THE NARROW

Winston Churchill is credited with saying, “a conservative under thirty has no heart, a liberal over thirty has no brain” – or some facsimile thereof. 

Aside from being virtually axiomatic, i’ve always loved that quote because the thrust of it captures my own life experience.   When i was younger i didn’t think too much about politics or world events or much of anything but myself.   Even the causes and ideals i found worthy of my attention were those things that sought to preserve a sense of entitlement.   Whatever i learned about politics and world events i viewed throught the lens of idealic youthful ignorance.   And there were no shortage of influences desirous to stunt my growth.   Those influences in media and academia – whether or not they truly believed it – operated on the assumption that our petulant instincts are the best of human nature and ought to be preserved, encouraged and foundational to adulthood. 

About my government:  i was pleased that powerful people were working to identify the demons who had more than me and were rectifying the imbalance.   The assumption was that the world was a suffering place because the greedy dispossessed the poor.   The “haves” were setting upon the “have-nots” and the solution was a kind of third-party advocacy forcing the Haves to be nicer.   As i viewed the world through this lens i became myopic and jaundiced to the possibility that there were other solutions.  

Then something happened:  i got religion.

Yes, in the classic sense.   To those who think spiritual matters and perspective suppress Randish clear thinking i say to you this:  narrow-mindedness is not an exclusive condition to Jesus Freaks.

Here’s what accepting the words of Jesus did for me:

For the first time ever i stopped to consider if i’d actually done anything, felt anything, or thought anything that was truly for someone else.   Jesus was reaching down the corridor of time to challenge my conceptions and worldview through the heart and not just the mind.   Through a few simple words and phrases a mirror to my soul reflected something dark and sinister about my own motives.   In a page or two my existential self-righteous piety was shattered and i’d become just like everybody else.

That is the crux of it.

We are all the same.

Our nature is common.   Rich or poor, black or white with no respect to country, time or geography, we - humanity – suffer from the shared affliction of terminal self-interest.   That’s the bad news.

And unfortunately, the bad news doesn’t stop there.   Jesus goes on to say that we aren’t able to fix the problem on our own; that would involve creating something new.   While man has the ability and ingenuity to fashion all manner of things out of existing material, we don’t posses the ability to create anything.   Fixing the heart of man is an act of spiritual alchemy.

Now that i’m older a strange thing has happened.   The world expects that if i should possess a heart of compassion that i would be politically progressive or liberal in my thinking.   But that’s what i was before i stumbled upon ideals that are worth conserving.   There are just some truths that ought to remain immutable not because they serve me well, but because they embrace the nature of things and seek progress that truly creates rather than simply shuffling materials around.

On government…again:

It is the responsibility of every human to volitionally give of themselves and influence others to assist the downtrodden.   When we set out to empower a third-party with the strength of might and the power of legislation to mitigate the divide between the Haves and have-nots, we give over our souls to a mediating beast bent on securing its own status with the Haves.   After all, government is people.

Why would we do such a thing?

Because we’ve made enemies of each other to assuage our envy.

ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC

There was this guy i knew a long time ago who had an issue with me. He never said what it was, but it was pretty clear that he was especially rankled by me: it doesn’t get more jingoistic than, “i’m going to kick your ass!”

(Looking back at it i can’t say that his animus was unwarranted. i was chief among the ‘tribe of turds’ from time to time.)

i had no particular interest in fighting this person nor in befriending him. In fact, my ambivalence towards him was likely adding fuel to his rage. We never did fight nor did we become friends, and to the best of my knowledge he still hates me.

It didn’t make much difference to him what i felt or thought about him. At that moment though i was his enemy. He was not mine. i could have considered him an enemy because of his hatred toward me, and it’s likely that he would have ended up sorry for ‘poking the bear’ had i been sufficiently irritated by him.

But there’s a lesson here. It’s important to recognize when you are someone’s enemy – even if they aren’t yours.

Our Commander-In-Chief recently gave a speech to cadets of the primiere war college of the world at West Point. He was presenting his plans for future military conflict in which many of these cadets would soon be participating. These young officers are the breed of men who have at their core a deep sense of duty and respect for those higher in the chain of command. There is none higher than the Commander-in-chief. They didn’t have to like what he said and are duty bound to shield their feelings and keep their opinions to themselves.

The press was invited in to hear this speech as well – we all were. Some thought the content of the speech was good, others thought otherwise. But instructive and disturbing were the comments by one prominent analyst.

He suggested that the President wasn’t received “warmly” and that his choice of venues was something like the “enemy camp”.

Now i have to wonder: who is really whose enemy?

The analyst, Mr. Mathews is no enigma. He is a political ally and admitted advocate of the President’s ideology. He is in, what we refer to as “lock-step”, with President Obama’s domestic agenda and general worldview. He’s admitted as much in public.

Mr. Mathews seems to be revealing one thing and intimating another. In his opinion, he is suggesting that the military OUGHT to be the President’s enemy because of his political positions, and he’s unwittingly uncovered for us all that – for the same reason – he considers the military HIS enemy.

