Argumentum Ad Hominem

Some time ago, I posted part of a "dialogue" I was having with someone who does not share my fiscally conservative views. This person and I continued our conversation through private messages. The conversation ranged from the merits or lack thereof of government funding for Planned Parenthood to gay marriage to whether education should be privatized.

 

This person, whom I considered to be a lifelong friend, began to get more and more personal in the attacks made against me. This person told me I was ignorant, angry, brought in the race element by pointing out that I'm white, and therefore couldn't possibly understand the plight of minorities, and said that I was intolerant because I have strongly held religious beliefs (none of which I demanded this person to accept). Our conversation finally concluded with this person saying I am a hypocrite because I have committed sins in my past. This person told me I was "absolutely ignorant" and that I simply would not understand the real issues at stake, and that there was nothing this person could do to help me because I refused to see the truth.

 

I pointed out that the personal attacks this person made against me had nothing to do with the topics at hand. I told the person that there was something this person could do, which was to prove my positions wrong. I asked the person either to offer facts, statistics, or logically sound arguments to prove my positions were wrong and to refrain from the personal attacks against me, or to end the conversation. This person ended not only the conversation, but our friendship, telling me that this person could not be friends with someone as ignorant, angry, and intolerant as I appeared to be to that person.

 

I bring this up, because I recently had another experience of someone with whom I was having a conversation about a political hot button. The person had posted a meme on facebook with the words, "If you are pro-life, why are you against universal healthcare?" I responded first by asking whether the person actually wanted an answer, or if he was just expressing himself. He said he would indeed welcome my thoughts on the matter. I responded (a summary) that I am both pro-life and against universal healthcare because there are other ways to make sure that people, and in particular pregnant women, receive healthcare other than universal healthcare, and that I feel those ways may be better. I pointed out that the debate about universal healthcare really isn't about whether people who are in need should receive healthcare, but about the best way to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it themselves. I'm copying and pasting his response to me here:

 

"Healthcare should be paid for by middle class and wealthy and anyone who can afford it. White people dont' want to pay for the insurance of anyone brown colored. Ironically, since most Americans claimed to be Christians, we aren't very Christian at all. It's all about discrimination, hate, and its passed on through the generations of families, a lot of the Christian families. The white person says, I'm not paying for a brown persons healthcare, but I sure will make it to church on Sunday. Even though my life is much better than most brown people. Even though my opportunities are far better than most brown people. My education, my family, my upbringing.......and thank you lord for all your blessings. But I'm not giving a damn dollar to that Mexican or that African."

So basically, his response is that any white Christian who opposes universal healthcare does so because the white Christian is racist.

 

In philosophy in the study of logic, this is called an ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, or an ad hominem attack. An argumentum ad hominem is a response in a debate in which a person does not respond to the actual point of the opponent, but responds instead with a personal attack against the opponent. It is recognized as a logical fallacy in the practice of debate, because the personal attack is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

 

In logic, the person promoting a point of view is irrelevant to whether the facts back up the point of view being expounded. In other words, if you were debating a mass murderer about the year that Christopher Columbus first sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, it is irrelevant that the person is a mass murderer. That doesn't change the fact that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." If the mass murderer stated that it was actually in 1495, and you responded, "Well, you’re a mass murderer, so what do you know?" Your response doesn't make him more wrong. If he correctly reports the year, pointing out that he is a mass murderer wouldn't change the fact that he is right. The personal attack is irrelevant to the argument.

 

This is important to remember in today's political discourse. The reason is because these types of attacks have become so commonplace that they are overlooked by nearly everyone. I remember finally getting fed up with being called racist during the 2008 election cycle. I have never supported Barack Obama. That's obvious to anyone who consistently reads this blog. It is not because I am racist. It is because I believe that the government is bound by the constitution, and therefore the powers of government are strictly limited, and therefore the government has way overreached its authority under both main political parties. It has nothing to do with race. I believe George W. Bush and his Republican cronies in their 8 years of office were just as guilty of this as Barack Obama and his Democrat cronies have been.

 

In 2008, I was a student at Lincoln University in the counseling graduate program, and the professor of one of my classes stated quite boldly, "If Barack Obama doesn't win the election, it's because of all the racists out there opposing him." I couldn't help myself. I pointed out that I oppose Obama, and I was fed up with being called a racist because I have a different philosophy of government. I also pointed out that those who oppose abortion based on the scientific fact that the embryo and fetus are human beings from the moment of conception are called mysogynists; those who oppose gay marriage due to deeply held religious beliefs about the nature of the human person and the role of gender in relationships are called homophobes; those who disagree with the "tolerant" are called ignorant and unenlightened.

 

This logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, has become so commonplace in our political discourse that we don't even realize when we've bought into it. It's sad really.

 

It's coming out now in the gun control debate. People in the liberal left media are making statements that those of us who believe in less gun regulation are paranoid and unhinged. This is an ad hominem attack. It is irrelevant that the FBI statistics and studies conducted by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security demonstrate that increased gun regulation has no effect on gun violence. The impression from the liberal left is that I'm just a paranoid, backwoods redneck for wanting to own a gun for personal defense. I might be a paranoid, backwoods redneck, but that is irrelevant to the facts of gun violence and its relationship to gun control laws.

 

The conservative side of the aisle is by no means innocent. You've got people like Anne Coulter out there writing books that characterize the liberals as "Demonic" and akin to terrorists. You've got people out there still casting stones at Obama by promoting the idea that he is a Muslim. Anne Coulter's name calling nad Obama's religious beliefs are irrelevant to the problems that face our nation right now. 

 

Getting past the rhetoric of the ad hominem attacks is hard, because they are so many and so deeply ingrained into the political discourse. It takes a high level of critical thinking to separate the two. For example, in the facebook response I quoted above, that person truly believes that the reason “white Christians” don't support universal healthcare is because white Christians are racist. For him, these two are so intimately intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It takes a high level of critical thinking skill to see that the means by which healthcare should be funded is a separate topic from racism. It also takes a high level of critical thinking skill to see that even if a person is racist, the person’s own prejudices are irrelevant to the facts of what universal healthcare does to a national healthcare system, whether or not our government is financially able to sustain a universal healthcare system, and what effect a universal healthcare system would have on the quality of health service an individual would receive.

 

Until we all stop attacking each other, and start focusing on the actual issues, there won't be any progress made in the problems that face our nation today. We have been too busy slinging mud to do anything really constructive.

 

How sad if this is all we have left.

My Thoughts on Gun Control

In August, 2010, a man holding a gun went into Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN. He was confronted by the school resource officer, Carolyn Gudger, who pulled her weapon and held him at bay. Other Sullivan County Sheriff Deputies arrived. When the gunman was cornered, he made an aggressive move with his weapon toward Officer Gudger, and was promptly shot to death by the officers at hand. Other than the shooter, no one was killed.

In December, 2012 (2 days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary), a man went into a restaurant in San Antonio, TX with a gun. He began shooting. People fled into the movie theater adjacent to the restaurant, followed by the shooter. The shooter ran into the bathroom. An off duty Buxar County sheriff deputy was working security at the movie theater. She followed the man into the bathroom, where she shot him. Two people were shot (including the shooter), but no one was killed.

On January 4, 2013, a woman in Loganville, GA was at home with her 9 year old twins when she noticed from an upstairs window a man trying to get into her home. She took her children and hid in a crawl space. The man broke into her home with a crow bar, and eventually found her and her children in the crawl space. She shot him with the .38 caliber handgun she was holding. She fired 5 rounds before escaping with her children. Her husband, with whom she had been on the phone during the entire incident, called 9-1-1 from his office, and heard his wife shoot the man. Police arrived, and took the man to the hospital. No one was killed.

Gun control has been in the news a lot lately. It was sparked by the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut, in which a young man went into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children. This story has a very strong emotional impact on us. I remember the day it happened. I was working at home when I heard there had been another school shooting. I was in my car later that afternoon listening to the news when I learned the full scope. I was on my way to pick up my kindergartner from his school, and I wept thinking of my own son.

