Some May Be Surprised....

Some of you - especially who know me - might be surprised that I have a presence in the blogosphere.

I am anti-Facebook and anti-Twitter.  I don't belong to a great following and the most useful things I do via the Internet are finding phone numbers, driving directions, and e-mail.

But some time earlier this year I realized that if I did not find an appropriate outlet for my frustration about the direction our country is going, and some way to voice what I think is right, I was going to go crazy.

I can't believe the changes that are happening via government and the change in the general opinion of people in the United States!  I remember my father-in-law, who grew up in the 1940s, telling me in the early 1990s that I was delusional if I thought I lived in a free country.  He said that if a person from the 1950s were dropped into the USA of the 1990s he would likely think he'd been transported to some Soviet satellite state.

What would that same person think today?

It seems that at least two forces are working against our individual liberties as Americans.  First, we are succumbing to the natural temptation to shirk responsiblility.  Second, scheming and self-interested people in government are seeking to consolidate power in themselves and in the system.

Bart Simpson is the embodiment of the natural and instinctive will to avoid the negative consequences of our actions when he says, "Who, me?  I didn't do it!  Nobody saw me!  You can't prove anything!"  Funny.  But more and more of us ("U.S. Americans", as Miss South Carolina calls them) want to avoid the outcomes of our bad decisions.

The pro-abortion movement is a classic example of this.  By couching their argument as "pro-choice" they seek to ignare the fact that in the vast majority of pregnancies, the "choice" was made before two people took off their clothes.  Now they want to dodge the consequence.  The lost freedom.  The increased responsibility.  The morphing body.  The physical discomfort.  The financial obligation. 

Now we see the financial crisis.  Many firms made risky decisions which turned out to be bad ones.  Executives in banking, investing, manufacturing, and other industries risked losing everything for their companies, their employees and themselves.  Do you think they wanted to dodge that responsibility?

You betcha!

And, just as in the abortion issue, government is there to "help".

Laws restricting the natural consequence of sex have been in place since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  The "Troubled Asset Relief Plan" and "Stimulus Package" were introduced in 2008 and 2009.  The last two shield not only companies, but individuals from consequences of their own decisions and those of others.

We are moving away from individual responsibility to a state in which the State assumes more and more responsibility for our actions.  Of course, in doing this, the State takes more and more control OF our actions.

And the State is right in doing that, given a few assumptions.  I don't agree with the assumptions, but they are rational.

Let's look at motorcycle helmet laws.  How can the state have the right to tell an individual he or she must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?  (Forget the fact that a helmet makes perfect sense.)  If a person wants to ride, wreck, and turn themself into a vegetable it is their natural right. 

But what do we as a society expect the State to do?  When that person's medical insurance stops paying we look to some sort of welfare to help out, right?  So, the State now has a stake in the motorcycle rider's well being.  And as a stakeholder, the State now has a RIGHT to dictate some of the behaviors of the rider.

You see how easy it is to abdicate responsiblity and abandon freedom?

Now look at General Motors.  Previously a non-governmental organization, GM was free to select its own leadership and to negotiate its own labor agreements.  It could also select its own product mix and reward its workers' success as liberally as it wanted to.

Now the State has stepped in to rescue GM from almost certain failure.  GM is no longer free to select its corporate leadership.  The President of The United States was unhappy with GM's former president and requested that he be replaced.  He was!  Under the new ownership of GM, the federal government and the autoworkers' union are the principal owners and have a controlling interest in the company.  The federal government has established a super-executive position  which sits in review of all compensation for leaders of companies receiving "assistance".  And the new GM product line is being guided largely by conditions attached to the "assistance" funds.

So, if motorcycle riders and car company executives can give up their liberties so easily, how much closer should we watch ours?  How much closer MUST we watch ours?

For My Dad and Eric...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtoujYOWw0

Self-Governance

You know, as I read Thomas Payne's "Common Sense" and David McCullough's "John Adams" and the Declaration of Independence I see a common thread.

The Colonies wanted autonomy, or the opportunity - and the responsibility - of self-governance.  Further, the idea that Nature had endowed all men with equality and with the right to detemine their own destiny was put forth clearly.

