirement, and other domestic areas, generally beyond the scope of the Constitution’s limited delegation of authority.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” was to H.L. Mencken’s observation over 50 years ago. However, back then, the American people were much more sensitive to the dangers of communism and socialism. Today, many of us seem ready to take the path that Russia took, at a dreadful cost, even though our “revolution” will be much less bloody. If you want a dismal sense of the possibilities, check out Ayn Rand’s We the Living; it’s an interesting read, now that her insights have proven true. George Orwell’s Animal Farm is equally prophetic, and you should read it, if you have never done so.

Life comes with few guarantees. Government cannot change that. When it tries, it must take something away; that something is freedom. Allowing government to become a “nasty nanny” is not an acceptable trade-off: the illusion of health and safety at the price of freedom. We need to help our fellow citizens understand that before it’s too late.

Dream or Nightmare?

2008-01-21T19:43:00.000-05:00

Do a Candidate’s Character, Faith, or Values Really Matter?

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Forty years after his death and nearly 80 after his birth, I wonder what Dr. King would have to say about the progress we have made toward fulfilling his dream. In the 45 years since he gave his now famous speech, those four children live in a different nation, but is it the one their father hoped would come? I suspect he would be disappointed on many levels. I do believe that skin color is much less of a barrier, and that far more Americans see the person. Unfortunately, the leaders who have succeeded him use skin color to gain support for programs that have twisted his dream and politicians, who want the support of his people, make promises in a manner that says that character is not the chief value they hold. Candidates campaign on “identity politics” and expect people to vote for people like themselves—black, female, Christian, or conservative—in a manner that is a nightmarish caricature of King’s dream.

A common refrain among prospective voters is a need for change. That’s got to be the silliest basis for favoring a candidate. Change for change’s sake may easily be for the worse. People supposedly voted for change in the last Congressional elections, but few changes have occurred those not an improvement. Democrats have not delivered changes that they promised. That’s the trouble with trusting the promises of people whose true values are unknown or obscured. The promises of a dishonest person are worthless, and we know that politicians are commonly dishonest. I don’t feel sorry for anyone who voted for change and trusted devious politicians, who will say anything to win votes, to follow through.

How should a citizen determine which candidate will represent him best? Experts generally agree that Kennedy’s good looks gave him the advantage over Nixon’s swarthiness as television became a significant factor in political campaigns, but is appearance a trustworthy indicator of a person’s merits? Most people would say not, but I many of us are suckers for a “pretty face.” Is that what has given Barack Obama so much success, in spite of his lack of real experience? Bill Clinton certainly had no lack of “admirers.” I would think that a sensible evaluation of a person as prospective President would come down to just a few things: ability, experience, intent, and character, but I’m not convince that these are important to voters or reliably present among the candidates.

For example, a big question about Mitt Romney seems to be his Mormon faith. At least, that’s what his opponents want to encourage us to talk about. I find it pathetic that those who wouldn’t favor a candidate anyway have so much influence on what his potential supporters might think. People ought to be less gullible than that.

I live in Michigan where Mitt’s father George Romney was governor, and I have no sense his Mormonism was much of an issue, back in the 60’s, just after the Catholic Jack Kennedy had been President. Why is this a concern, 40 years later? Frankly, we have more to fear from the candidacy of a man with a Muslim father who claims to be a Christian. Could he be a latter-day "Manchurian Candidate?" Does anyone really think that as President Romney would try to impose Mormonism on the country? Did it happen while he was governor of the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts? Get real!

On the other hand, both Obama and Mike Huckabee run openly as a Christians. Black Christians always get a pass on their faith because their votes fall solidly in the Democratic column, but Huckabee’s support comes mostly from evangelical Christians, with hardly a whimper of objection from the Left. Isn’t that just a bit odd? Could it be that the MSM recognizes that Huckabee is a spoiler among Republicans who would have little chance of winning against any Democratic candidate?

If the beliefs and values of one candidate are important, then shouldn’t the core convictions of every candidate be the subject of scrutiny and consideration? After all, won’t the things that really matter to a person influence his or her decisions and actions as President? Is there anything else about a person more important than that? Ability and experience are generally known qualities, but character and intent are harder to discern. Yet, of the four, they are the most important because they provide the key to what a candidate will do, once elected.

In Romney’s case, his deeply held faith and family values give me reason to respect him, even though I don’t share his Mormon faith. As much as anything, I want to know if I can trust what a person says and promises, before I consider giving him or her my vote. What does Hillary Clinton believe and what is important to her? I suspect she cares mostly about her own future power; she lies about everything else (Only a liar can change her mind so easily and often). To an extent, most of those running have changed their minds, tried to adapt and express their positions in order to gain support, which is why the process of judging a candidate is difficult.

Much of what we get to hear is empty rhetoric and theater. Take Clinton’s “off-the-cuff” response to a “spontaneous” question about her faith and the co-incidental appearance in the crown of her old Sunday School teacher or her tears…pure theater. Candidates, party leaders, and strategists carefully choose their words, and more, to gain support, often unconcerned with candor or even that their statements are promises people expect them to keep.

Congressional leaders make a show of supporting what constituents want, knowing that they will not be successful, indeed planning on failing, perhaps, just before the next elections, so that they can blame their loss on the opposition. This gamesmanship is well-know and openly reported and discussed; how sad it is that voters are so gullible or inattentive that their games work.

What are the real questions we should be asking, asking ourselves and asking our neighbors, friends, and family? Frankly, I’m tired of the word “outrageous.” Talk radio hosts use that word all the time, telling us one bad thing after another, about the candidates they oppose. What’s the point? Republicans oppose Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Gore along with all the others with little chance at winning the nomination. Democrats and the extreme Left hate Bush and will try to tie any Republican candidate to him so the voters will hate them, too. Those who give little thought to morality will look for any moral inconsistency to destroy their opponents, even though their own candidates openly accept immorality. None of this will make much difference in the choices of voters, except for those naïve enough to be manipulated. It is that manipulation that our questions may help to prevent and counter.

As far as I am concerned, there are only a few questions worth asking and answering. First, what do candidates really care about? What is the faith or value system that actually guides them in setting priorities and making decisions? President Bush said that Jesus guided him, and much that he has done indicates a certain consistency with that statement. He committed himself to fighting the war on terror, and everything he does continues to verify that commitment, whether you happen to agree with him or not. He ran as a pro-life candidate, and he has not deviated from that position, particularly as it has related to stem cell research. He believes in cutting taxes, and he hasn’t made the mistakes of his father in compromising his position. No one will ever be a perfect President, but I can respect one who remains true to his stated values.

Contrast that with former President Clinton. In the 8 years of his Presidency, we never knew what his core values were. His words, actions, and behavior suggest that his primary value was to have people like him. In that spirit, he said whatever polling and focus groups indicated people wanted him to say. Presidents Reagan and Carter both showed a commitment to their respective core values: Reagan’s were conservative, while Carter’s were not. Carter turned out to be what many would call a liberal Christian, and Reagan showed a depth of faith greater than he often spoke about publicly.

Core values, true beliefs, and what really matters to a person will determine the nature of that person’s time as President, if elected. We really should know what principles or convictions will shape a candidate’s actions. Everything else that candidates say and promise must be evaluated in the light of what is truly important to them. That comes first.

In that light, for example, a candidate’s personal history is relevant. A person who has been unfaithful to a spouse has proven a lack of trustworthiness, a character flaw. I know some lose a spouse through little fault of their own, so divorce and remarriage alone aren’t proof of a lack of integrity; a record of infidelity and dishonesty like Bill Clinton’s, however, does. I am inclined to think that a woman who sticks with such a man does so for reasons other than love. Rudy Giuliani’s multiple marriages don’t speak well of his character, even though we know that he was a good New York mayor and served almost heroically after 9/11.