Chris Mathews isn’t a presidential spokesman. But he does possess a school of thinking that represents a significant and substantial group of Americans.

Are you left wondering if President Obama is in that group?

JESUS IN THE MORNING

This morning was just like every other morning.

The kids have their routine down to a relative science and don’t require a whole lot of intervention.  This allows me to watch the news or peruse the internet or check out what my FBF’s are saying and thinking.  (i really should be more interactive with them at this time and intentional about influencing their spirits for a day in the world, but that’s another post for another day) 

Occasionally - and usually – the normal sounds of business are interrupted by a squeal or howl indicating a dash of chaos has broken the peace.   This morning it was my 8 year old being scratched by my 11 year old.  

Now i’m one of those parents who assumes that no one is innocent.   It’s a philosophy which stems from a Biblical view of human nature that i’ve found serves family dynamics quite well.   What ensued was a conversation – inquisition actually- which involved me asking each daughter alternately, “…and what did you do to cause that?”

At the very end something struck me and i pulled the word “jingoistic”  out of a dark recess of my brain.  (i’m not sure that helped but, after all, it was a teaching moment.)  

My 11 year old has all the power.

i reminded her that “to whom much is given, much is expected”.   It’s her mandate to be responsible for adding to the peace instead of the chaos.   Granted she’s only 11, but that’s the lesson.   The key to obliterating enmity is ”whenever possible, and as much as it depends upon you, live at peace with your neighbor”.  Unfortunately, that requires the party with the power to “consider not only their own affairs, but the affairs of others; and in doing so also consider others better than yourself”.

It’s against our nature.

So i asked her, “why didn’t Jesus just kill all his enemies?”

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

i think there are two types of people, maybe three:

There are those who are certain of what they know and in what they believe, but are careful – sometimes too careful – to hold their opinions close to the vest out of fear. Their highest motivation is survival.

And there are those who harbor great uncertainty and mask their insecurity with boisterous attitudes and bold certitude. They are driven by the angst of humiliation.

Then there are the few who possess confidence in the truths they hold dear and are compelled to teach and to share at great risk from the former.

POWER

You want to see power?

Try this. 

Say the name “Jesus” anytime, anyplace to anyone and see how people react.

Try it with your closest friend.

With a stranger.

In a crowd.

Just speak it aloud when you’re alone.

Can you?

Will you?

What power it has over you.

STICKY BUSINESS

Alright, so we’re currently socialized sufficiently to recognize that racism is a bad thing. Few would argue that.

i’m having a little trouble though trying to discern just what racism is these days. To say nothing of the cottage industry which has sprung up from the Civil Rights movement of the fifties and sixties that’s extorted millions of dollars of protection money from private citizens to protect them from “racist” branding, there’s a rational dialogue and some reasonable questions in which we ought to engage regardless of our fears.

Yesterday and for the next forseeable news cycle a story about a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana refusing to marry an inter-racial couple is going to be the latest fuel to feed the fires of race tensions in America. The man has rightfully been stripped of his postition and title, but i’m wondering a couple of things:

Is believing that a people ought to be more intentional about marrying and having children within their race, culture, and religion a reasonable position to hold?

Do people of other races – other than caucasion – have similar reservations as does this JOP?

Should the government be in the marriage business at all?

UNRESERVED STUPID

i admit: it doesn’t take much for me to get testy.

Mostly it’s closed minded stupidity that gets me riled up. That, and hypocrisy.

i also admit: i LOVE football! But today and for the foreseeable future i’m going to watch my beloved Patriots with a bitter taste in my mouth, and with renewed partisan rivalry for the Colts because of their idiot owner.

If you haven’t heard, the NFL owners and commissioner are blocking a bid by Rush Limbaugh to buy the St. Louis Rams because he’s “divisive”. Evidently they got the memo that stated there are certain unforgivable crimes – real or imagined – that exclude people from participating in the NFL gravy train.

None of those include murder, dog fighting and animal torture, spouse/girlfriend abuse, illegal/illicit drug use, tax fraud, or running a valued franchise into the ground because of incompetence.

Rush’s only crime is calling it like he sees it and being seriously correct in his observations. The fact that people don’t particularly care to have light shed on their foibles has earned him the ire and hatred of Leftist, “altruistic” types who resent having their motives questioned.

A racist he is not.

POLITICS OF THE ABSURD

Let’s get something straight: it’s always been a good idea to allow a sitting governor to appoint an interim legislator. Here in MA there’s been a rigorous hullabalou about giving that power and responsibility back to the governor. On the surface it appears as though it’s much ado about nothing. But a closer look offers a rare, clear insight into the machinery of broken political culture.

Five years ago – when MA had a governor of a different Party persuasion – the threat of an empty Senate seat vacated by prospective President Elect John Kerry was considered insufficient cause to warrant an interim successor.  However, it was sufficient motivation for the state legislature to strip the sitting governor of his appointing power and install a Special Election proccess . Or was it?

