Distractions and Diversions…

When I was a boy we had a dog that was so smart and so fast she could catch a tennis ball that was thrown almost before it hit the ground. She always caught it on the first bounce.

We started to try to distract her by faking a throw one way, waiting for her to run as far as she would, and then tossing the ball the opposite direction. Then she’d have to hunt the ball down, taking much longer than she usually did to find it.

After falling for our fake throws a couple of times, she’d stand at our feet, watching our hands until she was sure the ball had been thrown and then she’d take off after it. She was still quick, but because she stood waiting for us to set the direction, it took her a relatively long time to bring the ball back. She couldn’t catch it on the first bounce, and often it stopped rolling before she caught up with it.

I think that conservatives are a lot like my dog. They’re quick and smart. They’re eager to get things right. They’re also easily “faked out” and, once they figure out they’re being “faked out” they are slow to move. And when they do finally move, it is often too late for their action to be effective.

I am struck by the volume of news reports (and the incessant fixation of “conservative” talk show hosts) about Donald Trump, his possible run for president, his childish insistence that President Obama needs to show his birth certificate – which he did just this week, after 6 ½ years – and Trump’s general obnoxious behavior.

We see news stories and hear radio conversations about the high price of gasoline, the restrictions placed on businesses by government, taxes for the wealthy, taxes for the poor, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and on and on.

We continue our war in Afghanistan, our support of the fledgling government of Iraq, our non-war in Libya, our support of both rebels and established governments in a handful of other countries around the world.

We worry about trade with China and immigrants from Mexico, about racism and radicalism, about Big Oil and small business, about Wall Street and Main Street, about worker rights and student rights.

In the midst of this, we’ve lost sight of something. These issues have always been, and will always be, central to our national discussion. But while the national discourse has focused on the issues, other forces have been working to make fundamental changes to our nation’s power structure.

For more than 200 years America has been the safest place to do business in the world. There are a number of reasons for this. We have had a small and historically weak central government. We have had relatively low tax rates in the past. Our infrastructure is world-class. We have direct sea access to the Pacific Rim, Europe and Africa. We have virtually every raw material an industry would consume in abundance. Energy has historically been cheap. Labor has historically been skilled, industrious and dependable.

And above all, we have had The Rule of Law that ensures contracts will stand, justice and penalties will be applied even-handedly, and arrangements made in good faith can be counted on. Americans may take the Rule of Law for granted, but in much of the world and throughout much of history, the Rule of Law did not govern men or nations.

Even today we hear talk of the business risk associated with off-shoring work to China or Viet Nam. We see the recent moves of Hugo Chavez when he nationalized (stole in the name of the State) all foreign petroleum production sites and equipment. We see white farmers who have been in Africa for generations driven off their land or killed in black repatriation campaigns. We see wholesale murder in the name of Islam when elections are lost in Egypt and Nigeria. We see attacks on police and infrastructure stations in attempts to intimidate others and drive behavior.

But in America we see a signed contract and a good faith effort. If the parties are satisfied, money is exchanged and the contract ends. If the parties are not satisfied, they seek mediation or judgment and when the mediator or judge issues a ruling we see both parties comply.

THAT has made the United States of America the world’s preferred place to do business.

And THAT is what the Obama administration is working feverishly to subvert. While “good conservatives” are chasing imaginary tennis balls, the ideologues working in the executive branch of our government and supported by the chorus of yes-men in congress and the liberal media, who fear above all falling out of favor with the administration, are steadily hammering away at the foundation of America’s greatness in the world. They are working to tear down the Rule of Law and replace it with the Rule of The People.

Most of these workers are true believers. They believe that what they are doing is right. After all, it makes them feel good to know that “justice” is being done in “society”. It only makes sense to them that everyone in America – and the world, for that matter – should have according to their needs. And it further makes sense to them that everyone in America should give (or have taken from them) according to their abilities. Indeed, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have more money than they could possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes. What is wrong with asking them to share it with people who don’t even have enough money to buy a new television set? The Rich are more ABLE to provide for the NEEDS of the people.

So, we see pressure from the Office of the President placed directly on individuals to “give back” their Wall Street bonuses. Never mind the fact that those bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally binding contract.

So, we see the president of General Motors fired at the personal request of the President of The United States. Never mind the fact that the president of GM worked for a publicly held company and served at the pleasure of the board of trustees.

So, we see the Department of Treasury force investors who had loaned money to Chrysler to accept an arbitrary revision of the terms of their bonds so that they lost repayment priority during Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings. Never mind the fact that those bond holders had every legal right to expect their money to be repaid immediately after Chrysler’s employees and suppliers.

So, we see the US Government refuse to allow oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. Never mind the fact that the government itself leased portions of the area to oil companies specifically for the purpose of oil exploration and production and received billions of dollars from them for that right.

So, we see the Department of Health and Human Services debar a pharmaceutical company from doing business with any federal agency – effectively eliminating 82% of its market – because the Secretary of HHS did not feel that the company’s payment of a $313 million fine was sufficient punishment for an inadvertent mistake. Never mind that the Department of Justice felt quite satisfied and that no harm had resulted from the mistake.

You see, what is happening is the destruction of America as an economic powerhouse.

There are many in the world and in the country who believe it is wrong for America to have so much power and to influence so much of world events. They equate what we are doing with what was done by European powers in the 500 years previous to today. Just as the Belgians enslaved and exploited Central Africans 300 years ago, so are Americans enslaving and exploiting Chinese today by forcing them to make t-shirts in sweatshops so that we can buy them for $3 each at Wal-Mart.

And so, to “even the playing field”, America must come down. America must suffer just a little so that others may suffer less.