Second, we then may ask, what does the candidate want to accomplish? What is their vision for the future of the United States, and (third?) will their methods create that vision? For example, candidates talk about the economy and promise to make it better, stronger, and healthier. I’m not sure if any President can actually deliver on such a promise. Like global warming, I am doubtful that government can control or change it, at will.

However, with the economy as their excuse, along with things like jobs, unemployment, and taxes, elected leaders can impose their political system on the country—conservative, socialist, progressive, big government, libertarian (a long shot!), anti-war, winning the war, or protecting us from terrorists. We must ask questions that reveal what candidates will actually do, compared to what they promise. The majority, I suspect, will say anything in order to have the chance to do what they really want to do. We need to know the reality, not their carefully created image.

In seeking to answer these questions, a candidate’s public performance speaks volumes. Hillary favors a government takeover of all medical care, promising universal care but likely giving us high taxes and limited access, if she succeeds; we know because she tried already. Obama also favors big government socialism, and even several Republican candidates are far too comfortable with running everything from Washington. John McCain and Huckabee, with the Democrats seem to favor a lax policy regarding illegal immigration, and Giuliani defied the Supreme Court to keep New York as a sanctuary city .

In answering these first two questions we have two pairs of contrasting concepts—image versus character and pragmatism versus principle. Most candidates with the help of expert campaign staff work hard to create an image they hope people will follow and support. Many of them, once elected, will sacrifice almost anything to maintain that support. Those with the character to stand on principle are rare because, since Dr. King’s day, character has yielded to personality and unwavering principle has fallen before the advocates of no absolutes. In such a world, it is hard to find leaders we can trust, and Dr. King might well be appalled to see how unlikely his dream may be.

However, we need to work to achieve that dream, but it involves more than race or skin color or religion or gender. For his dream to be realized, we need a new emphasis on the importance of character. The good news is that many ordinary people still see its value, and they continue to judge people, in a good way, based on the kind of person they are. For many of us, character still counts, but it is surely under assault. Without any shared, objective authority for right and wrong or any basis for teaching character, successive generations will become less and less people of character. Dishonesty is already an epidemic among us, and relational fidelity secures fewer and fewer marriages. People admire celebrities who lives offer little to admire but glamour and lifestyles that most cannot afford. The world of the future, if the image and personality trend continues is a nightmare, not the dream of Kind or any other halfway sensible person.

Not Just Cracked, Shattered, Scrambled, and Rotten

2008-01-19T20:10:00.000-05:00

Ignorance is bliss, or so it seems. According to the LA Times, American 15-year-olds know less science than many of their counterparts abroad, but they think they’re smarter. The Times writes, “This is the real trend in American education. No one can match us when it comes to self-esteem. So what if American students ranked 21st out of 30 industrialized nations? So what if we're even worse in math—25th?” Not only that but “Test analysts found that the less students knew about science, the more optimistic they were that the challenges of global warming can be overcome.”

I’m sure if we asked, the educators and bureaucrats would tell us we need to spend more money on schools, teachers, and technology. Of course, the reality is that the more money we’ve spent, the poorer the results, unless we’re counting self-esteem. I’m sorry, but in my world, self-esteem comes from excellence, competing and out-performing, and being the best you can be. Believing you’re smart when you are actually stupid isn’t healthy self-esteem; it is delusion, one step from insanity. As far as most educators are concerned, I don' t trust them and you shouldn't either.

This demented public education system is beyond fixing. Private schools generally do a superior job with much less money. School choice is an alternative; but, as long as the union dominated, left-leaning education establishment holds its influence, its interference will undermine any attempt at solving the problem. We’re long past the time for mandatory public education, given the results. Far too much of the current system is counter-productive. As with the post office, private enterprise could do the job better and cheaper. We have known for quite some time that monopolies are bad, and government monopolies are worse, with the government’s power to tax, control, and compel, especially when agenda-driven types are in charge.

Some will say that poor children and inner city kids will suffer, but they suffer already in the public system. I have every confidence that local people will find ways to assure that their communities’ children get an education, and it will be a far better education than they receive now. As a teacher and tutor, I see how miserably the schools function now (especially for foreign students as I have written here, here, and here), and they fail the least powerful, most vulnerable children worst of all. The system has few academic schools; they are mostly indoctrination factories, doling out politically correct ideas like multiculturalism and global warming, and ignoring what most people assume to be the priority, basics like reading, math, science, and patriotic history. Those who manage to succeed would succeed in almost any environment because they are naturally gifted, intelligent, and curious. A vast middle population is bright enough, but the mind-numbing approach of modern teaching often destroys their desire to learn. They least capable often get plenty of attention, but they also suffer from the experimental approach to education that has been fashionable for the past half century or more, experiments conducted by technicians often ill-equipped really to teach anything.

The evidence is easy enough to obtain. Talk to the kids. Visit the schools. Look at the textbooks. Get to know the teachers. Pay attention to information like the LA Times story. For all the hype and rhetoric, American schools are no longer the best in the world. Most teachers are nice folks, but many of them are embarrassingly ill-equipped to do their job and frequently confused as to what their job really is. Sadly, like their charges, they think they are well-trained and competent, but the proof is in the results. Inept teachers with high self-esteem are no more useful than poorly performing students who think they’re smart.

Having said that, I wonder what John Adams would say, today: “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties, and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates... to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them” (Thoughts on Government, 1776). I wonder how many of you, educated in the public system, can comprehend what he said already.

Remember Humpty Dumpty? Once broken, not all the government officials available could put him back together. That's the problem here. As with so many things, governments are better at breaking than fixing, spending more and more money, creating bigger and bigger bureaucracies, but slipping further and further from a solution. If we want schools that give kids more than empty self-confidence, then we need to get the government out of our schools and unleash the American spirit and creativity. We have the no-how; we just need to get it back into schools that really want to educate rather than indoctrinate.

Take Back Christmas...Nicely!

2007-12-21T16:04:00.000-05:00

Two years ago, I wrote the following draft of a proposal to seek to protect our Christian holiday, specifically, our Judeo-Christian heritage generally, and true religious liberty overall. Since then, I have pondered whether an aggressive, legal approach is appropriate for those who follow the Prince of Peace, who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Yet, in times of war, I don’t believe He prohibits our fighting in defense of life and liberty, and this has become such a “war” in our culture. Authentic peacemakers fight for peace, never forgetting that the goal isn’t to obliterate the enemy but to redeem him (or her), if possible.

A Proposal for a Campaign
to Restore Christian Liberty and Free Speech in America
by J. Roger Wilson, December, 2005

I, for one, am not going to take it anymore!

Do you understand what is really happening to Christmas? Preachers have challenged Christians for years to keep Christ in Christmas to keep it from becoming a virtually secular celebration. On the other side, ACLU lawyers have worked overtime to force public institutions like schools to remove anything religious from their observances. Retail businesses depend on the big Christmas marketing season to balance their books and give them a good profit for the year. Yet, those very same businesses, like Wal-Mart, the largest, have stopped saying “Merry Christmas,” for the more generic “Happy Holidays.” People love decorations so much that they will pay $1500 to have lights put up for Christmas. The visible celebration grows bigger every year, while the origin and meaning are systematically eviscerated, with malice of forethought by a handful of powerful secularists.

What seems like a love/hate attitude about Christmas is, I believe, something far worse. It appears that certain influences in America want to take over Christmas. In other words, they want to steal a religious holiday from those who most revere it. This is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which, more than anything else, protects religion from government intrusion. Too often, lawyers use it to “secularize” Christmas, like stopping the singing of religious carols in schools, banning nativity scenes from public land, and removing Christianity specifically from American life. Unlike school prayers, however, they haven’t managed to ban the Christmas holiday, just its sacred and public observance.

