The 2012 Election -- Some Thoughts

The 2012 election promises to be the most divisive election seen in America since the Civil War. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that a Civil War could erupt if President Obama is reelected (Tom Head, county judge, Lubbock, TX August 23, 2012). The passion that is being fueled by irresponsible rabble rousers is threatening to undermine our principles of civil discourse. When we begin to govern on the basis of emotion instead of logic then we will truly be doomed.

I believe that Obama sees himself as a “World Citizen” more than an American. I suspect that a great amount of his anti-military stance comes from his deep seated hatred of American “imperialism”. His black and white (no pun intended) view of the world separates the haves and have-nots into oppressors and oppressed. Obama believes that if you don’t have wealth it must be because somebody took it away from you. He discounts initiative and hard work as avenues to achievement.

The only work he ever did was as a community activist – fighting to get what he felt the underprivileged in Chicago deserved. Having worked in Chicago he soon realized that “government benefits” could be exchanged for votes. Those votes resulted in power and in turn voters were rewarded with token improvements. The “Chicago style” party leaders realize it is advantageous to suppress the underprivileged so that their vote will elect the party and, in turn, be rewarded with token advancement.

The flames are also being fueled by the resurgence of “Objectivism”, made popular by the novel, Atlas Shrugged. The problem that was foreseen by Ayn Rand is that the token pot is drying up. Without opportunity for those with initiative to create wealth for themselves then they surely are not going to labor to create wealth for others. That was the downfall of Communism and the fallacy of Socialism. Those systems worked when the needs were considered minor and the achievers were willing to give up a small portion of their earnings to benefit those not achieving. The Marxist philosophy of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” does not work. Even the bible recognizes this aspect of human nature and puts a tithe at 10%. God surely realized the human condition and knew that we could give a tenth of our surplus without resenting it. Obama would ask for the inversion of that since his reasoning is that those who have achieved did so at the expense of others.

Obama’s claim that the successful businessman got there with the government’s help is consistent with his thinking. We agree that the government which we have developed for the common good and the infrastructure maintained for the common good is worthy of our tax support. However, the idea that the non-supporting portion of society, whose votes are rewarded with tokens, is deserving of a free ride on the backs of those productive elements of society is frankly, un-American.

Sexuality: Procreation or Recreation

I have always wondered why people have felt a compulsion to share their sexual preferences with others. I believe that what you do on your time is your business. What you do and with whom you do it is of no concern to me – unless you want to make it. In which case then you should be aware that my opinion may not agree with yours.

Sexual orientation has been at the forefront of several issues of late. From the ordination of clergy to the definition of family, the spotlight has been upon what turns you on. I suppose there is some perversion that causes people to want to know how others get their jollies. I do know that some people feel a compulsion to make others aware of their personal preferences and perversions. You have to ask yourself, “Is nothing sacred?”

I believe that sexual orientation is determined genetically and not a function of environment. I recall some scientific data that suggests that certain areas of the brain are active in homosexuals; those are not stimulated in heterosexuals. I do not believe that a homosexual lifestyle is consciously selected by individuals; but I do believe that homosexuals wish others to accept their choices without condemnation. This I agree with.

The issues of homosexuality and acceptance within the United Methodist Church are being raised as I write this. To my understanding, the UMC has always accepted homosexuals as individuals worthy of God’s grace without making a big deal of it. We understand that the sinful nature of man is pervasive and does not afford anyone the right to condemn others. I have always felt that I have enough to worry about with my own behavior and should not be critical of other’s life choices.

It does occur to me that there are two different perspectives, resulting in two different viewpoints – God’s and man’s. God in the Jewish Bible is clearly against all forms of sexual perversion. His interest was in procreation and propagation of His people. In the Jewish traditions there are even Mitzvahs mandating sex on the Sabbath. The role of sex and the stability of the family are paramount in the teachings of the Bible and traditions of the church.

Mankind has always succumbed to the more basic carnal desires of his nature, but in recent times those desires have been made increasingly public. As taboos have been dropped, the resulting publicity has been assumed to be an endorsement of the base carnal behavior. In fact the more a particular viewpoint is promoted, the more reaction will be generated and the less it will be accepted. This is the classic pendulum swing of society.

Today’s society has seen sex move from the bedroom to the TV set in the living room. It has moved from the biological to the recreational. The casual nature of sex in today’s world has diminished its attraction and desire by making it commonplace and readily available. It is no longer the reward of the husband and wife in a marriage; it is now a recreational sport engaged at the local bar.

The casualness of heterosexual sex and the openness of homosexual sex is becoming pervasive and as such undermining one of the cornerstones of the family. Sex should not be relegated exclusively to the realm of procreation and I believe that God would not frown upon the enjoyment of recreational sex. As a matter of fact I believe that love making is one of the bonding elements of a healthy marriage. What does disturb me is the diminished worth of sexuality brought about by its casualty.