Incidents like Sandy Hook, Columbine, the shootings at Virginia Tech, the theatre shooting in Aurora, CO, and the attempt on Representative Gabby Giffords’s life are highly emotionally charged. The conversation about gun control, however, cannot be one that is based on emotions. All of these incidents are anecdotal. They can neither be used to provide support for stricter gun control nor as reasons why less gun control would be advantageous, because not one of these single incidents tells the whole story. If we’re going to have a legitimate conversation about gun control, we need to be aware of the facts.

Factcheck.org did a great piece reporting statistics and taking on the exaggerated claims made by both sides of the argument. According to Factcheck’s valid research, the number of gun murders was down in 2010 (2011 statistics were not yet available). As a matter fact the number of gun murders, 3.59 people per 100,000 people, was at its lowest since 1981. Likewise, gun aggravated assault was at its lowest rate since 2004 at 50.8 people suffering a gun aggravated assault out of every 100,000 people. Robberies that involved a gun were also down at their lowest rate since 2004, at 45.8 per 100,000 people.  At the same time, gun ownership and gun manufacturing have both increased in recent history. That means there are more people owning guns in the United States than ever before, but fewer guns being used for murder, assault and robbery.

These statistics support those who say that low levels of gun control is a more reasonable stance.

Nonfatal gun injuries during assault have increased in the United States, being at their highest rate since 2008. 17.8 people per 100,000 were nonfatally wounded in an assault involving a gun in 2011. What this means is that while it is less likely due to the decrease in gun aggravated assaults reported above that you will be involved in an assault in which a gun is used, if you are, it is more likely that you will be injured in the event. The total number of events has decreased, but the incidents are becoming more violent. In 2010, there was an increase in suicides involving the use of a gun, reaching its highest rate since 1998. In 2010, 6.28 people per 100,000 killed themselves using guns.

It’s definitely a mixed bag.

There’s two important points in Factcheck’s article that I think bear repeating.

1.       The argument that concealed-carry laws reduce crime is dubious. The fact is that in states and counties where concealed carry is allowed, crime has gone down. The problem is that crime is down universally, even in states and counties that do not allow concealed carry. There is insufficient evidence to make the causal claim that concealed carry causes crime to decrease. In other words, allowing concealed carry may have an effect, but it is too difficult given the fact that crime is down universally to show that concealed carry causes the decrease. Statistically, you can say that places that have allowed concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime. Statistically, you can also say that places that do not allow concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime.

2.       The second point is that the claim that increased access to guns would cause an increase in crime is simply wrong. In places where gun access has been further deregulated (guns are more accessible), there has still been the reduction in crime that we discuss in point number 1. Allowing greater access to guns does not increase gun crime.

I think there is an important question to ask when considering a gun law that limits a person’s 2^nd amendment right to own and bear arms: Will this law have the effect that is intended?

The shooter in Sandy Hook had a history of hospitalizations and mental health problems. There is currently legislation that precludes those who have a similar history from owning or using guns. He didn’t own the guns. He stole them. The existing gun law preventing him from having guns did not deter the crime.

Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the United States. The so called “assault weapon” that the shooter had in his possession at the time of the shooting was actually illegal to buy, sell or own in Connecticut. His mother possessed that gun illegally. Again, he stole it from her. The existing gun law did not prevent his mother from buying and owning the gun. The existing gun law did not deter him from using it. The existing gun law had no effect on the crime.

The shooter in New York who set his house on fire to lure authorities to his home and then shot two firemen was not allowed to own guns due to his criminal history. He manipulated his neighbor’s daughter into buying the guns for him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he used. The existing gun laws did not deter him from obtaining and using the weapons.

In Columbine, it was illegal for those teenage boys to have the guns they used in the shooting. The existing gun laws (again, Colorado has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S., and this event occurred while the so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect), did not deter this tragedy.

The shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of disruptive and bizarre behavior. He had a history of mental illness, but under Virginia law at the time, it was not reportable to the information bureau that would have alerted those who performed background checks during the purchase of guns. The sellers were not alerted to his possible mental health problems. Since then, the laws have been tightened in Virginia concerning this.

Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Gifford and 18 others, killing 6, bought his firearm legally from a business, not an independent, private dealer. That means he had to have submitted to a background check that failed to recognize his prior legal problems, including misdemeanor drug use charges. Loughner had never submitted to a mental health evaluation, although anyone familiar with his history can easily recognize the symptoms of the onset of schizophrenia in his history. He had no history of violence, only bizarre and occasionally disruptive behavior. Arizona has some of the most liberal gun laws in the U.S., but it was illegal for him to carry the weapon into that mall. The existing gun laws, such as they were, did not deter his actions.

James Holmes, the shooter in the Aurora, CO theater owned his guns legally and handled them legally, until he took them into the theatre, where he was not allowed to have them. He had no prior history of mental health treatment and no prior history of violent crime. Do we discriminate on who can own a weapon and who can’t based on the possibility that the person might do something illegal with the guns? How do we make that determination?

Instead, we have 2 primary types of legislation that people want to introduce. The first is legislation that will make it more difficult for people to obtain guns, for example, by tightening the process of background checks. That doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. It didn’t work for the shooter in Connecticut. It didn’t work for the shooter in New York. It didn’t work for the teenagers at Columbine High School. The laws would also create greater restrictions on the purchase of guns at gun shows from private vendors, a method which does not require background checks. Notice that none of the guns used in any of these crimes were purchased from private vendors. They were all originally purchased through sellers who would have had to run a background check on the buyer. Laws don’t matter to criminals, or those intent on doing evil. They will get around those laws. Making it harder for people to get guns isn’t effective in deterring gun crime.

The second type of gun control legislation proposed is based on the type of gun, making it illegal to own certain types of guns. For example, some say we should ban “assault weapons.” I would like to know, from someone who believes this, what their definition of an “assault weapon” is. It’s obvious to me that many people who are proposing to ban certain types of weapons don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to guns.

To get really, really, REALLY basic, you have 3 types of guns: revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons. I’m sorry for all my gun expert friends out there, because I know that’s not all there is.

Owning a fully automatic weapon is illegal in the United States. What that means is that if you legally purchase a gun in the U.S., it is either going to be a revolver or a semi-automatic. You can have a semi-automatic handgun, more commonly known as a pistol, or a semi-automatic rifle. Functionally speaking, no matter what the gun looks like, there is no difference in the mechanism of operation between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle. What does it mean that the gun, handgun or rifle, is a semi-automatic? Basically that means that when you pull the trigger one time, one bullet is fired, and the next bullet is fed into the chamber. Semi-automatics do not fire several rounds with 1 trigger pull. You have to pull the trigger each time you fire the weapon. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet.

Banning so-called “assault weapons” is to ban a gun, not on its functionality (it works through the same mechanism as every other gun), nor on its lethality (I don’t think it would matter if you got shot in the head with a handgun or a rifle), but on its looks. That’s it. This gun looks scary, so let’s call it an assault weapon.

The argument that a person can fire with a high capacity clip 30 rounds in less than a minute is ridiculous to anyone who owns a gun. I own semi-automatic pistols. With normal capacity clips of 7 rounds, I can fire a full clip, pop it, replace it, and be ready to fire in 15 seconds or less. My normal clips hold 7 rounds, but with the first clip I usually hold 7 rounds and 1 in the chamber (for a total of 8 in the first clip). That means in 60 seconds, with normal capacity clips, I can fire at least 29 rounds, probably more if I didn’t care about aim. High capacity clips do not make a gun more dangerous. A gun is only as dangerous as the person who is holding it.

And that’s the crux of the matter. Gun control isn’t about controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. Nobody, including gun owners, wants guns in the hands of bad guys. The fact is that guns are going to be in the hands of bad guys no matter what laws are passed. That’s what makes them bad guys. They don’t follow the laws. So by making gun ownership harder, impinging on the right of the people to bear arms, we take the guns out of the hands of people who are responsible, law abiding citizens, like me, who keeps his guns under lock and key when I’m not carrying or using them at the firing range.

One can see that the issue is not as simple as creating more gun laws that will be disregarded by those intent on doing harm. It’s also not as simple as creating more databases that people can get around, or that are ineffective against those who would not meet the criteria for a red flag. A better conversation to have is about mental illness.

How these shooters got their guns is not the common denominator.

What types of guns these shooters had is not the common denominator.