If that isn’t enough, many in places of influence are voluntarily doing the same. Schools, for example, have done fare more than what the courts have ordered. One school even banned Santa Claus, as a religious figure, though that connection is remote, rarely noted, and commonly unknown. Many authorities have begun calling Christmas trees “holiday trees” and stores have eliminated the word Christmas from their advertising. They, too, want to have it both ways: the sales and profit without the name Christmas. This is political correctness and multiculturalism run amok. I believe it is time to put a stop to this violation of Christian traditions.

This “problem” has three possible outcomes. One, by doing nothing, Christians will lose their holiest days—Christmas and Easter. Two, Christians may decide to retreat entirely from public celebration and establish a sacred holiday to observe privately. This option has the merit of leaving gifts, inappropriate parties, and Santa Claus behind, but it fails to address the larger problem. Three, Christians could demand, via legal action, that America “take it or leave it!” In other words, find the appropriate cases or organizations, such as the ACLU, and sue them for violation of the First Amendment. Make the case clear that Christmas is a Christian holiday and that the sacred may not be removed or diluted by secular, unbelieving agencies. Their choices would be to celebrate Christmas in all the ways that have grown around the holiday or cease and desist any and all observance of Christmas, apart from Christian believers, churches, homes, and businesses. The latter course would, of necessity, prohibit all Christmas marketing, all office parties, all secular only music or decorating, anything associated with December 25 not directly connected to and controlled by the Christian Church, congregations, families, individuals, and organizations.

The “remove Christ from Christmas” march must stop. I recommend a 4-step strategy to protect Christmas, the liberty of Christians in the United States, and genuine religious freedom overall. I would include the following, making every effort to maintain a dignified and peaceable attitude that brings honor to our Savior Jesus Christ.

First, begin a “Merry Christmas” campaign. I urge all Christians, others who enjoy all of the traditions of Christmas, and even those of other faiths who value the full historic tradition of religious liberty in America, as opposed to the current secularizing trend, to say, “Merry Christmas,” at every appropriate opportunity. This is not a campaign to offend. Rather it is a joyful, loving counter to the sterilizing influences of the vocal anti-Christian, anti-religious minority. In general, it will be a reminder that Christians are still a substantial majority in America; more specifically, it will demonstrate to merchants, in particular, in a kind and gentle way, that we are the source of the profits they value and depend upon. “Merry Christmas” is pleasant yet firm display of our power, should we decide to use it.

Second, begin a state-by-state referendum to allow the American voters to affirm the sanctity of Christmas, preserve the full legal protection of Christianity as provided by the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, and reaffirm the original sense of the First Amendment as banning government, including the courts’, intrusion into and regulation of religion.

Therefore, I offer the following proposal as the basis for collecting signatures to put this matter on state ballots:

“As American history, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and long-standing tradition have established “free exercise of religion” as the law of the land and guaranteed all religions protection from government interference, we, from now on, declare that Christmas and Easter are Christian holy days whose public observance may not be regulated, restricted, or altered by any private or governmental authority, except those of the various Christian churches. Recognizing the Christian contribution to American history, the majority presence of Christian citizens, and a long, established history of public celebration, we further welcome all citizens to share the joy of these holidays, with the understanding that they are Christian remembrances of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to be respected accordingly.”

Third, if or as necessary, file suit against any individual or organization, including the ACLU or the government of the United States, that seeks to regulate, restrict, or alter the public celebrations of Christmas or Easter or deny Christians their full rights of religious liberty or free speech and, in particular, religious speech. Further, it will also be a goal to find the appropriate cases in which to seek to challenge current precedents, including but not limited to:

1) ending the exclusion of sacred Christian music from school Christmas programs;

2) restoring Christian symbols, often exclusively prohibited, for display on public land;

3) assuring the protection of religious speech (including prayer) by disqualifying “potential offense” of a non-Christian or non-religious person as sufficient grounds for restriction (since it is the very nature of free speech that it may offend those who disagree);

4) establishing, once and for all, that the so-called “separation of church and state” is not, and never was, the intent of the First Amendment (but rather a relatively recent departure from history and the language of the Constitution), and re-establishing its meaning to be the prohibition of government or court intrusion into religion, and, finally,

5) affirming plainly and with suitable documentation that religion, at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, referred primarily to Christian denominations, and that Christian influence was an integral part of early American history and government that is clearly evident in our historic documents.

Fourth and last, since the Bible, Old and New Testaments, has always been an important spiritual and historical book that provided a unifying Judeo-Christian ideology for the American people, we would seek, in every way possible, to restore its presence in the lives and homes of the American people. Since the very freedoms responsible for the unique success of this nation are anchored in Biblical stories and ideas; we must not ignore, forget, or reject our common Judeo-Christian heritage.

* * * * * *

Two years later, my opinions haven’t really changed, except to note that Christians won’t “win” anything if we act like pagans. Legal options are our right as American citizens, as long as we don’t use them against each other (I Corinthians 6). When we are under attack, as we, our faith, and our holiday are, we may choose to fight back. We may not, under any circumstances, stop being the disciples of Jesus, who said the world would recognize us as His, by our love. I don’t care how adversarial and hostile politics, sports, or talk shows become, He has not released us to behave otherwise (even if we are accustomed to doing so at church!).

Therefore, I might add a qualification to the above recommendations: When and if you go to court, do the extraordinary, do what rarely happens, go and be nice.

Useful Questions...If You Use Them!

2007-11-26T22:41:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that the best way to engage people in constructive conversation about the important issues in our country was to ask questions. I promised then to begin a list of a few questions in some of the major issue areas. This is my first such list.

I have tried to ask open-ended questions, the kinds of questions that get people talking without suggesting that you don't really want an answer. Some of these questions require that the asker know something about the issues in question, in fact, most of them do. The purpose in asking is not just to exchange ignorant ideas. For that, we can listen to TV talk shows.

In making my list, of course, I'm directing my questions first to you? Their purpose is to get at the heart of some pretty serious issues so that we might work toward a constructive consensus that preserves our freedom and faith. Perhaps you can suggest some better questions or a few that might be added. The goal is to keep the number down to 2 or 3 per issue, and certainly no more than 5. In some cases, I may have to split an issue, or add new categories. In other cases, I may need to shift them around.

I hope you will try them out on someone you know who either follows a party or ideology without much thought or someone who seems not to care, even though the freedoms and privileges they enjoy may be in real danger. Of course, this part is up to you. I can only ask the people I know, and there are lots of people out there who need to be asked, challenged, and brought into the conversation...in a constructive way.