There wasn’t a person on the planet…strike that, there wasn’t an HONEST person on the planet who would have suggested that supplanting the Power of Appointment Priviledge with a Special Election proccess was anything but a political ploy to preserve the delicate balance of Party influence in the U.S. Senate. It was an insult to the MA electorate to suggest they would be ill-served by the Executive Office representative installed by popular vote. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

Enter today. The law has been changed again, not because the MA legislature has seen the error of its ways, but because they’re confident that the people have made an “appropriate” choice of political representation in the governor’s seat.

Additionally, someone suggested this morning that those who voted for keeping the interim appointment power in place in 2004, who have now voted against it, are the real hypocrits motivated solely by politics. As if trying to hold leaders accountable for their decisions and the rationale behind them is a bad thing. Someone has to at least try to do it even if it’s at the expense of being consistent.

i swear i’m going to tear my hair out!

THE TROUBLE WITH SOCIALISM II

George Bernard Shaw once said this:

“A government that takes from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul”

i suppose this is true in whatever circumstance. It doesn’t have to be a government. It could be a parent or a teacher, but it must always be a third party with authority over Peter. If you’re like me, you’re probably tempted to empathize or sympathize with either Peter or Paul because you’re driven by some deeply held principle of justice. If we look a little closer at the machinery though, its insideous trap is that the conflict is about neither of these men.

The party with the authority to instigate, facilitate, and perpetuate the conflict between Pete and Paul is the real winner.   Because we’re using names, i think it best to call the third party, Mike.   Mike is uniquely self-interested as long as he’s human and motivated at least by self-preservation.   And think about this: in the senario whereby a third party finds its worth in choosing sides is no arbiter, but an advocate.   In the case of Peter and Paul this third party’s (Mike) goal is to first redress the situation as Peter V. Paul, pick a pugilist, and knock out the opposition.

That’s not much of a fair fight. Especially since Mike (as the government) has a gun.

(We’ll get back to that  reality a little later even though it’s probably the most important point.)

The issue at hand that makes it especially noteworthy that Mike has a gun is that Mike is also Paul.    Let me explain…

The governement is a consumer.    In the best of circumstances it is rarely a good investor and only by accident.    It doesn’t invest in markets but in visions and ideologies, and it does this by spending – other people’s money.   A government has no money to spend save for that which it gleans from it’s people/producers or by minting it.   When it’s acting responsibly and ontologically (according to its nature) it carefully motivates its producers to do what they do by their nature.    A government which excessively interferes with that process will gum up the works and suppress the will and nature of its greatest asset (the people).   This is what we have going on right now.

We can argue in another post about motive, details and specific actions.   The salient point in the present moving toward the future is that OUR government is taking action that will further suppress the producers of this country.   It is doing so by becoming the largest consumer of goods, services,  and commodities to supply the basic needs of its people.   And to make matters worse, it’s doing so by propping up market failures and rewarding cheaters in an effort to cover up its own market tampering.    This tampering has been going on for some time by fomenting an otherwise healthy relationship between Peter and Paul into an artificial conflict.   Most recently with Community Reinvestment, TARP, and the purchase of two auto-makers.  

If healthcare falls into the hands of meddlesome Mike, Peter is going to need life-support.

The gross result of the current trend is that the government will ultimately need to step in and become a – or THE – major producer of the things it is now consuming because of the damage being done to the real producers (Peter).   What we’re marching toward is Socialism.   The frightening consequence is the necessary end game of that march.  

It’s called Communism.

MISCUES

The Holocaust Museum in D.C. was the scene of another assault on American values.   A lone gunman waltzed in to the crowded tourist spot and started shooting – with a rifle.   A security guard was killed and the gunman was critically injured.    We should pray for both their families.

Evidently the gunman was some kind of American Nazi.   i know there’s plenty of them out there, but this one is kind of strange and more disturbing than usual.   He was a WWII veteran.   i don’t know where he did his service, but one would think that a guy like that might have access to other veterans who had seen the carnage of the Third Reich.   How does one come to deny the Holocaust?

Watching the news last night i was just a little taken aback by the early editorializing about gun control.   That sort of talk usually takes 24 hours to start gaining momentum after an incident like this.   But none-the-less, it’s always out there opportunistically waiting for the next abuse of liberty.   Yes, this crazed gunman abused his liberty.   That gun he owned and chose to aim and shoot at civilians was intended by the Framers to be a deterrent to abusive and oppressive tyranny.  

Ironically, the discussion of gun-control or abolishing the 2nd Amendment arising from this incident at this place is 180 degrees out of phase.   The Holocaust Museum is intended to remember those who died at the hands of an abusive, oppressive tyrant.   It ought to be a sober reminder of just what happens when too much power is centralized into the hands of so few.   Human nature being what it is will always erode the conditions of civility if left unchecked.

As i scanned the images of the names on the monuments at the museum i was reminded of the fact that though 6 million Jews were exterminated, many times more people were slaughtered at the hands of Communists in the 20th century.   But  the M.O. is always the same:  power corrupts.

Is this true?   Or do the corrupt seek power?