That all of these shooters had mental illness in varying types and degrees is the common denominator.

So why aren’t we talking more about mental illness, since that’s what really linked all of these shooters?

When I was thinking about getting a gun for protection, I talked to a retired police officer about it. He told me something I’ll never forget. He said, “The question you need to ask yourself before you buy a gun is whether or not you would be able to kill another human being. The time to decide that you can’t do that is not when you are standing in front of a person who has broken into your home and you have the gun pointed at him. If you decide at that moment that you can’t pull the trigger, then you’ve just given that guy your gun, and he’ll use it on you. Before you buy the gun, decide whether or not you will be able to use it.”

I made that decision. If someone threatens the safety of Lesley and my children, I’ll shoot him. I have no doubt in my mind. Not everyone can say the same. Those who don’t make the same decision as me, that’s fine. I have no problem with you deciding that you do not want to own a gun. You take your chances on the situation. I will use my gun to defend my family.

I will keep my gun to defend my family no matter what laws are passed. Bottom line. It’s used so often that it’s become cliché, but I can’t get around it: “If you outlaw guns, you will make law-abiding gun owners outlaws.” I don’t want to be an outlaw, but I will be. If I have to make the choice between defending my family and letting them be victims of a crime, I will always choose defending my family.

There is so much more that can be said, and I’m willing to have the conversation with anyone who wants to have it, but this is my stance.

I have the right to defend myself with a gun. It’s guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment. I will not give up that right. I hope and literally pray that I will never have to use my gun. I will not hesitate to do so if I have to protect my family.

A Call to the Church: Reflecting on This Sunday's Readings

“Rise up in splendor, Jerusalem!”

This weekend’s readings are a wakeup call to the Church. The Solemnity of the Epiphany is when we celebrate the revelation of Jesus Christ to the world.

The 3 Magi in the readings of today represent the world. The Magi weren’t Jewish; they were foreigners from the east. For the readers millennia ago, the Magi would have been exotic, unknown, coming from the parts of the world that were barely known.  They, though, were the ones who first recognized the full significance of the coming of Jesus. They brought him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Only rulers were rich enough to own gold. The gift of gold is recognition that Jesus would be king. The frankincense was used in the practice of sacrifice of animals in the ancient religions, a very practical way to cover up the smell of burning flesh in the altar fires. Giving Jesus frankincense was a recognition that Jesus would be priest. Myrrh is a balm, a perfumed oil that was often used in the preparation of bodies for burial. Just as the incense reveals that Jesus would be the priest offering the sacrifice, the myrrh reveals that Jesus would be the sacrificial victim that is offered. In his life, he is King, Priest, and Sacrifice.

The Magi came from worlds away to this little nowhere town, not really knowing that it was Jesus they were seeking, but knowing what it was they were hoping to find: a king who would give them piece, a priest who would advocate for them to the Almighty God, and a victim that would be sacrificed for the forgiveness of their sins.

Why is this a wakeup call to the Church? The last command that Jesus gave to this disciples was to go out into the all the world and make disciples of all nations. How do we do that?

We “rise up in splendor!” Whenever we hear the Old Testament readings, and we hear references to Israel or Jerusalem or God’s Holy People, these are foreshadowings of the Church. The prophets are calling us to “rise up in splendor.”

Here’s the Truth, Church: we have Jesus. Jesus is the Light of the World. When we live in Him, He radiates from us, and draws people to himself. By shining in the splendor of Jesus, we draw people to him, people who will come, not really knowing that it is Jesus they are seeking. They come looking for something that will bring peace to their lives. They come looking for someone who they feel like is on their side. They come looking for forgiveness, even if they don’t realize yet that it is forgiveness that they seek.

So how are we to shine? First, and above all else, by being the beautiful Christian that God has recreated in the new life we find in Jesus. In Christ, you are a new creation. In Christ, you are beautiful. In Christ, you have the strength to meet the challenges of life. In Christ, you have the knowledge that the sufferings of this life are not the end of the world. In Christ, you have the peace that surpasses understanding. In Christ, you are beautiful. Be beautiful, and your beauty of heart and soul will draw people, just as surely as the star drew the Magi. When they come to you, and they will, drawn by your other-worldly beauty, you will show them Jesus.

We also shine by our sincerity of worship. I think sometimes our Sunday celebrations do more to drive people away from the Church than lead people to worship. What message is heard on Sundays? Not just the words that are prayed or preached. There is message and there is meta-message. The message is what is prayed and preached. The meta-message is what is actually communicated. Do people come and experience a community centered on Christ, and truly lifting their hearts up to him? Or do people come and experience a community that is there because that’s just what we do on Sunday mornings? Do visitors experience a people fully participating in worship and offering sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving? Or do visitors experience a people who are wondering why they go to Church because they just don’t get anything out of it anymore? This extends to our priests and leaders in worship, too. Does the congregation gathered experience a leader in worship who is sincere in his prayers, or someone who is just mindlessly reading words or reciting the same things over and over?

Our Sunday worship is a wonderful opportunity to be beautiful together, to experience the Lord shining upon us, the Lord’s glory appearing over us. It doesn’t have to be anything fancy. Jesus was a baby in Bethlehem and Nazareth. These two towns were dumps. The Magi weren’t drawn to the palaces of the king or to the wonder of the temple. They were drawn to Jesus.

This weekend’s readings are a call to the Church. We have Jesus. Are we drawing the world, or our neighbors, to him?

We Went Over the Cliff A Long Time Ago

I haven't written anything highly political in a long time, but I feel compelled to write something about the so-called "fiscal cliff" our government just drove over last night, taking us with them like the proverbial Thelma and Louise.

The problem that I think most people don't understand is that we went over the fiscal cliff a long time ago, but we just didn't realize it. We didn't realize it for a couple of reasons. The first is that the amounts of money we are talking about simply are unimaginable to us. One Trillion dollars...what is that really? $1,000,000,000,000.00. Can you really imagine that? Multiply it by 16, nearly 17 now since that is our national debt. What does that number mean to you? It's too big to be concrete.

The second reason is that we haven't felt it the size of this national debt yet, really. I mean, as long as credit is available, then we can keep spending what we as a nation are currently spending, and no one feels the pinch. But this is unsustainable. The problem is, we really don't understand that it is unsustainable until we can no longer obtain the things for which we are paying.

The third is that the dollar has been divorced from its value. A long time ago, the dollar was separated from "the gold standard." The gold standard was when this amount of gold was worth this amount of dollars. The government only printed as much paper money as there was gold to back it up. This is no longer the case. Now the government prints paper money without reference to any other object of value. The dollar has itself become the object value against which we measure the dollar.

I think it is important to put these ideas into concrete, understandable terms.

Let's say that a married couple's income is approximately $5,000 per month. That would give this couple an annual income of $60,000.00. This would make them a middle class family. Let's say they are spending, on average, $7,500 per month. So they are spending what they take in plus another 50% of their earnings. In order to sustain this, they are borrowing $0.50 of every dollar they earn. They get this through multiple credit cards. They are making payments on the credit cards, but they are only paying the credit card payments, but only the expected minimum payment, so they continue to borrow from their credit cards more each month than they are paying.

The couple realize this is unsustainable, so they start discussing means to address the budgeting issue. They decide they need to increase their income, so they get extra jobs. This increases their income from $5,000 per month to $5,800 per month. But with the extra revenue, they decide they can increase their spending to $8,000 per month. They've increased their revenue by $800 per month, and their spending by only $500 per month, and so they decide to call this a spending cut.

You might say, "Well, that's just insane!" Yes, it is. But that's the way our government has been operating for decades. When you hear the phrase "spending cut" come out of politician's mouth, their not talking about spending less money. They're saying the increase in spending was not as much as the last increase in spending. In other words 2 years ago, they spent 100 billion dollars on something. Last year, they spent 150 billion dollars on the same thing. This year, they will spend 175 billion dollars on it, and that's a spending cut, because the price increased by only 25 billion, instead of 50 billion like the year before.

George Orwell, in his landmark and prescient novel 1984 called this double think and double speak. It's insane, but that's what's been happening, and people don't realize it.