SecondAmendment/GunControl	Who do you trust to keep you safe? Who do you trust to keep you free? Will gun laws keep dangerous people from having guns?
911/War on Terror	How do we keep terrorists from killing us? How do we preserve our heritage and culture? How do we keep our communities safe without sacrificing our freedom?
Capitalism/FreeEnterprise	Where does wealth/money come from? Is there a relationship between freedom and free enterprise?
Constitutionalism/10thAmend.	What does it mean to be a nation of laws? How should the federal government’s power be limited?
Crime/Punishment/Victims	How do we prevent crime? How do we protect ourselves from dangerous people?
Education/Schools	Why do we need public schools? How do we give out children the best opportunity for a world-class education?
Energy/Environment	How does the US find energy independence? Can we have both adequate, affordable energy and a clean, safe environment? Do you see yourself as a conservationist or an environmentalist? Why?
English/Bilingualism	Can the US be a cohesive nation without a single national language?
Equality/Diversity	What kind of equality is best for our country? In what ways should people be equal? How can we be equal if we are not the same?
Femininity/Feminism	How are men and women different, and how are they the same? How do you feel about concepts like gender-neutrality?
FreeSpeech/PC	Should there be any limits on free speech? If so, what should they be? Should people lose their jobs for saying “the n-word” or opposing gay rights? Why?
HealthCare	What will give us the best, most affordable healthcare? How can the government run the healthcare system without rationing care, as it has happened in Canada and England?
Immigration/Borders	How should the US manage our borders? How many immigrants should be allowed into the US each year? What kind of restrictions should we have on who can come and from where?
LimitedGovt/IndLib	What risks or benefits come from a government being too big and powerful or too small and weak? What individual freedoms do you regard as the most important? What freedoms are you willing to give up so that the government can take better care of you/us?
Marriage/GayRights	What do you regard as the best definition of marriage and why? What do you believe to be the cause of homosexuality?
Morality/Hedonism	What do you regard as morally absolute? Is there any danger in a lifestyle or culture that is excessively sensual, involves substantial drug or alcohol consumption, or is deeply self-centered?
Opportunity/Poverty	What is the best way to reduce poverty? What is necessary for more people to be able to have good jobs?
Peacemaking/Strength	How can we make the world or even our communities more peaceful? Is our culture moving toward peace or toward hostility? Do you favor a strong military or aggressive diplomacy? Why?
Politics&Parties	What are the differences between the two main political parties? Why is liberal or conservative the better way to plan for the future? How do you decide for whom to vote?
PrivatePropertyRights	For what reasons should the government be allowed to take private property? In what ways should government be able to control what you do with your own property (zoning, environment, etc.)?
ReligiousLiberty/WallSeparation	In what ways to you feel that our country has become too religious or too secular? How do you feel about the growth of non-Christian religions in America?
Republic/Democracy	In what ways are the checks and balances between our three branches of government working or not? Do you feel that you elected representatives are responsive or out of touch? Why? In what ways is the electoral college system for electing the President good or bad?
SanctityofLife/Choice	How is pro-life or pro-choice position better for the country? When does life begin? How does abortion differ from the execution of capital criminals? What is a stem cell?
Science/JunkScience	How much has the average global temperature increased in the past 100 years? How are humans responsible for global warming? Who should pay or make the sacrifice to protect the environment? Should juries be able to make decisions that impact science or medicine, even when experts oppose their decisions? Why or why not?
Sovereignty/UN	How is the UN a force for good in the world? How do you feel about a world-wide system of government? Why should the US support or oppose the UN or global initiatives?
Taxes/Spending	Which is better for the country—raising taxes or cutting spending? Why do you think the way you do? What kind of tax is the best?
Traditional/SecProgressive	How would you describe your value system?
Truth/Multiculturalism	What is truth? How is multiculturalism different from tolerance? Is honesty important to you?
USA—Good/Bad?	How do you see the United States—good or bad—and why? What would you do to make this country a better place?
WorldViews	If you have a worldview, what is it? Can you identify several major, influential worldviews? Do you feel that the educational, media, and political establishments share or oppose your worldview?

The Lesson--It's a Sad One

2007-11-26T19:35:00.000-05:00

This comes from “The Lesson” by Toni Cade Bambara, a story that one of my refugee students had to read and analyze:

Then Sugar surprises me by sayin, "You know, Miss Moore, I don't think all of us here put together eat in a year what that sailboat costs." And Miss Moore lights up like somebody goosed her. "And?" she say, urging Sugar on. Only I'm standin on her foot so she don't continue.

"Imagine for a minute what kind of society it is in which some people can spend on a toy what it would cost to feed a family of six or seven. What do you think?"

"I think," say Sugar pushing me off her feet like she never done before cause I whip her ass in a minute, "that this is not much of a democracy if you ask me. Equal chance to pursue happiness means an equal crack at the dough, don't it?" (Here’s a teacher’s essay about the story)

The lesson of “The Lesson” seems to be socialism, equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity. It puts in the mouths of supposed street kids ideas that I doubt you’d often hear from street kids. Using this story in a high school literature class encourages teenagers, often lacking an understanding of how capitalism or socialism really work or how they relate to freedom, to disparage the system which provides the opportunities they enjoy.

The author fills her story with implications. Here’s one example: “So we heading down the street and she's boring us silly about what things cost and what our parents make and how much goes for rent and how money ain't divided up right in this country.” She implies that someone “divides up” the money so that some get a lot and others, not much. A child might draw such a conclusion, but an adult author or teacher should know better.

In another place, she writes, “(P)oor people have to wake up and demand their share of the pie.” That’s another classic bit of socialism, without rebuttal or balancing explanation. I grew up in a relatively low income family. I have always been aware of a vast range of incomes and prices for things. If that’s all one considers, then we overlook some important aspects of how people create jobs and income. People make expensive toys; that’s jobs and income. Workers build yachts and mansions, and they wouldn’t have jobs if rich people didn’t buy them. There is no “pie” to divide. Instead, millions of people, in a country like the United States, invest their wealth, invent things, build factories, employ people, and keep money in circulation.

The story’s language is crude in grammar and vulgar in content. The most important need of poor children is education, but stories like this glorify ignorance. Miss Moore, the only adult character, “had been to college and said it was only right that she should take responsibility for the young ones' education.” However, her education seems to be clever manipulation. When the story-teller becomes angry, it’s clear that Miss Moore is pleased:

We just stare at that price tag. Then Sugar run a finger over the whole boat. And I'm jealous and want to hit her. Maybe not her, but I sure want to punch somebody in the mouth.

"Watcha bring us here for, Miss Moore?"

"You sound angry, Sylvia. Are you mad about something?" Givin me one of them grins like she tellin a grown-up joke that never turns out to be funny.

Making the children angry at perceived injustice won’t help them out of poverty. Envy, anger, and resentment simply alienate people with little constructive benefit. Socialistic ideas don’t work. Robbing producers of the rewards of their creativity and labor to “share” with those who do not produce is like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs; if the producers stop producing, as they surely do when government takes their earnings, then the “pie” shrinks, and everyone suffers. That should be the lesson, a lesson easily learned from the former Soviet Union, which now, under a capitalist economy, is having a boom in millionaires.

The United States has made considerable progress toward enabling more and more people to gain access to opportunity and jobs, but many still want to turn us into a socialist nation. Those with a vested interest in anger and resentment continue to tell people that somebody is keeping them poor, that they are victims, and that only they, their wise and benevolent leaders, can get them a “piece of the pie.” If they listen, the leaders get wealth and power, and their followers wait…for nothing! That’s the real lesson, and it isn’t a happy one.

Yet, there is another lesson to be learned, one regarding education. What kind of an education do kids like those in the story get today? In the decades since Bambara wrote “The Lesson,” the investment in education has increased by millions of dollars. Has the quality of inner city education shown a corresponding improvement? Thanks to those promoting resentment and anger, many inner city children resist learning as some sort of racist imposition. The education establishment plays along, calling street slang “Ebonics,”, as if it were a language all its own, rather than simply poor English. While on one side, immigrants receive little encouragement or help in learning English, on the other side, native-born black Americans, with little authentic connection to Africa, are encouraged to drift off into their own subculture. In both cases, the result is to be trapped in ignorance and left unable to earn the benefits of American liberty, opportunity, and prosperity. That’s another sad lesson, compliments of those who promise hope but fail to deliver.

Where is Common Sense?

2007-11-18T23:30:00.000-05:00

Thomas Paine published his pamphlet called Common Sense in January of 1776, laying out the arguments for independence from

Great Britain

. Among his arguments, “I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense....” I wonder what common sense thinking he would offer in today’s political climate? I have a few thoughts on that.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom,” wrote Paine. Ironically, it is not those called “conservative,” who represent “the superficial appearance of being right,” but those wrongly named “liberals” (better labeled “secular progressives,” who are the entrenched defenders of custom. I wonder how many items we could list, where common opinion stands opposed to common sense? Here’s the beginning of that list:

1) Common sense says that you must kill those who would kill you. As a Christian, I don’t enjoy the idea of war, but when we are attacked, we must fight back. I support every other effort to find peaceful solutions, but a nation cannot pretend that the enemy isn’t serious in his desire to destroy, especially when he says it, over and over again. There is no common sense in thinking that we are responsible for what the enemy chooses to do, particularly when his own statements prove otherwise. Self-hatred is suicidal, and suicide defies common sense. Suicidal people have no business leading or influencing the leadership in a time of war.