The premise of self-governance, both of states and of men, was one of the foundational notions of our country's beginning.  And at the root of it all, it was the right of man that was unalienable. 

As we know, and as members of the spectrum politic agree, where much is given much is required. 

Where much is given to individuals in the way of Natural Rights much is required in the way of self-governance.

We see what freedom of conscience can lead to if it is unchecked by individual morality.  White supremacism and Black nationalism are simple philosophies, or ways of looking at life.  In the absence of a moral compass, these belief systems can - and often do - lead to violence.  This violates the Natural Rights of others.

The right to keep and bear arms in the absence of moral restraint can facilitate violence on a shocking scale.

Dishonesty will lead one to bend the protections of the 4th and 5th amendments to avoid responsibility for crimes.  We see criminals escape justice on "technicalities" almost every day.

Now "government" seeks to regulate behavior.  To govern something can mean to control the speed at which a process happens or to limit the bounds within which a process occurs.  Let's think about limiting bounds for a moment.

Picture the local bowling alley.  There are 20, 30, or more lanes.  Bowlers roll a ball at a set of ten pins standing at the end of their lane.  For young or otherwise desirous bowlers some lanes have bumpers or rails that can be raised to keep the balls on the lane and out of the gutter.

Professional bowlers, league bowlers, and even frequent casual bowlers don't use the bumpers.  They have developed enough control to rarely if ever have a ball leave the lane.  But young, handicapped, or inexperienced bowlers frequently find their ball in the gutter.  They have not learned sufficient control to bowl successfully, so the bumpers are raised.

Government is the bowling alley manager.  The gutters in the bowling alley are natural consequences.  The bumpers are the legal consequences. 

For citizens who have control of themselves via a moral compass, governmental restraint is irrelevant because they will almost never bump up against societal limits of behavior.  Citizens (and illegal aliens) who cannot operate within the "lane" of acceptable behavior will find themselves in the "gutter" and running into "the Law". 

Imagine if a well-meaning bowling alley manager decided that he wanted to help all bowlers score better, so he permanently raised the bumpers on all lanes at the alley.  That would probably amuse the better bowlers, but they wouldn't be too put out.  But think about what it would do for the "out of control" bowlers.  It would take away the incentive to do better.  Because of the bumpers they would not have to learn to control their own ball, the alley manager would do it for them.

We see things like this as government - from local to federal - seeks to enact "moral" laws.  It is not enough that unwarranted violent acts against others are illegal, now we must make a special class of unwarranted violent acts called "hate crimes".  We do not need to look far to find other examples of "legislated behavior".

Government has put up the bumpers.  For years those of us who lived our lives down the "center of the lane" were amused that we "had to" make rules like that.  But those rules removed the responsibility of personal restraint from the deviant in our society.  I remember even as a kid, we would call to each other, "You don't have the right to" do this or that....  We had the bumpers up in our pre-adolescent minds already.

Now imagine the bowling alley manager moving the bumpers into the lane so that the ball is funneled into the same spot on the pins - you know the one you aim for to get a strike.  The good bowlers are irritated now because there are actually a number of places you can aim for and a number of routes to take within the lane to get a strike.  The bowlers' individual leeway has been squeezed out of the game and everyone who plays at that bowling alley is getting the same score now.  300 has become meaningless.

As Statism expands in our governments and as citizens become the proverbial sheeple the bumpers are being moved in.  We are being funneled to the same mediocre point where even success becomes meaningless.  Our moral compass, we are told, is irrelevant because the State will tell us what behavior is acceptable and what is taboo.  Our individual leeway to achieve a desired outcome is being taken away.

Now picture the team that practices at our imaginary bowling alley going across town to compete in a different alley with another team in the league.  Because their skills have atrophied and their ability to control their ball has deteriorated in the artificially supportive environment of their home alley, they will fail.  They will have become weak and dependent and, because they are strangers to failure, they will not know success.

If we allow governments to infringe on our Natural Rights and obligations to self-governance we, too, will see our skills of self control atrophy.  Our abilities to succeed will deteriorate and, when we are out of the artificial constructs of governmental control - for example in our own homes - we will fail.  We will have become weak and dependent and, when faced with a choice for which there is no hard and fast rule we will not know success because we have never been allowed to see failure.