Anyone with any sense whatsoever can see that this is absolutely insane and unsustainable. It doesn't make any difference to our married couple, though, because with the extra income they realize they are eligible for increased credit limits on those credit cards. It won't affect the couple until they can no longer afford everything they are buying. When the credit dries up, and the only money they have is the money they are earning, that's when they will realize that their scheme isn't working. But by then, they will have racked up so much debt that they will need to pay back. Out of their incomes of $5,800, they will have to make credit payments of $3,000 per month, leaving them with only $2,800.00 per month to spend on necessities.

For some reason, people don't see that this is exactly what the government of the United States is doing. Eventually, the credit will run dry. When will that happen? Who knows? When we are 20 trillion dollars in debt? 25 Trillion? Right now, the national debt is so high that if we taxed everyone in the United States for every penny that they earn, we could not pay off the national debt. Our debt has now reached a level that is higher than our national income.

This won't affect us, though, until the credit dries up. When that happens, all of those people who are dependent on government for income and health care will be the ones left out on the streets. The rich will take their money and flee the country, because they can. And the middle class will be caught paying the bill for the uncontrolled spending of the government. It could be my children. It could be my grandchildren, but eventually, someone will have to pay it back, or the country we live in withour freedoms and opportunities will no longer exist. That makes scared for my children. Terrified, actually. That's why this is so important to me.

The finances of our government is not a revenue problem. Our government, through taxes, is one of the highest ranking revenue generators on earth. President Obama's plan to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year is a joke. That would raise enough money to fund our government for an extra 8 to 9 days. The problem is a spending a problem. Until we do real budget cuts, and stop spending more than we take in, the problem will not get better.

I'm desparate. I'll admit it. The direction of our nation's fiscal management has been wrong for decades. My children will not live in the America that I grew up in, and that fills me with a grief that can't be spoken.

Terrorists in far away lands are dangerous. No doubt. The greatest risk to the American way of life, though, is not from terrorists who want to kill us. The greatest risk to the American way of life is an uncontrolled government. What makes me more sad than anything, though, is that we have allowed this to happen. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

That means, through the ballot box, we have given the politicians permission to destroy us from within.

It also means, through the ballot box, we can take that permission back.

I just hope that it's not too late.

We Do It Backwards

I've been reading a lot of posts on Facebook lately about people taking their Christmas decorations down and feeling sad but relieved that "the holidays are over."

Ummm, the holidays aren't over.

The first such post I saw was the day after Christmas. I thought, "Holy cow! Christmas had just started, and this person is ready for it to be gone."

We do it backwards. I've noticed that most people put their Christmas decorations up on that magical day after Thanksgiving or even more wondrous December 1 (or the Sunday nearest it). This is usually before the season of Advent is even started. Stores start putting out their Christmas baubles for sale in August. No wonder by the time Christmas Day arrives, we are suffering severe "holiday fatigue" and are just ready for it to be over. On Christmas Day, though, the true purpose of Christmas and its celebration is only beginning.

As Catholics, and some of the non-Catholic churches, too, we lament the secularization of Christmas: "Make sure to keep the 'Christ' in 'Christmas," and "I'll say 'Merry Christmas', not 'Happy Holidays', thank you very much." As Christians, we bemoan the commercialization of Christmas: "Remember, Jesus is the reason for the season, not presents and Santa Claus." Yet, so many of us participate in this secularization of Christmas by aligning our celebration of the Birth of Jesus with the secular "Holiday Season," and not with our Church's calendar.

You see, for the four weeks prior to Christmas Eve, we are not in "Christmas" yet. As Catholics, and some of the major Christian denominations, we are in the season of Advent. This season is about Joyful Anticipation for the coming of Jesus. I used to get so mad at the monks of Conception Abbey when I was a student there, because they would not let us put up Christmas decorations on campus prior to the winter break. By the time break was over, so was the Christmas season, and we could not decorate for Christmas at all. Now I realize the spiritual maturity of that practice. What the monks were trying to teach us was to align our celebration of the holidays (these "HOLY DAYS") with the Church, instead of with the secular culture.

This is something we've had to compromise in our house. My preference would be that we do not put out any decorations for Christmas until Christmas Eve. Yeah. Right. You try to stop Lesley from putting out Christmas decorations. I've caught her listening to "The Carpenter's for Christmas" in July! She's unstoppable. The compromise that we made early in our relationship is that the Christmas decorations would remain out until the Somnity of the Epiphany. (For my non-Catholic readers, that is when the Catholic Church celebrates the coming of the Magi who reverenced the Christ Child as King [gold], Priest [incense], and Sacrificial Victim [myrrh].) Our Christmas decorations stay up until the Church's Christmas Season is over, usually 2 Sundays after Christmas. If I had my drothers, I would leave them up until the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, 3 Sundays after Christmas, but hey, marital comprimise.

I think this is something we need to start taking seriously, if we want to re-evangelize our culture, and make Christmas a Christian holiday again. We need to stop submitting to the secular calendar of the "Holiday Season," and begin aligning our prayer and our activities with the Christian "Christmas Season." There are some simple ways to do this.

1. And this one is good for the whole year round: Integrate the readings of Mass with our personal prayer. I know that many, many Catholics spend time each day with the scriptures. As Catholics (and truly all Christians), our private, personal prayer and communal, ecclesial prayer are supposed to flow from and feed in to each other. One of the simplest ways to do that is to read the scriptures for Mass each day. It takes only a few minutes, and the readings are published in so many different places, "I don't know what the readings are," really is no excuse. There is even an app for it on your smart phone, iMissal. I frame my personal prayer with the scriptures. I read the scriptures for the daily Mass to begin my daily personal prayer. Then I spend time in quiet meditation and then I say a rosary. Then I end my daily, private prayer by listening to God speak in the scriptures for the upcoming Sunday Mass. By the time Sunday comes, I've heard the scriptures for Mass 7 times (Monday through Sunday) already. The way I do this is just one way to do it. Find your own way in your own prayer to spend time each day with the scriptures of the Mass. You will find that your life begins to align naturally with the celebrations of the Church calendar throughout the year.

2. Slow down during Advent. Advent is a time of waiting, anticipation, patience and quiet. Maybe we should all start a practice of not having holiday gatherings until after Christmas Day. Feeling the darkness of Advent by withholding a lot of the lights is an interesting idea. The reason Christmas was assigned to December 25 was not because it is actually Jesus's birthday. By all indications in the scriptures, Jesus was most probably born in the springtime. The earliest Christians evangelized a pagan holiday which celebrated the triumph of light over darkness, when the days started becoming longer. Jesus is the Light of the World, who came into the world to banish darkness. The earliest Christians evangelized the Pagans by "Christianizing" this Roman festival, using it to teach people that Jesus is the Light who has overcome the darkness. Spending Advent in quiet darkness is a good way to give the season of waiting for the Light it's true meaning.

3. Have your holiday get togethers after Christmas. In some of the Orthodox Traditions, gifts aren't given on Christmas at all, but on the Solemnity of the Epiphany. This is to commemorate the gifts of the Magi given to Jesus. Instead of getting together with family and friends the weeks prior to Christmas day to celebrate "Christmas", let's wait until the weekend after Christmas. Let's celebrate gift giving in the Light of the gift of God the Father, Jesus. We might say, "Oh, but who has the time after Christmas?" Why are the days seemingly more condensed after Christmas? Probably because we've already been celebrating for weeks, and are just tired. Putting the celebrations of Christmas off until after Christmas might make the days seem less hectic.

The bottom line is, if we are truly to re-evangelize our culture in an attempt to restore the meaning of Christmas, then we need to think about how we celebrate it. Are we aligning ourselves with the secular calendar, or with the Christian calendar? What are we doing prior to the celebration of the Christian holy days? Is December 25 the beginning of the celebration of the Birth of Jesus that we continue for several weeks, or is it the end of a tiresome, busy, hectic December that we're actually glad to see gone?

In short, while we pay lip service to "the true meaning of Christmas," do we truly celebrate it as Christians?