2) Common sense also suggests that many who follow charismatic or oppressive leaders may be won over, if we give them a chance to know us and what we really stand for. The enemy lies about us, and our own media support the lies. The American way of life is, without question, preferable to the third world poverty of most Islamic societies. They aren’t poor and uncivilized because of us; Arab countries control a huge part of the world’s oil supply! Their people are poor because their leaders keep them poor and backward, not so different from the Soviet Union under Communist leaders. That’s the nature of fascism, oppression, and tyranny. Common sense is supported by the millions of people from virtually every country and culture wanting to come to the United States to have the freedom and opportunity we have, and more would want the same, if we can show them what we are really about.

3) It defies common sense to think that the government can tax our country into prosperity. Playing on the jealousy of those who would like to be rich toward those who actually are rich, socialist-leaning, big-government types promise to tax the wealthy. Tax cuts have created both a booming economy and a net growth in tax revenue, but Democrats promise to raise taxes anyway. Common sense says that this isn’t about what’s good for the country or for the poor; this will be good for the people in Washington gaining power.

4) Common sense says that bigger is not better, and anything run by the federal government from Washington will be bigger, more costly, and less effective. National health care, public education, welfare, or any of perhaps 7 other departments in the President’s cabinet—interior, agriculture, commerce, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, energy—as well as several other lower level agencies such as OSHA and the EPA. We have no precedent of a big central government doing a better job with a huge, costly bureaucracy and an unending progression of burdensome regulations than the people and more local governments taking care of business, closer to the activity in question. There is no common sense in consolidating power and money which only invites people to gravitate to the centers of power and money in order to help themselves to some of both.

5) Where is the common sense in a government-run, union-dominated educational system that performs more poorly as the amount of money spent increases? Only in government is failure rewarded with a raise. Here is a prime example of a “long habit of not thinking a thing wrong.” It’s for the children, they say, but everything other indications says its for the union, the ideologues using schools to indoctrinate rather than educate, and the so-called “educators” who treat school children like lab rats to test their bizarre theories and continue even after the results demonstrate that their theories are wrong. Where is the common sense in giving a teacher a raise based on seniority rather than performance? Where is the common sense in preventing parents from choosing the best school for their kids, regardless of a private or public label?

6) Is there any common sense left among those in government regarding immigration? Close the borders, punish the employers of illegals, and deport illegals who commit more serious crimes, ASAP. It’s not rocket science, and the vast majority of ordinary citizens, including a majority of legal immigrants already get it. Variations on amnesty have been tried, several times, in the last 25 years, and the result has been a steady increase in illegal border crossings.

7) Is there any common sense in thinking that a 1 degree increase in global temperature over the past one hundred years will cause New York City to be flooded in the next 10? The global warming debate is so irrational that common sense is hard to find or even offer. The public schools are indoctrinating the children who have no defense against teachers they trust. Nobel Prizes and Academy Awards, neither of any scientific credibility, fool common folks into ignoring common sense. Teary-eyed children testifying about the loss of culture and livelihood play on the emotions when common sense says, “Move.” In what world do we think we can stave off all changes? In fact, in a living world, when changes stop, the living die! Life is change, and sometimes the changes are unpleasant. Attempting to misuse science and seeking to abuse national economies and lifestyles in order to prevent change on a global scale is the most absurd breech of common sense!

8) Free speech means very little if we can’t understand each other, and simple common sense says we need to adopt English as a single national language that all citizens must learn. I see little sense of any kind in encouraging national and community division by fostering enclaves of people who are isolated by language from the communities and neighborhoods around them. I dispute the slogan, “Our strength is in our diversity.” Our strength is in our unity; diversity may enhance that strength but only if it can communicate. Diversity with disunity leads to weakness and self-destruction. Multiculturalism is largely a utopian notion with no real world support, and utopian thinking is dangerous when you must live in the real world.

9) Political correctness has nothing to do with common sense or free speech. Long before I became aware of political correctness, I had to deal with spiritual correctness, the idea that right doctrine is reflected in saying and believing the prescribed beliefs of the group. Now, an even more potent attempt at mind control is masquerading as a positive influence, especially in high school classrooms and on college and university campuses. Political correctness has supplanted academic freedom in a manner more reminiscent of Communism than American liberty. Given the chance, like-minded politicians who cannot win elections in a free and open dialogue, would mandate similar restrictions on media, especially talk radio and the Internet. There is little common sense in free speech that is restricted by offense; by its very nature, free speech will offend somebody. (Likewise, freedom of religion: Common sense says that restricting religious expression by assuring that no one is offended destroys freedom of religion.)

10) Common sense says that the strong protect the rights of the weak. Gays who are often successful and financially well-off are strong; unborn children who cannot speak, let alone speak for themselves are weak. Adults who choose to have sex and get pregnant are strong, but the babies they conceive are weak; privacy is not more important than life. When real Africans can come to the United States, learn English, adapt to our culture, get an education, and prosper, then we no longer have a significant racial problem; we just have race whores[*], using race to make their illicit living off of their own people’s misery, misery which they help perpetuate by crying “racism” at every opportunity.

11) It is just common sense to recognize that freedom of opportunity is preferable to certainly of outcome. Free people find ways to make a good life. Governments restrict freedom to offer rationed living. The more politicians, bureaucrats, and victims dependent on the government the less ordinary people have. I have my problems with Ayn Rand, but she’s right when she says, in Atlas Shrugged, that “independence and individual achievement enable society to survive and thrive, but coerced self-sacrifice causes any society to self-destruct.” I also recommend reading her book, We the Living, for a strangely prophetic expose of life in the Soviet Union, a life toward which many progressive leaders seem to want us to go.

12) Common sense warns that an amoral, self-indulgent society will eventually fall, unless it changes. The issues and lifestyles we are currently debating place the United States at the threshold of either collapse or renewal. Many fear we are moving toward collapse, and I cannot deny their concerns. As much as I write about the social and political areas, my concerns center on American churches and Christians. I believe the future of our nation hinges on what we do. If we adopt the selfish hedonism and narcissism of our secular neighbors, then the future is lost. If we seek and find the courage of our forefathers who created the freedoms we enjoy, the common sense promises a blessed and influential future, to the glory of God and our Savior Jesus Christ!

Well, that's twelve. Any suggestions on others that I should include? Just let me know in the comment section.

[*] I’m not usually so blunt, but I am really disgusted with both black and white leaders who encourage this angry, counter-productive mentality of victimization and hatred. I tutor kids from all over the world, including Africa, and I don’t have a prejudiced bone in my body. My African kids don’t understand the claims of racism, and they will tell you that white people have helped them, more than anyone. We all face prejudices of various kinds, unfairness, and worse, and sometimes the only reasonable course is get over it, work hard, and “don’t let the turkeys get you down.” For any unintended offense, I apologize.

Ask Questions

2007-11-11T23:06:00.000-05:00

As I read, consider the news, listen to the talk shows, and think about the future, I often wonder what it will take for us to reclaim our country and culture. Voltaire is quoted as saying, “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere,” and that is the problem. Otherwise sensible people accept and even approve of the loss of their own freedom, thinking they are supporting the good. I want every child well-educated, don’t you? I admire good teachers, and our public schools are the best, aren’t they? Nobody wants sick people not to get good medical care, do they? We need the government to keep our food supply safe, protect us from pollution, and keep people from the evils of prejudice, right?

I don’t know, exactly, where innocent presumption merges into ignorant thoughtlessness, but at some point, many Americans are like the proverbial ostrich, hiding their minds in the sands of denial, unwilling to face the obvious problems in many aspects of American life and, more broadly, Western culture. Suicidal behavior often indicates mental instability, is associated with hopelessness and despair, but is also typical of immaturity. An ostrich that handles danger by hiding its head but leaving its much larger body exposed is most likely be crazy, remarkably stupid, and probably dead, more often than not!