For Kaylene....

I figured out how to fix the "comments" thing.

Aren't you glad you married Daniel?

Values And The Civil Society

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, but won't spend a lot writing tonight.

We see so many people and groups seeking to force or enforce good or right behavior. There are laws passed and proposed that seek to discipline the thoughts of people. There are laws and rules that seek to regulate the actions of people.

When I think about it, there are far too many things that are good or bad. In fact, it would be impossible to catalog all the virtuous acts we should do and all the vicious acts we should avoid.

I think of Moses delivering the Ten Commandments to Israel. Is it to reasonably be expected that a list of ten items would regulate all the behaviors?

I remember an ancient king who imparted his wisdom in a farewell address to his people. He started to list the things he wanted them to do to be happy. Suddenly he caught himself and said, basically, "Look, I can't tell you all the things to do and to avoid. But I can tell you this much: If you want to be happy you have to govern yourselves. You have to discipline your thoughts and your words and your deeds. You have to do what you know is right."

The controversial, but immensely successful Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was asked how he controlled so many new converts to his religion in the early 1800s. His reply was simple, but striking. He said, "I teach them correct principles; and they govern themselves!"

A civil society, a society of well-behaved people who look out for each other, must be founded on individual morality. It must be protected from external destruction by the rule of law. It will be ultimately preserved from internal decay by the virtue of its citizens.

The "leaders" of our country seem to be afraid today to remind us of OUR OWN civic responsibility. They instead seek to substitute a state-enforced code of conduct for each citizen's own moral compass.

I'm Just Sayin'...

Does everyone understand why experience is relevant, now?

President Obama had never "managed" or "directed" or "headed" anyone or anything in his short and sheltered life before 21 January 2009. He had no experience executing a plan, or even formulating a detailed plan.

His only even slightly relevant experience was that of "community organizer" (read "street agitator") and he distanced himself from the unsavory part of that work during his campaign. But that, in fact, consisted of simply steering the anger of ignorant and sympathetic stooges to loosely focus on some amorphos and ambiguous oppressor know as "The Man".

Child's play when contrasted with influencing firm-minded, determined, accomplished leaders of the world.

We saw the extent of his naivete when he hopped across the Atlantic Ocean to deliver a short autobiographical sketch to the International Olympic Committee. He was confident that his charm and good looks would woo the IOC and convince them that, absent substance, detail, or definition, the Olympic Games should come to Chicago in 2016.

Heck, it had worked on the American People in 2008, right?

President Obama embodied the American arrogance and entitlement for which he has spent his presidency apologizing!

Here's a question for you: Has the USA taught people here that they deserve whatever they want? Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama - arguably three of the smartest people in the country - walked onto the international stage and assumed that, with no relationships, no proposal, and no substance they would walk away with a plum like the Olympic Games? What's with that?

Now, assuming the IOC was neutral to the USA - which is probably true - and given the instant failure of "talking to them", how does Mr. Obama expect to be received in the gladiator's arena that is the world of international politics?

A classic strategy of weak, but determined opponents is to bide for time. Picture the fatigued boxer who hangs on his opponent until he is pulled away and the two are separated. What did he gain? Time.

Remember the talks in Paris during the Viet Nam war. What did the North Vietnamese gain? Time.

Think about the battered Palestinians. What have their many cease fires gained them? Time.

Time to build, to train, to equip, to re-arm, to rest, to plan.

Think about North Korea and Iran. What have the multi-party talks yielded for them? The same thing - time.

Is the Experience Thing a little more clear now?

No Olympics for Chicago!

What a shocker! Chicago was eliminated from the running for the Summer 2016 Olympic Games in the FIRST round of voting.

Will this teach Mr. Obama that it takes more than good looks and a teleprompter to get things done on the international stage?

He failed miserably to convince the IOC to give the games to his "hometown". How much more difficult will it be for him to talk Iran and North Korea out of nuclear weapons? How much more difficult will it be for him to convince Russia to stay "in the box"? How much more difficult will it be for him to lead the free world?

Good luck, Mr. President! You have a tough row to hoe.

Now maybe he'll have time to read the recommendations of General McChrystal on Afghanistan....