I Just Want To Be Free

 Here's the situation: Me and a liberal friend (yes, I can have those), have been going back and forth on Facebook. First, what you will see is her response to a comment that I made. Then you will see my response. I'm posting this here because my response was too long for Facebook to publish in the comments. First, my friend's comment (warning, she uses the "f" word if you are sensitive to that):

Oh Jamie, I love you and will always love you. Of course this is going to be a heated debate, I disagree with you on ever level babe. You just don't get it and won't. You are delusional and think all of mankind is equal, equal in thought, equal in ability to maintain self and others, equal physically, mentally, intellectually. You want an Ozzie and Harriet world that never existed to begin with. I could easily refute all of your claims with numbers and facts but it won't change your mind anymore than you will change mine. I know you are as passionate about your beliefs as I am mine. I just happen to think I am on the human interest side of this while you truly come across as the me, mine, and ours view to me. That is not to say I don't enjoy a good debate and will always listen to you I just won't agree with you. Perhaps I worded my comment poorly as I didn't mean you equated the KKK with PP, you did however equate them in funding and that is just silly, the KKK is a hate group plain and simple while PP is an organization that does NOT promote abortion, they support women's heath, plain and simple and if abortion is a choice a woman makes then they have a place to assist them through PP and other organizations and I am thrilled there are places for such women to go. The bottom line Jamie is that govt is necessary and your idea of privatizing everything on the planet is a clear plan for disaster and would do little more than to increase the already huge divide between the haves and have nots, that is no recipe for healing for growth, that is a recipe for chaos simply because "your" group would maintain a one thought order while "my" group would maintain an opportunity for all regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. Religion has no place in politics and will never have a place and I, for one, am very grateful that we have a gov't that will see to that (in the constitution I think, wink). Any organization that offers a service with an agenda such as your woman's health group is dangerous to me, while organization such as PP who's ONLY agenda is to provide safe and affordable healthcare to those that need it regardless of their beliefs is the only way to go. You need to admit it, you want everyone to think as you, live as you, have the same standards as you.....that will never happen, we are all entitled to our beliefs and still be allowed the same quality of service whether that be health, food, education, roads, you name it and we all have to pay for it, that is how the world works, plain and simple. And as for the quality of education in this country, we could argue for eons, it is the republican agenda that has fucked up education with all their accountability measures that have to date produced nothing more than a cheating system to appease the ignorant while continuing to ruin what once was a respected field and without quality education this country doesn't stand a chance. The republican party claims to want more quality education but on their terms and with certain schools of thought to be used only, that is a most dangerous path to go down. Give people knowledge of all and allow them to make their own choices, indoctrination has never worked to the good of the world as a whole, take a look at the middle east. We are and will remain a leading nation because we are a caring nation that while isn't perfect we still stand for freedom of thought, freedom to choose, and thank goodness for that. You don't have to support everyone's views but "your" group needs to stop wanting to control everyone's actions, thoughts, and desires. It's simple Jamie, you get the same opportunities I do and even the idiot KKK member is entitled to their twisted belief system, we don't deny someone's basic needs just because we disagree with their use of resources. As to all the funding issues and debt we are in, you have no where to look but the republican that caused this, Bush, plain and simple. That idiot team took this country into the toilet and we are barely starting to climb our way out of it and it will take a hell of a lot of time and yes, TAXES. As to our arguing, don't stop, well maybe on this one lol...but I am always up for a debate and can still love you in spite of the fact you ARE an angry old white dude....lol. Just kidding, chillax. You say that everyone needs to get back to taking care of themselves and stop taking hand outs, back at ya, take care of you and allow others to do the same for themselves and stop asking people to believe as you do, you want to punish those that don't follow your religious or personal beliefs while I want for all to have basic needs regardless of how they feel about abortion, gay rights, God, Ninja Turtles, or even Big Bird!

 

 

Here's my response:

 

Ok. Here we go: First, I’m going to ask you to refrain from statements like, “You think…” and, “You want…” and, “You believe…” These kind of statements do two things. 1. They express what you think that I think and what you believe that I believe, not what I really think and believe. So really, these statements are more about your biases and prejudices than anything else. 2. They prevent us from having a real conversation about the ideas and principles that differentiate us, because you have prejudged what I say based on your biases against conservatives. We cannot have a conversation if you are not going to hear what I am actually saying.

 

Secondly, I would like to explain briefly the philosophical foundation of my thinking. My fundamental principle is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Anything that involves freedom also involves responsibility. We simply cannot have one without the other. Having the freedom to choose something means that I am responsible for the consequences of my choice. If I decide to hand responsibility to someone or something else, I lose my freedom to choose. I have to do what the one or the thing to whom I gave responsibility wants me to do, because it is they, not me, who will have the consequences. Two examples: Thannie’s pulmonologist, who manages the damage done to his lungs after his initial trauma, has decided that Thannie should have the RSV vaccine, Synagis. It is a round of shots, one set per month, for 6 months, to guard him from serious pulmonary disease during the cold and flu season. The doctor says it is absolutely necessary that he should have this. The insurance company, to whom we have given responsibility to pay for our health care by paying our monthly premiums, disagrees. The insurance company will not cover it. The cost for this round of shots is $12,000.00. So we either have to forego the shots, or pay for them ourselves, or find another way to get them. We pay for insurance to make them responsible for paying for medical costs. We have given that responsibility to our insurance company, therefore we lose a certain level of freedom in choosing our healthcare. Luckily, we have found another way to provide these shots to Thannie, so he is going to get them. The point is we want the freedom to give him the medical care the doctor believes is necessary, so we have to be responsible in having it paid for, one way or another. We took that responsibility and found a way through the generosity of the company who is going to provide the shots. If that hadn’t worked out, we’d be paying $12,000.00 for them. Freedom and responsibility. We want to choose what healthcare our children receive, so we need to pay for it. One would think, well, with government healthcare, we wouldn’t have to worry about that. That’s not the case. I worked with a client who was denied treatment for Hepatitis because the panel that makes decisions for Medicaid/Medicare recipients had decided that for the class of patient in which my client belonged, the benefit of the treatment did not justify the cost. The difference was this client of mine had no other options for paying for it. She had given responsibility to Medicaid/Medicare for paying for her healthcare (like we did our insurance company), and so lost the freedom to choose what healthcare treatments she could receive. I could give you many more examples in different areas, including housing, health, and food, but this would be a lot longer. Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated. If we want freedom, we must take responsibility. That is the foundation of all of my political philosophy.

 

Now, to some of your specific points. I’m not sure why you, who are “pro-choice,” have such a venomous attitude towards organizations like the Pregnancy Help Center (PHC). Allow me to explain to you what the PHC does. When women come to us, we welcome them. We do an assessment as to what their needs are. Then we offer them directly or make a referral to a place where their needs can be met. We offer directly mental health and social work support. We offer them directly clothing and food for both them and their baby. We make referrals for housing, healthcare, and other things that we cannot provide directly. We do this with a loving and nonjudgmental attitude with the idea that if a woman’s needs are met for material, social and emotional support, then it would remove the reasons she would feel she needs to have an abortion. If a woman chooses, after meeting with us, that abortion is the best choice for her, we do not stop her. We will not refer her to an abortion provider, because that violates our religious belief, but since you believe in religious tolerance, I’m sure you don’t have a problem with that since she can find abortion providers without our help. We do not deny abortion services or seek to have abortions made illegal. We provide a service to women directly, without asking for government support, hoping to stop 1 abortion at a time by offering a woman a choice when she feels there is no other alternative. I’m not out to convince the world that abortion is wrong.  I believe that abortion is wrong, and I put that belief into action by helping women who are in unplanned pregnancies, and hopefully prevent an abortion by helping them get what they need so they don’t feel that they need to choose to end their pregnancy. If they make that choice, I’m not going to stop them, but because I believe it is wrong, I’m not going to help them either. That’s true tolerance. They are free to act in a way that they think is right. I am free to act according to my conscience. I would imagine that you who are pro-choice can’t have a problem with us offering a woman an alternative to abortion as one of the possible choices for her to make. Why is that so wrong to you?