I don’t know a great deal about ostriches, but I have generally not found birds to be especially bright. Yelling at a big bird to get it to move or stop doing something dangerous probably wouldn’t work, other than perhaps to scare it away. I can’t imagine pulling an ostrich to try to get its head out of the sand either; like many large beasts, it has considerable inertia and doesn’t have to work hard to stay where it is. Yet, most of the techniques that people use today are about as effective. Do you remember the Bickersons? Well, actually, I don’t remember them either, but I am well-acquainted with the nature of argument and the effectiveness of nagging. Generally, neither do much but aggravate. Proverbs 1:13b says “a quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping.” Proverbs 21:9 adds “Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife,” but Proverbs 29:22 warns “An angry man stirs up dissension, and a hot-tempered one commits many sins.” I hear lots of arguing, nagging, and anger, light often surrounded by too much heat, that drives the doubtful, disputing, and dissenting away.

When I set up Right-Thinking, my townhall blog, I had already been thinking about how to get more wisdom and truth back into circulation. I wrote this:

Too many of us nice, non-confrontational people have become comfortable while those who imagine a different America work hard to impose their vision. We have indeed been the silent majority. We can't afford to be silent anymore. Many of our neighbors, co-workers, fellow students, and Christian brothers and sisters aren't really paying attention and don't really understand. Life for many is so good, even 9/11 hasn't upset their lifestyles very much. They are like the frog slowing being boiled to death, who never notices someone is raising the heat. It's our job to warn them to get out of the pot.

My goal is to alert people to that “pot” in which their “ostrich ass” (Please, excuse my mixed metaphors) is slowly being cooked. As I deliberated on this, I came up with “Keep it solid, keep it civil, and keep it simple”—truth, love, and brevity. This “bedrock” site features the “solid” truth, and my xanga site called “Table Talk” has always focused on the manner—civil, kind, respectful, and loving in the Biblical sense. I’m still working on the “simple.”

I still believe those three qualities must characterize our conversations, particularly as we try to interact with those who heads are in the sand and asses are in the crock-pot. We must know our stuff, be accurate, and honest; we must deal with people kindly, gently, and respectfully, even if they don’t; and we must package our ideas in almost slogan-like pithiness. As I said, I manage solid and civil, but I struggle with simple (What do you think? Here's an example).

For a long time, though, I have taught and used another method. Our problem, my problem, is that we talk too much and listen too little. We seek to drive our ideas into the minds of others like nails into hard wood with about as much success and often with the sort of pain a pounding a nail brings. We are too prone to say, “Listen to me,” and we too seldom say, “I’m listening,” and then actually listen. I even set up a radio show that I described as “listen radio,” rather than talk radio, to demonstrate the difference. How would that work in the venue I’m discussing here?

The answer is two words: “Ask questions.” I’d say one word, but I don’t mean “question,” as in express doubt or challenge. I don’t mean cross-examine, which can be as unpleasant as nagging. The purpose of asking questions is not to expose their ignorance or make them feel stupid. A good question will tell a person you care about them and what they think, if you actually interact what they say. Questions are not confrontations; they are invitations to think, and we could all stand to do a little more of that.

Here’s my new acronym: KICQASSS--Keep It Civil, Question, And Stay Simply Solid. Yeah, it’s a little cheesy, I know, but here’s my point. We cannot afford to be complacent about what’s happening in and to our country. The opportunity for individual freedom and the expression of genuine faith are slipping away into political correctness, multiculturalism, and big government socialism. The twin threats of radical Islam and irrational progressivism would create a society swept clear of folks like us, but many of “us” don’t see it, or choose not to notice. Our method must be gentle but powerful because our goal is “KICQASSS” victory!

When we try to tell them, they bury their heads; a comparative few argue and get in our faces. Most just stick there fingers in their ears and sing, “Na, na, na, na….” They don’t listen to talk radio, they don’t read conservative books or blogs, and they still listen to PBS and the six o’clock news. Many still imagine they live in the United States of “Ozzie and Harriet” or, at least, “Tim the Tool Man Taylor.” A younger flock of ostriches are too busy enjoying the good life to consider how fragile its future may be, but they don’t listen or read either. Their attention is fixed on MTV, MySpace, and the latest crop of celebrities, who use their fame to hate the President, to hype global warming and environmentalism, gripe about the war, and lead the parade into an elitist future. You can’t tell them their idols are stupid; they won’t listen either.

BUT, almost anyone will answer questions that show interest in them, their lives, their thoughts, and their insights. Of course, our questions need to show sincere interest; we cannot be phony or use questions just to reach a foregone conclusion. We cannot be afraid to hear what people have to say, what they think, or even what they’ve done or may be doing. Politics and religion are often the topics most avoided because they represent controversy and strife. Let’s face it. Those who have strong opinions and enjoy arguing can be pretty annoying, unless they agree with you. I used to hate the endless discussions of farm-related subjects at our family gatherings because I simply didn’t have the knowledge or interest to participate or enjoy them. That’s how a good many people feel about religion and politics.

Most of us, however, will talk about what we know to be in our best interest or to the benefit of those we love, especially our children. Those trying to make this country a very different place know that and use the children to promote their agenda. We need to be wiser and more effective than they, and the key is to ask genuine questions, questions that open up minds and hearts to issues that people perceive as important to their future and the future of their children and grand children. Even those mindlessly absorbed in their self-indulgent lifestyles may wake up to the threats to that very lifestyle, if we ask the right questions.

What are those questions? Just as, a while back, I started thinking about simple ways to say what I believe about important things, I want to start compiling lists of questions, just a few for each of the serious challenges we face. They are going to emphasize “Why?” and “What do you think about…” For example, a retired teacher uses these 3 questions: “What do you (really) want?” “What are you doing to get what you want?” and “Is it working?” His purpose in asking is to expose the counter-productive way that people live their lives. Then he can engage them in conversation about other ways that might work better.

I have begun a chart so I can list questions, post them, and give people the chance to challenge, suggest, and improve them. So far, I have a list of 30 issue areas related to what ought to be our national conversation. I may add the current crop of presidential candidates and maybe some of the key congressional leaders, and I want to do something similar for a list of critical spiritual issues. I hope you will give me some feedback, but more importantly, I want to encourage you to use them, to ask questions, and to work toward getting people’s heads out of the sand, their tail feathers out of the crock-pot, and our country back on track.

Dropout Factories: Your Taxpayer-Supported Public Schools!

2007-10-31T23:05:00.000-04:00

Late last night, I heard John and Jeff talking about schools that are“dropout factories.” They concluded that the responsibility for students dropping out falls on the families of those students who drop out. According to Thomas Sowell’s well-documented research in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, that may be the case among some minority families, thanks to their heritage and a black cultural bias against education.

I seriously thought about calling their show. I have been tutoring refugee students, many in public schools, for over 4 years, and sometimes I’d like to drop out! I have heard rumors about how teaching had changed for the worse, but I had no idea just how badly. To start, perhaps, I should mention that teaching is not necessarily the complement of learning, although it should be. As a teacher and tutor, I understand teaching to be the facilitation of learning. In other words, my job is to help my students learn, and that should be the goal of every teacher. I just don’t think it really is, in many cases, anymore.

Teenagers, who populate the high schools, are easily bored; every parent and teacher knows that. Why, then, does the methodology of today’s classroom seem to feature mindless, mind-numbing repetition? The worst cases I have seen come from my area, which is science. It is typical of the science teachers in the schools in my city to give students multiple worksheets covering exactly the same information. I spend hours and hours with my students filling providing the same information 2, 3, and 4 times. I am an adult, not easily bored, and yet dread comes upon me, every time a student brings me a science worksheet.