There is a serious problem with the reasoning, though. The only suffering that ever was able to reduce others’ suffering was that of Jesus Christ. But a liberal, leftist or statist is unlikely to allow even that one instance. The truth is that increasing suffering only increases suffering.

The path to relief of the world’s economic problems is to allow EVERYONE to succeed as they are able and to allow EVERYONE to help others as they are moved by their moral compass.

Inconsistencies and Hypocrisies...

This weekend I enjoyed a man-cation in the Nevada desert learning how better to shoot my "practical rifle". It was outstanding.

On my drive home I was passed by an SUV with a sticker in the rear window reading, "GAS SUCKS; ride a bike". And, although it was a small SUV, I was struck by the stark irony.

I will speak only for myself, and if you see things that resonate with you, I'm happy to have company.

I have a moral compass that guides and informs my behaviors. That compass points me in a good, healthy, happy direction.

I also have free will that allows me to make choices to follow my moral compass or not. And, in certain situations, I have chosen to ignore my compass. When I make those choices I learn again that my compass really is pointing me toward goodness; and I didn't find that in the wrong choice.

I see this as an inconsistency. I'm not out telling others what to do. And I'm not condemning them when they don't follow my advice. And I'm not turning around and ignoring my own advice. That would constitute an hypocrisy.

In my inconsistencies I am losing my own private battles in the war I am fighting within myself.

I have had friends who have become jaded toward organized religion because of what they call "hypocrisy" among the adherents. And I will grant that there certainly are cases of blatant hypocrisy in churches of all colors. Leaders who preach one thing and live in an entirely different way, or members who make a show of devotion in worship services yet are cruel at home or at work are examples that come to mind.

But I choose to believe that the vast majority of what my friends have called "hypocrisy" is really inconsistency. They're really watching a person a lot like myself winning and losing private battles in an invisible war that can last a lifetime.

Instead of watching and getting some Roman sense of pleasure when our fellow creatures are battered and bruised in the Arena, we would be better to have compassion and, with the wise man, remind ourselves that "there, but for the grace of God, go I."

On Marriage...

In the last few years America has seen quite a debate about marriage, its value to society, and its place in the future of our country. I'd just like to address one dimension of the debate.

I've heard it postulated that traditional or historical definitions of "marriage" and "family" are valuable and worth preserving. That is to say that a marriage is the legally sanctioned union of one man and one woman and that their family consists of children either naturally born to them or legally adopted by them. Further, just as society recognizes the definition of the number "two" to be a specific and exact value, society recognizes the definition of "marriage" in similarly narrow terms. These definitions preclude homosexual unions and hetero-specie unions from being recognized as "marriages" and deny "family" status to any beings affiliated with or deriving from such unions.

I happen to agree with this view and I support it completely. My views stem from my observation of society, my moral and religious beliefs, and the inner sense I have of right and wrong.

The single dimension of the debate I would like to address is the false choice put forward by opponents of marriage as follows. They point out the unhappiness of women they know who are married. They point out the emotional and physical abuse that is perpetrated by cruel spouses. They point out the infidelity that is rampant in American society as if it were a uniquely "married" problem. Therefore, they conclude, that because marriage has been desecrated by some of its participants, the concept of marriage should not be held sacred by society.

In fact, they continue, society would be better off without the institution all together. As if to say that absent marriage, women would be happy, partners would cease to be emotionally and physically abusive, and fidelity would reign in relationships.

Following that logic, I would like to suggest this analogy.

In the desert of the American Southwest there are what we call "slot canyons", narrow cuts in solid sandstone where water has carved out deep holes and steep cliffs. They are spectacular. In the depths of these canyons, even in the driest parts of the summer, one can find pools of cool water.

However, one would not want to drink it. In fact, the smell of this water is extremely offensive. The pools are tainted with manure, algae, bacteria, insect larvae, and frequently the bodies of dead animals. Drinking this water can cause fatal diseases.

The problem is not that all water is bad, though. The problem is the pollution that has gotten into it. The water component of the toxic soup is one of life's essential nutrients. Eliminating water from one's diet is not an option. One would be well to find a clear source of water and steer clear of the pollution altogether. Water is key to human survival.

In the case of marriage in America, the problem is not the institution; rather it is the pollution of cruelty, abuse, infidelity and deception that have crept into it. The choice, then, is not whether or not to continue upholding marriage as a valued tradition of our society.

The question may also be answered with a "Third Way". Society can re-examine marriage and re-commit to making it a central part of American life because of the real benefits we as a people gain from its place in our culture. Pure marriage, after its original intent, is not only good; it is essential to the survival of civil society.

A Different Take...

So, I thought the Snoop Dogg - Mormonism story was hilarious.

I've read responses to it that range from derision to indignation. Some are convinced that the writer is a rabid anti-Mormon; others scorn those offended as typical hyper-sensitive zealots.

I though that a woman in my office, who constantly gives her daughter grief about joining the LDS Church, would be the perfect person to share this with. After all, she should get a kick out of the idea.

Her response surprised me. She read the story and, without so much as a laugh, said thoughtfully, "Yeah, well, I suppose anyone can change, right? Why not him?"

And that made me think a little more.

I believe she's right.

The atonement of Christ IS infinite AND eternal. It's available to all. In fact, Paul was taught that in a dream where he saw all sorts of unclean animals in a giant sheet and the Lord commanded him to eat them. Paul refused and the Lord gently taught him not to call what He called "clean" anything but clean. Of course, that is interpreted to mean that the Gospel is to be preached freely to all, regardless of their heritage or race or nationality.

So, why not Snoop Dogg? Isn't Christ's power sufficient for even him?

And if we believe that, then why not sufficient for you or me?

I believe it is.