 

It’s actually ironic to me that you say that “my” group would support “a one thought order”, while your group would not, specifically in the instance of privatizing education. You are the one who is advocating a one school system run by the government, and you bemoan the fact that the government then puts regulations on education. Remember, we cannot have freedom without responsibility. If you want the government to provide education, then the government has the authority to decide on standards, curriculum, and every other aspect of education. You cannot expect the government to take responsibility for providing education, and then allow schools to be free to do what they want. You cannot give up responsibility and keep your freedom. Privatizing education would allow everyone the freedom to choose the education they want their children to have. If a person is an agnostic, they could send their child to a secular school where religion is not included in the curriculum. If a person is Christian, the person could choose to send their children to a Christian academy. Privatizing education actually allows people to send their children to a school where they feel the values they want their children to learn would be taught. The “one-size-fits-all” public, government regulated education system that you value does not allow for that kind of diversity. Children aren’t allowed to pray openly in their school if they choose freely to do so. Christian children with traditional beliefs about marriage, for example, are often forced into sex education classes that teach that they should be accepting of things that contradict their traditional values. Why is it that tolerance only applies to those who agree with the liberal agenda? With the public, government education system in place, many people do not have a choice as to where to send their children, and so are forced to send their children to schools that teach things that violate their personal beliefs. Of course, giving this greater freedom in education would mean greater responsibility, especially in terms of funding. People would have to pay their children’s schools directly, rather than having their taxes go to the state and local governments to be divided among schools that they may not even utilize. It would remove state authority over education. What would ensure educational excellence is the competition that would exist between schools. Lesley and I took the choice of schools very seriously, knowing we would not be using the public schools. We chose St. Peter’s because of its reputation for being so strong academically. Competition between the private schools creates the drive to be the very best school, because most (not all, but most) would want to send their children to the school where their children will receive the best education. Competition between the schools would also ensure lower costs. Private education is expensive, but we would not have to pay property taxes to support schools anymore. Lesley and I and you currently pay taxes to support a broken, dysfunctional (even you say so) educational system that we don’t utilize. Lesley and I don’t use it because we use the private schools. You don’t use it because you don’t have children. Privatizing education would mean that people would only pay for the school they are using. Why should we be paying for a public service that we don’t even use? You can look at the Catholic and secular private school system in St. Louis as a model. Some are more expensive than others. The ones that are most expensive offer multiple scholarships to ensure that if a child is academically capable, that child can attend. It would also eliminate the idea that all education needs to be the same. If you have a young person, for example, who has a high interest in mechanics, why should this young person be forced to sit through years of English grammar classes? This young person and the parent(s) could choose to send him to a school that focuses on mechanics and engineering at an earlier age, and the child could be engaged in education in a way that actually prepares him to be in the work force. We can’t do that now, because the government regulates what education children receive. When people abdicated the responsibility of educating their children to the government, they lost the freedom of allowing their children to learn academically, socially, and morally the values that they hold.

 

I also think it is ironic that you say that “my” group wants to maintain a “one thought order” while “your” group wants to maintain diversity and tolerance despite personal and religious beliefs, but you think of me as an “angry, white, religious guy.” That is incredibly insulting and demeaning. I know you don’t mean for me to be insulted by that, but I am. Allow me to enlighten you about the diversity that constitutional conservatives like me believe in.

 

The only reason that the government is involved in the gay marriage question in the first place is because of taxes. It is written into our tax code that married couples get tax credits for being married and having a family. If the government were to abolish tax credits for marriage and family (which can only happen if the government establishes a fair tax), then there would be no more need for the government to be involved in marriages at all. That makes the question of gay marriage a religious issue. Gay people who want to be married in a church could go to a church that allows gay couples to marry. I personally believe, based on my religious faith, that marriage is ordered by God and can only exist between a man and a woman. This is what my church teaches. But if a different church wanted to allow gay marriage, what would that matter to me? I go to the church whose teachings make sense to me. They can go to the church whose teachings make sense to them. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is not trying to get the Catholic Church to change its teachings because you don’t like them.

 

As a constitutional conservative, abortion is a state’s right issue. The Constitution of the United States is silent on the matter of abortion, so states should be allowed to set their own laws through their own legislative processes. One state may make abortion illegal altogether, while another state may allow abortions without any limitations. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is not trying to get people who believe that abortion is a moral wrong to change their religious beliefs.

 

I know that government is, unfortunately, necessary. As a constitutional conservative, however, I believe the function of government is limited. I believe that the government is responsible for providing for the protection of the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic. That requires a strong military. Probably the closest I get to the idea of welfare and disability is the debt that is owed to those who have served in the military protecting us from threats. Our veterans deserve lifelong health care and benefits for the service they did for you and me, but for me that goes along with a having a strong military. It incentivizes military service for people. I also believe that government is responsible for ensuring the means of interstate commerce, and negotiating between states for commerce. That’s it. Limited government.

 

I do not believe the federal government is responsible for providing welfare and education. Once again, those are states issues. The needs of Missouri are not the same as the needs of California or New York or Wisconsin or Wyoming in terms of caring for the poor and the disabled. This is a state issue, not a federal one. What works in one state will not work in another, because of different population, different demographics, and different fund sources. The states should have sole authority to provide what welfare and medical help they determine is best suited for the needs of the state, not the federal government with, again, its “one-size-fits-all” approach. I also believe that if we as a people, both humanists like yourself and religious people like me, were a little bit more radical in our generosity toward the poor and the disabled, there would be no need for welfare. We would understand that part of our responsibility is to take care of each other. Is that a high moral standard? Sure. But it’s one that is universally accepted. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

 

You have these beliefs that I want everyone to think like me, act like me, believe like me, and eat, sleep, and dress like me. I’m not the one calling you names, like “an angry, white, liberal woman,” because I don’t agree with you. I’m not the one who thinks you should be silent about your strong convictions, and pay for things that you find morally offensive. I’m not the one who thinks that you should be forced to accept things that you believe are wrong. I’m not the one calling organizations that you support, like Planned Parenthood, “dangerous” because I don’t agree with them.

 

I remember during the 2008 elections being called all kinds of names. I was called a misogynist because I believe that abortion is wrong. I was called a homophobe because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I was called a racist because I believe in a smaller, fiscally conservative, constitutional government, and so would not vote for Obama. I get tired of being called names by the liberal left, and told I’m intolerant because I don’t agree with you. The only way you would consider me being tolerant is if I said I agree with you. What a crock of crap! I don’t care what you believe, and I don’t care if you act out on your beliefs. I just want to be free to believe what I believe, and act on my beliefs. How does that make me different than you? As the system exists, I am forced to support things, like a dysfunctional, broken educational system that I don’t use; like PP, whose philosophy I don’t agree with; like federal (let me repeat: FEDERAL) welfare and Medicaid/Medicare. I am forced by the system to participate in the system that violates my morals and beliefs. How is that tolerant of me? Privatizing everything, as is my argument, allows for true tolerance, diversity and freedom. My money goes where I want it to go. My children are educated in the way that I think is best for my children. I become personally responsible for helping the poor and the disabled, and I am also free to help them through the organizations with whose philosophies I agree. I become personally responsible for exercising my freedom. And in being free, I, and I alone, am responsible for the consequences of my choices.

 

From what I can tell, your philosophy of government abdicates personal responsibility to the government, and limits freedom. The more responsibility we give to the government, the less free we are. The more personally responsible we are, the freer we are. I just want to be free.

The Lesser of Two Evils: Casting a Moral Vote

I've been thinking lately about something I've said in the past and have heard others say about voting for the candidates, "I'm voting for (fill in the name), because really, he/she is the lesser of two evils. I mean, I don't really like either candidate, but this one I think is the one who is the less awful."

I want to challenge this directly. This is irrelevant to conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. For full disclosure purposes, I will state that I am a conservative. I become more and more conservative, and probably lean almost to the Libertarian Party in most of my ideas, but have significant differences even with them in certain areas. What I'm writing about has been said by me and others who fall all over the political map. They are voting for one candidate over another because the candidate for whom they are voting is the lesser of two evils.

I want to look at this from a moral perspective. 

Let's get some definitions: I define evil by the traditional, Augustinian definition as the absence of good. A thing cannot be evil in and of itself, of its own power. Something is evil only in so far as it lacks goodness. When you hear me discuss something as "evil," that is how that word should be interpreted. In what I am writing here, something that is evil means that there is some goodness lacking in it. It may not be completely devoid of goodness, but there is goodness lacking in it somehow. Secondly, morality means in the context of this essay a deliberate act of the will. In other words, to be moral is to make a choice. In order for something to have a moral quality, it must involve a deliberate choice that a person makes. A person must set his or her will in a certain direction in order for the person to be held responsible for the choice on a moral level.