A close second place in the “dull as a door knob” category are projects. I think somebody, some where thought that a project would be an interesting way to engage students by demonstrating the relevance of the things they were learning. A good project might do that. I have yet to see a “good project!” Most projects seem to be more busy work. Here’s an example:

One of my students, a Somali girl in the U.S. for less than a year, was assigned Raisin in the Sun, a play about a black family in Chicago in the 50’s. Overlooking for the moment that this is too difficult for a first-year ESL student to read, consider the writing assignment that followed. The mother, son, his wife, and daughter in the story had conflicting ideas about how to spend a life insurance check, in order to satisfy their individual dreams for a house for the 2 mothers, a business for the son, or an education for his sister. My student is supposed to write about her dreams as if she were living in the setting of Raisin in the Sun.

Now my students have dreams, and they face difficult challenges today. What is the point of trying to pretend she lives in a by-gone era facing challenges now gone, when she has the challenges of the present in her unique situation to work out? For that matter, why should a student with just the barest comprehension of English and the most rudimentary ability to write it have to deal with an assignment she cannot really understand?

This writing project is actually one of the better ones. The worst are those that involve drawing or copying pictures from the Internet to go with math projects, as if that has anything to do with math. I should mention that it is not unusual for directions to be virtually incomprehensible, particularly ironic when they’ve been written by English teachers!

Besides numerous, repetitive worksheets and the often pointless busy-work of projects, teachers seem to think they’re promoting technology or accommodating the interests of students by giving them things to complete from the Internet. As a fairly tech-savvy adult, I have often spent hours trying to navigate worksheets because they didn’t match the corresponding web site, that in addition to the fact that the worksheet mostly repeated material from previous assignments in the textbook.

My biggest objection to all of this is how little it engages the mind and curiosity of the student or gets them actively involved in the material they are supposedly trying to learn. When I was teaching in the classroom, I read discussion about the need for homework, parental expectations, and time considerations. One of my favorite writers, Orson Scott Card, wrote about his experience, several years ago. He writes: “The thing is, kids are doing far more homework at each grade level than I ever did -- and yet they're learning far, far less. Why?” He mentions a number of factors, but the first is textbooks. I agree. I have seen more poorly written textbooks than I ever imagined might exist.

I’m not sure which is worse—writing books to promote ideology rather than competence in subject matter or writing books to make money. In my opinion, good textbooks would be classics to be updated for historical relevance and refined for quality. A good text book would wear out, and then the school would replace it with an improved version of the same book. That is not what happens today.

In a second article, he asks this telling question, “Why is my seven-year-old burdened with repetitive and meaningless tasks during her hours at home?” Here’s his answer:

(T)he reason the homework is piled on is because educators have only two strategies for dealing with their increasing incompetence at the only task that matters -- educating our children.

The first strategy is to hire more bureaucrats to run more programs that either take students out of their classrooms or require teachers to make more reports so the bureaucrats can have something to do to justify their much-higher-than-the-actual-teachers' salaries.

The second strategy is to force the children to do more meaningless busywork so that parents can see that the schools are "back to basics."

Remember that Card is talking about a seven-year-old student. So what happens to kids after they’ve endured this mindlessness for another 7 or 8 years, especially if the student isn’t an especially gifted student? It isn’t surprising to me, especially in families where education isn’t highly appreciated already, that so many students “drop out!” I just don’t reserve blame for the families; I place a significant portion of the blame on so-called educators.

I have encouraged Christian parents to find any way necessary to keep their kids out of this mess, especially when you add the “religion factor.” In this piece, authors Hunt and Carper write, “For those wanting a secular education for their children, as it currently exists in public schools, that is their choice and their right. Parents desiring a different kind of education should not have to pay twice as the price of liberty of conscience.” However, do any parents want a poor quality education for their children? According to the Johns Hopkins study, 1 in 10 schools lose 40 % or more of the students who begin as freshman by the time that class graduates. That is appalling. You can find out about your areas schools here .

This poor report adds to what we already knew, that American high school students lag behind many of their peers in other countries. Charles J. Sykes of the Hoover Institute discusses why this is. We apparently do alright with younger children (overlooking for the moment our fetish for excessive busy-work, but we lose them when they become teens, and I’ve given you some of the more obvious reasons.

Unfortunately, the public schools excel in one area. They do a great job of indoctrinating kids in their favorite secular progressive ideas—global warming, environmental extremism, anti-war rhetoric, multiculturalism, and Bush-hating; they do not prepare young people to think for themselves, perhaps the greatest American tradition and the keystone to freedom.

I thought I was original in thinking it was time to abolish public education. It turns out I wasn’t the first. Jonah Goldberg writes, “Really, what would be so terrible about government mandating that every kid has to go to school, and providing subsidies and oversight when necessary, but then getting out of the way?”

The answer, of course, is that it would be awful for anyone invested in the power of the education bureaucracy, teacher unions, and Leftists who promote their agenda in government-run schools. For the rest of us and for future citizens enduring the boring, ineffective schools that so many are leaving, it wouldn’t be terrible at all. It would be a big step toward a better future.

Ninny State

2007-10-29T00:16:00.000-04:00

"Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, 'What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.' But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector. Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always 'against,' never 'for' anything."—Ronald Reagan

I haven’t read David Harsanyi’s book Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America into a Nation of Children, but I hope to. Anita Allen’s review in the Washington Post both intrigued and infuriated me. She writes:

David Harsanyi begins his book, "Nanny State," with a libertarian fairy tale that goes like this: Once upon a time, Americans were free. We were allowed to abuse ourselves, take unreasonable risks and offend people. We enjoyed a glorious right "to be unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, and politically incorrect." But along came meddlesome politicians, bureaucrats and activists who put an end to all that. Self-righteous "wardens of well-being" mistook free adults for helpless children. Beginning more than 20 years ago with mandatory-seat-belt laws designed "to save citizens from their own self-destructive stupidity," the "nannies" next went after our booze and cigarettes. Lately, they have attempted to put the nation on a low-sugar, no-trans-fat, small-portion diet (Harsanyi’s words are bold and in quotes).

What she seems to intend to be disparaging, i.e. “libertarian fairy tale,” sounds about right to me. Apart from the rationale that follows, it is not the government’s job to take care of citizens. PERIOD!!! Free people look after themselves with recourse to criminal (law enforcement) and tort law (lawsuits) when others misuse their freedom to harm others.

Allen’s argument is that Americans have always used government for “improving character or public health and safety.” Her evidence?

Overreaching rules of other sorts reigned supreme. Under "blue laws," most retail stores and virtually all liquor stores were closed on Sundays, presumably so everyone could stay sober and go to church. More profoundly, in 1960 married couples could not legally obtain birth control in Connecticut, mixed-race couples could not marry in Virginia, black kids in Georgia attended under-funded segregated public schools and homosexual sex was against the law.

She seems to overlook the difference between laws designed to restrict immoral behavior, which they always do, and laws and regulations designed to manage every aspect of our personal lives. She doesn’t see the difference between laws that come from an earlier era where most people saw the world differently and that have slowly been superseded and laws that represent the opinion of a vocal minority. Even more basic, she doesn’t notice the difference between laws that prohibit a few things from laws that try to manage everything.

I don’t know if Harsanyi mentions this, but the sheer volume of laws and regulations and the segment of the economy now under the government’s control tells the story—federal tax code at 700 forms and 17,000 pages, federal criminal code of 1,400 pages, the federal registry of the government’s regulations that takes 75,000 pages! (That was over three years ago!)

Someone, probably my parents, taught me that “Ignorance is no excuse.” It is a principle that dates back to the Roman Empire, at least, and says that people cannot excuse themselves for breaking laws by saying they didn’t know about them. Of course, as things now stand, who could possibly know all the laws and regulations, which have become so numerous, complicated, and invasive?