With these two definitions in mind, morally, we are not to do evil by an act of the will. To will to do evil is to sin, which separates us from God, one another, and creation. Even those who do not believe in God, but believe that there are things that are good and evil based on their own philosophical construct, would agree with the basic, generic moral edict, "A person should not will to do evil."

So here's the first part of the statement: "I’m voting for…because this person is really the lesser of two evils." See where I'm going here? To vote for someone because that person is the lesser of two evils is to will evil. It's like saying, "Well, I could have shot the person in the gut and let him slowly bleed to death, but I chose to shoot the person in the head so it would be over more quickly. It was the lesser of two evils." Either way, you've still killed another person.

If you have two choices in front of you, and both are evil, then to choose either one is to choose evil, and thus you have done something immoral. If in the election, you see that all candidates are evil, and you choose one of them, then you are choosing an evil. You have set your will to choose what you perceive to be an evil for our country. That is an immoral act. It would be better for you not to vote in that circumstance, than to do an evil act by voting for someone that you see as evil.

Now I know that people are going to say, "Well, what I actually mean by that is that I don't see either candidate as ideal." Ok. That's a very different thing than saying you see them as evil, and you're voting for the lesser of two evils. Why is this important? 

Our political discourse, especially this election season, has degraded to the point where we are more interested in discussing what is wrong with the candidates we don't like, than by talking about why our particular candidate is better. This was gently pointed out to me after a recent facebook rant I posted about Obama. It is no secret that I don't like Obama. I think he has spent American taxpayer money foolishly. I think that he has interfered with the recovery that the American economy could have experienced had he not put his policies in place. I think that he has weakened America through his foreign policy approach. I think that he is a fool in the biblical sense and a narcissist in the psychological sense. Frankly, he scares me.

To vote for Mitt Romney, however, because he is not President Obama, is just as foolish. I want to make sure that what I said is understood. For me to vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is not Obama is just as foolish. In the same sense, for someone to vote for Obama because he is not Mitt Romney is just as foolish. It's not voting for the person that is foolish, but voting for a person because that person is not another person that is foolish. I'm not making a positive moral choice with my vote in that case. I'm simply voting for someone that I think is less of screw up than Obama would be. To vote for someone because you think he is less of a screw up than the other is to still vote for someone that you think is a screw up. You're not really doing anything good for your country. It's like hiring someone for a job because you think that person will screw up your company less than everybody else. Why would you hire that person at all?

There is a solution to this.

First, we have to get away from the idea that there are only two political parties. The reason there are two dominant political parties is because the American voters allow there to be two dominant political parties. If the American voters were serious about making real change in the government, then the American voters probably need to start looking at Third Party candidates and voting for them. There is the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, and others out there. So the first premise of the idea that we have to choose the lesser of two evils is wrong. There are more than 2 choices. Until the American voters decide to do the work of looking beyond what is propagandized in the media, then we will continue to suffer under a two (dominant) party system. 

Secondly, we have to get away from the idea that voting Third Party is a waste of a vote. We need to ask ourselves seriously about why we vote. I want my candidate to win. No doubt. To say, however, that voting for a Third Party candidate is a waste of my vote because the Third Party candidate will lose is to say that everyone who votes for the candidates who lose has wasted his or her vote. I want my candidate to win, but I don't vote so my candidate will win. 

Thirdly, we have to get away from the idea that not voting is a bad thing. I will repeat what I said earlier: if in your conscience you feel that to vote for either candidate is to vote for "the lesser of two evils," it is better for you not to vote at all. We must begin to look at our vote as a moral choice that we are making. If we are Christian, we must believe that we will be held culpable for our decision about whom we elect to represent us. What we are saying with our vote is, "I support this candidate and what this candidate says he or she is going to do regarding life issues, financial issues, foreign policy issues, and the other areas over which the person will have influence in government." With your vote for a candidate, you are saying you support that candidate's positions. If you can't support any candidate's positions, don't vote, or write in your own name.

My vote is my expression of my opinion about what policies are best for the future of my nation. To vote is to make a moral choice for what I believe is the good of our country. What that means is that I then have to find out who the candidates are and for what they stand in order to make that moral decision. If neither of the two major party candidates reflect my vision, it is my responsibility to do the research to find the candidate who does.

Is any candidate going to be ideal? Of course not. I have to vote, though, for the candidate whom I think is best, not for the one I think is the least worst. I can honestly say that if I cannot find a candidate who I feel reflects what I think is the right direction for our country, then I will not vote. I would rather not vote, than to vote for someone that is the lesser of the two evils. I can only find the candidate who best reflects what I think is the best direction for our nation if I know their platforms.

This means I have to work hard. I have to be able to answer the questions: "What do I think is the right economic policy for the country?" "What is the situation of the world right now and how should we approach foreign nations?" "What are the great moral decisions we face today as a nation (i.e., abortion, gun control, care for the poor, the illicit substance epidemic, etc), where do I rate this on a list of priorities, and what do I think is the right approach to those moral questions we face as a people?" After I have researched and come up with what I think are the right answers to these questions, I have to research the candidates, and figure out which ones reflect most closely my own vision.

I've brought out this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson before and I will probably bring it out again: "The worst threat to the republic is an uninformed electorate." We, the voting people of the United States, have to get beyond the spoon fed propaganda of all of the media, whether it's NBC and CNN who are biased toward liberal, or Fox News that is biased towards conservative. Even so called "non-partisan" or "non-biased" sites like FactCheck.org need to be fact checked. We have to do the research ourselves. We have to be informed. It's the only way the United States is going to work.

 

And it is the only way I can cast a moral vote.

Asking God For Stuff

There’s a great line in the movie, “Shadowlands,” which is about C.S. Lewis’s marriage and subsequent death of his wife. Anthony Hopkins, who plays C.S. Lewis, says at one point, “We do not pray to change God’s mind, but to change ours.”

As Christians, we believe that God’s will is supreme. When we pray, we follow the model of Jesus, “Thy will be done,” “Not my will, but yours be done.” Our only desire as Christians is to know, to want, and to do the will of God. We believe that God will accomplish his will in all things. We also believe that his will is for our benefit, our good. That being said, should we ask God for stuff in our prayer?

If God’s will is supreme in our lives, and we long only that his will be accomplished, and we know that what he wills for us is better than anything we could will for ourselves, then why should we pray for anything other than that his will is done? If I really want a new motorcycle, why should I pray for a new motorcycle? Shouldn’t I instead just pray that God’s will is done? I mean, if it’s not God’s will that I get a motorcycle, I won’t get one. If it is, then I will. What’s the point of praying for it?

My Papa died from cancer, so should I just have prayed that God’s will be done regarding my Papa’s health? If it were God’s will that my Papa would be miraculously cured, he would be alive today. Apparently, it was God’s will that my Papa die.

Should we pray for stuff?

To me, the answer is resoundingly, “Yes.”

I think about it like this. I know what is good for my children. I know that when it is 30 minutes before supper time, and my children start asking me for cookies, a bowl of cereal, or Phineas and Ferb Fruit Snacks, they’re not going to get them. I know that when it is time for Jacob to wear his eye patch, and he throws a fit because he doesn’t want to, the end result will be an unhappy child wearing an eye patch. I know that in my children’s lives, my will be done.

That doesn’t mean I don’t rejoice in their asking. I love when they ask for stuff. They can be so freaking sweet. It can be really hard to say no to them sometimes (I have to admit, especially Caitlin). I think God rejoices in our asking, too. He loves it when we come to him and acknowledge him as the provider of all things. He rejoices that we, his children, make requests that he intends to give anyway. 

For example, we have limited Jacob’s Wii playing to a few hours a couple of times a week. I love it when Jacob asks, “Is today a Wii day? Can I play Wii?” I love being able to say yes to him. I love giving to my children. I know that God loves giving to us. There is occasionally the time that Jacob forgets it is a Wii day, and gets busy playing imaginative play with his Legos. I love that just as much, and am content to let him do that. When my will is that he should play Wii, and his will is that he should play Wii, our wills are in concert with one another, and I love giving him what he asks for. When his will is that he wants to play Wii, and my will is that it is not a Wii day, he gets upset, but I can count on the inevitable question, “Why?”