Here’s another gem from Allen review: “Corporate America's advertising had our parents fooled into thinking that tobacco smoke was refreshing and carbonated soda was good for digestion.” Is Allen anti-business, do you suppose? When I went to school, they still taught “caveat emptor” or “Let the buyer beware,” but that was before the days of government-managed consumer protection. Caveat emptor is still the better attitude, not only regarding advertising or telemarketing, but also with respect to the long arm of the government itself.

Dare we entrust ourselves to the politicians and candidates to care for us? Let the buyer beware. Is it safe to put our heath and well-being into the hands of bureaucrats running a universal health care system? Let the buyer beware. Do you assume that the schools are properly teaching and caring for your children? Let the buyer beware. Are the roads safer today because of the growing number of taxes, fees, and fines the government collects from drivers, good and bad? Let the buyer beware. Is the government assuring our safety by keeping bad people out and allowing only prospect Americans in? Let the buyer beware.

The most frightening and distressing line in Allen’s review is this one: “Harsanyi seems to favor treating citizens like conscientious adults, even if they do not, in fact, have the information and education needed for responsible choices.” Pardon me for asking, incidentally, how American citizens came to lack “the information and education for responsible choices?” Let me think, could it have anything to do with the government-run public education system? That certainly gives me confidence that I want the same government looking after all my other needs.

This reminds me of the equally distressing discovery in a student’s ESL exercise on government, that I wrote about recently:

I was shocked to discover several misleading definitions. The worst was “right,” which was defined as “a power given by law or tradition.” This is NOT the definition of rights used by our forefathers.Every immigrant, refugee, and illegal alien enrolled in an American public school should learn American history and government. They should study the Declaration of Independence by actually reading and studying it. No one should ever teach them ideas that differ from “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Who in HELL (and I’m being literal, for this thinking comes straight from the pit!) is stupid enough to give a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians, who generally think first of themselves and their own futures, the responsibility to care for each of us 300 plus million individuals? Who in HELL dares to transfer the power from “we the people” to the government, in the first place?

Allen’s review ends with a discussion of how to determine the balance between what people need, for their own good, and limiting their freedom. I come down solidly on the libertarian side of that question. Freedom is not a government dispensed commodity; it is the inherent right of people who permit a government to carry out its strictly limited duties. We have allowed our American republic of self-governing citizens to become a self-empowering behemoth over which we may no longer have any real control, short of another revolution. Sadly, people like Allen, who dominate media, education, the Democratic and much of the Republican parties, and too much of the government either don’t know or don’t care about the very essence of our American heritage.

A family may choose to hire a nanny to assist the parents in caring for their children (although I personally think that parents should never trust delegate their responsibility to another, short of a catastrophic situation), but at some point, children become adults who no longer need a nanny. I find the very idea that government would come along and impose “nanny care,” on its entire population of adult citizens, offensive and contrary to commonsense. I also find it strangely ironic that, as the anti-establishment generation moves toward retirement, it now has become party to creating a “super-establishment” far more parental and intrusive than anything they rejected and protested back in the hippie era.

I for one do not need or want a bureaucratic "nanny" looking after me. I actually know my own needs better than some distant official, who couldn't possibly know or care about one of the 300 million people out here. Anyone who thinks that is the way to get quality care of any kind is a "ninny" to think so. If the American people allow this to play out, then we won't have a "nanny state;" we will be a "ninny state!"

Free Speech Abused, but Still Free!

2007-10-21T14:16:00.000-04:00

For many years, I have wondered why people who have diverse opinions and loyalties find it necessary to badmouth people who disagree with them. I like chocolate but you don’t; therefore, obviously, you must be an idiot. I enjoy folk music, buy you prefer country; without a doubt, your mother dropped you on your head as a child. Many have regarded politics and religion as controversial, even too contentious for polite social society, but that doesn’t explain name-calling as an alternative to reasoned conversation.

The latest case is Bill Maher (Beware, his rant is nasty!). Why does he feel it necessary to speak crudely about a group of people who, for the most part, are guilty of the sin of loving the United States? His offensive generalization reminds me of those who think flag-burning is a legitimate form of protest against the current government or a particular policy. I think it comes close to what I consider to be treason. He seems to place himself in the class of people who object to the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Personally, I rarely wear a lapel pin or put bumper stickers on my car. They aren’t my thing. I prefer to verbalize my opinions, but I respect those who have fewer words to say and choose to visualize rather than verbalize their opinions. An American flag is a symbol of “the republic for which it stands,” and displaying a flag shows support for this “one nation.” Berating such people and disrespecting the flag indicates anti-American attitudes, not anti-Bush or anti-Republican views. Mahr’s remark implies that only those who disagree with him sport lapel pin flags, even though he admits to wearing them, previously.

Mahr’s remarks suggest he prefers to discuss issues, but his very words discourage reasoned debate. He sites a litany of anti-Bush offenses and makes the assumption that anyone wearing a pin is a mindless Bush supporter. First of all, in the republic represented by the flag, people have the right to support the President, any or all of his policies, and those who carry them out, particularly troops on the battlefield. Flags have often been so displayed. Flags drape the coffins of those who die carrying out the will of the people as indicated by their election of a President, in this case a President who was re-elected after the beginning of the war Mahr opposes.

Apparently, one spark the ignited Mahr’s diatribe was a reporter asking why Barack Obama no longer wears a flag pin. Unlike myself, he had worn such a pin, as have all the other Presidential contenders, and stopped. By doing so, he was making a statement, in this case about the war in Iraq, which he strongly opposes. He’s a candidate, and no one should find the reactions surprising. Obama’s response was civil, even if I don’t agree with him. Mahr’s was not.

Many on the political Left share Mahr’s opinion and manner. They seem to want to have it both ways: “We hate the war and Bush, but we support the troops.” However, they are often people who advocate subverting U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, the U.S. Constitution to international opinion and America’s future to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, and Hugo Chavez. They even seem to have a begrudging admiration for tyrants like Fidel Castro, for the good old days of communism, and for the “religion of peace” of Osama bin Laden.

Bill Mahr has the privilege of a forum that this President is working to protect. Our enemies would not tolerate him; there is little opposition opinion or humor in repressive governments led by tyrants. Sharia, as imposed on populations by Islamic governments, would deal harshly with the likes of Mahr, Rosie O’Donnell, Hillary Clinton, and others; they have little tolerance for scatological humor, homosexuals, or women in leadership or even in public, although Bill Clinton might get a pass, as long as he preyed on non-Muslim women. Free speech, free media, free religious expression, and freedom from oppression if you’re black, gay, female, Jewish, Christian, or anything except a strictly observant Muslim simply wouldn’t exist. Communists and extreme Socialists are not much better, certainly as it relates to freedom of expression.

My original question still begs to be answered: “Why do people who have diverse opinions and loyalties find it necessary to badmouth people who disagree with them?” This is not uniquely an attitude of the Left, but it’s a counter-productive method, no matter what the opinions of its practitioners. Mahr is an entertainer as much as a commentator; perhaps he does it to amuse his audience. Personally, it encourages me not to watch him. More fundamentally, I suspect people use names, epithets, and crudity when they have little reason to offer, whether from lack of reasoning ability, from the lack of credible reasons, or merely faith that their reasons will hold up under scrutiny.

Cheap shots and name-calling tend to silence people, and that is their intent. The progressive Left is hell-bent on silencing its critics on talk radio with the Fairness doctrine, from the Senate floor, and endless through its mainstream media allies, whether the New York Times or Bill Mahr. The desire to silence disagreement is not merely on political issues; critics of global-warming orthodoxy or of evolution get similar treatment by the scientific community, who often also support a Leftist ideology. Animal rights activists, environmentalists, and the food police often use similar tactics in trying to silence the opposition rather than debate them openly.

In the end, those seeming to support and certainly enjoying the privilege of free speech prefer to reserve to themselves the right and to silence their adversaries and critics. They will use any means to prevent rational debate and impose their agenda. Mahr’s remarks on those who wear lapel pins is symptomatic of the larger attitude, one that is definitely not patriotic or American.