At this point, it becomes a teaching moment if he is open to hearing the answer.

When we ask God for stuff, and it is his will that we get the stuff we ask for, I have no doubt that God rejoices in giving us what we want. When we ask God for stuff, and it is not his will that we should get it, then it is a teaching moment if we are open to the lesson that God has for us.

If it is God’s will that we should have something, and we don’t want it at the moment, God does not impose his will on us. We are free creatures, given that freedom by him. He is not going to rescind the gift of freedom that he has already given. He is content to watch us move along in our lives, “playing” with the other gifts he has given us, until such a time that we should ask.

When we ask God for stuff, God will respond. He is faithful to us. Sometimes, the answer will be yes and we will grow closer to him in the gift of his love. Sometimes, the answer will be no with an explanation that (if we are able to hear it) will help us grow closer to him in his love. Either way, the opportunity to ask God for stuff is a tool that God uses to help us grow closer to him in his love.

No Title, Just Thoughts

I posted on Facebook the other day that I’m leaving my position at Columbia Treatment Center, a Behavioral Health Group facility. I’ve spent the last 19 months as the program director of and counselor in the Medication Assisted Treatment program here. This place has changed me.

I know I’m not as nice as I used to be, but that needs to be qualified. Accountability has become an important word to me over the last year and (a little more than) a half. Taking responsibility is a large part of life. It’s the only way to really move from day to day. Accountability has come to mean to me taking responsibility for those things for which one is responsible. I have realized in my work with the patients here, and in some cases with the staff, that I tend to let things go, hoping for the best. I’ve always believed that it is better to inspire someone to do something than to require them to do it. I still believe that is true, but my window for providing inspiration is much shorter.

Conflict has always been difficult for me, and there was a time in my life when I would avoid it at all costs. I would be slow to bring up to people areas where I felt there was a deficiency in their performance, again both patients and staff. So, once again, things were allowed to progress beyond reason, and the problems would just get bigger. Now I realize there can only be conflict if 2 people are engaged in it. I’ve become someone who refuses to engage in conflict, but in a more healthy way. A key concept to understanding this is found in Patricia Evans’s book, The Verbally Abusive Relationship. Evans discusses the distinction between Personal Power and Power Over. There are those who want Power Over. These people tend to be abusive, manipulative, with aggressive behaviors. They see themselves as always the victim of injustice, and often blame their behaviors and deficiencies on others. They seek to control others. These people often find themselves in conflict, perceiving others as mistreating them, misjudging them, trying to control them. They see everything as a power struggle, “Either I am in control or they are in control.” They are in constant conflict with everyone who does not do what they want them to do or be the way they want them to be.

People with Personal Power, on the other hand, know that the only person that he or she truly has power over is himself or herself. They don’t seek to control others. Rather than telling others what they will or will not do, the person with Personal Power informs others only of what he or she will do or won’t do. There is no conflict there. The person who seeks Power Over says, “You will do this,” or “You will not do that.” The person with Personal Power says, “You are free to do whatever you want to do. If you make this choice, this will be my response. If you make that choice, that will be my response.” There is no conflict

I never wanted to have Power Over others. That was never my problem. Until working at Columbia Treatment Center, however, I was never comfortable with my personal power. I don’t know how to explain it, except that following through on responses that I knew were necessary was really hard for me.

People who seek Power Over see this as a word game. People with addiction have the illusion of Power Over their substance. A big part of addiction is seeking Power Over things over which a person is powerless. So some patients who are “Power Over people” would see it like this: “So you’re telling me that if I don’t pay my bill, you’re going to discharge me. Why won’t you work with me? Why won’t you give me a chance? Why do you want to control my life like this?” They forget that they’ve forfeited their 3^rd financial contract, that we have given them multiple chances to make it right, and they perceive my response to their choice of being non-compliant with treatment by discharging them as an attempt to control their behavior. The same is true of staff. I had to terminate the employment of a team member who was a Power Over person. The person chose not to meet the expectations of the job description. I responded by terminating the employment. This wasn’t an attempt to control this person, but simply me allowing this person to exercise the free choice to perform the job at the level this person wanted to perform it, and my exercise of free choice in saying that it did not fulfill the expectations of the job.

So when I say I’m not as nice as I used to be, what I mean is I am more assertive with my responses to people than I used to be. I like Johnny Cash’s version better than Tom Petty’s, but the words are the same, “Gonna stand my ground. Won’t get turned around. And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down. And I won’t back down.” “Well, I know what’s right. I got just one life. In a world that keeps on pushing me around, I’m gonna stand my ground. No, I won’t back down.”

The reason I’m leaving my employment is because of Nathaniel. I really wasn’t looking to go, although it is something that I’ve been thinking about for some time. The straw that finally broke the camel’s back was last Wednesday, when Lesley called me to say that he had fallen and hit his head pretty hard at daycare. I was still 45 minutes away from home, working in Columbia. In a situation where 10 minutes could make the difference between life and death for my little guy, I cannot be 45 minutes away from where he is going to daycare anymore. Maybe someday, as he gets older and begins to learn to infuse himself and will hold still, I will be able to do other things. Right now, life has lead me to this place, and I’m meeting life on life’s terms. Personal Power…it also means not trying to control life.

I think of the end of Forrest Gump, when he is standing over his wife's and his mother's graves. He reflects that he isn't sure if we are just feathers blowing in the wind or if we have control over our destinies. He then says, "But I think it's a little of both." I do, too. 

So, this has been kind of a “stream of consciousness” writing. Just some reflections on where I’m at, where I'm going, and and why I’m going there, wherever "there" may be.

 

Observations While Travelling

I just returned from travelling to Oklahoma City. It was OK.

Anyway, I've been travelling for work a lot lately, and I've made few observations.

1. People say things like airports are great places just to people watch. Really? Um, creepy. How would you feel if you knew there was someone out there watching you? Uh-huh. That's what I thought. Besides that, it's actually impossible to "people" watch. Scientific research has proven that the human brain can actually only concentrate on 1 thing at a time. It is impossible for you or anyone, no matter how intelligent, to focus on two or more things at once. So, ladies, next time you want to brag about being multi-taskers, you actually aren't multi-tasking, you are simply doing a whole bunch of individual things in very quick succession. This means the real difference between men and women is that men actually finish what they're doing before moving on to the next thing. That was a side bar. But given this information, that we can only concentrate on one thing at a time, the most one can do at an airport is person watch, which I've found creeps people out much more. I mean, people don't like it when I follow them around the airport watching them.

2.Look at this picture:

The blackish thing hanging off the side of the conveyor belt unloading luggage from the plane...that's a sock. Yep, the guy pulled it off of a piece of luggage and just threw it to the side. Now you know.

3. All airports are basically the same. I could teleport you from the airport in Oklahoma City to Dallas, Memphis, St. Louis or Kansas City, and you wouldn't be able to tell which one. I don't know what people mean when they say, "That's a really good airport."

4. Why do airports have smoking lounges? I mean, you're not supposed to take anything flammable through the security, including lighters and matches. That means, even if you get your cigarettes through security, you shouldn't have any way to light them. Which leads to my next point:

5. Why do airports sell liquor and other flammable things after you've gone through security. Everything I need to make a molotov cocktail I can purchase or otherwise acquire after I've passed through security. Does anybody else think that airport security is a joke? Which leads to my next point:

6. Maybe TSA should spend less time looking for weapons, and more time looking for terrorists. A person of nefarious intentions could get everything they need to hi-jack a plain once he/she has passed through security, so maybe we should be looking for those with nefarious intentions, and stop bothering the rest of us. Profile the jerks.

7. Pilots of every airline do not "land" planes anymore. They aim them at the runway the way a kid aims a flat rock at a pond to see how many times he can get it to skip.

8. There is no good place to sleep in an airport. Just saying.

So that's it. Those are some of my observations now that I'm travelling more. I think the next time I'm asked to travel less than 500 miles, I'll ride my motorcycle.