###

Easter Egg Hunt

Easter Egg Hunt

A local church has an active outreach ministry which includes an after school mentoring program for elementary age students. During Holy week the Senior Pastor and volunteers decided that the leftover eggs from the previous week’s Easter Egg Hunt could be used to provide a fun time for the kids after they had finished their homework. The Senior Pastor and volunteers hid over 100 eggs in the church courtyard for the 6 elementary students to find.

The Senior Pastor left the group to go teach an adult Bible Study class. A few minutes later the sky started clouding up and rain began to threaten. The Associate Pastor decided to move the hunt from the outdoors into the sanctuary. The Associate and the volunteers hid the eggs and when the kids’ homework time was finished they gathered for the hunt. The Associate instructed the kids that they could each find15 eggs and that was all that they could have.

The Associate wanted to be fair to all by limiting the number of eggs that each could find to 15. The egg hunts that I remember would have resulted in some kids getting 20 eggs and some getting 10 and the adults holding a few eggs back so that everybody got some. If there were a slow child, an adult could always be counted on to give them a little assist in order to level the playing field.

It occurs to me that this is the way socialism works. With the best of intentions, socialists want everyone to have the same. What we observe is that the mad scramble to get eggs is reduced to lethargy because all will receive the same regardless of their initiative. When those who produce the most are rewarded the same as those producing the least, then there remains no incentive for effort.

###

Inverted Society

I watched an interesting documentary in which a Russian scientist took a group of wild foxes and selectively bred them for three generations. She selected the most aggressive ones from each generation and put them together and took the most docile ones and interbred them. By the third generation she had created a line of fully domesticated loving pets and a line of the most blood thirsty snarling beasts that you could imagine. She did this all in 3 generations of selective breeding.

That documentary got me to thinking about humans and the evolution of modern day society. There were geneticists in the early twentieth century who believed that humans could do much the same thing and create a super human race. Fortunately we know how that ended. Unfortunately, there is some tendency to see more popular societal traits proliferate and I sometimes wonder if we have not shifted our center of gravity away from the traits that defined our “Greatest Generation” – those parents of our Baby Boomers.

I seriously wonder if there is a correlation between our shift from an agrarian society to a metropolitan society and what many see as a declining social ethos. There is no doubt that urbanization has resulted in a secularization of society. Could this become a trend leading to a breakdown of civil structure as we know it? We already see the resistance to modernity and the catastrophic consequences. Could there be more to come?

Loss of Community

Many people long for the values expressed in small town Americana. Neighbors coming together to help each other, not just in times of crisis, but to raise barns and help harvest is a norm desired by many. Eating dinner with neighbors who drop in is commonplace in rural America. Could you imagine an urbanite eating with or even dropping in on a neighbor? That communal relationship was lost in the transition to the city. We often characterize the movement to the suburbs as a city sprawl but I wonder if it was in part a desire to regain some of lost Americana?

The community lost in the transition away from our farms appears to have been replaced by unifying areas of interest. Those interest areas are outside of homes and families, unlike the rural scene. Now the workers center their non-family interests on the workplace, the union, or the local sports team. While the rural breadwinner always involved their family in all activities, our urban breadwinner has developed a polarization that separates family, job, and interests. The latest workers seem to be revising their priorities towards interests, job, and then family. Even more disconcerting is the observation that family has been split into sex and relationship. Ergo, the future could see the complete demise of the traditional family, or at least the family values as we now know them.

A consequence of diminished family values is the loss of community. Is this directly correlated to the shift from agrarian to urban? It is impossible to be anonymous in a rural setting but it is easy to blend into a sea of humanity. In that sea you can avoid responsibility and rationalize your non-involvement in needs and issues surrounding you. In a rural environment you would be held accountable by your family, friends, and neighbors not only for your deeds but for your failure to act when it was expected that you would. How does this bode for the future? Is it possible that our urbanization will decentralize in an effort to regain community? Will our future communities be virtual instead of physical?

Re-centered Value System

Our values seem to have become redirected in the move from the farm to the city. Survival on the farm meant having the family and neighbors there to count on. In the city culture it seems that survival means climbing over those around you. Rudeness is rampant in the urban environment while graciousness and courtesy are the rules in rural America. The dog-eat-dog mentality and extreme competitiveness seen on city streets would not be tolerated in the agrarian community.

If there is any truth to the evolutionists’ theories then we will see future generations becoming more competitive and aggressive since those traits are characteristic of the more successful city dwellers. In the city those who are the most ruthless appear to be the ones held in highest esteem and therefore the ones most emulated. The meek and mild will be pushed out and subdued in the natural selection process.

The trend that is emerging is one of self-centeredness. That trend when combined with a community trend that brings people together in priorities that progress from interest, income, sex, and relationship to the ultimate “What’s in it for me?” does not predict a future nurturing cityscape. Will this direction become self destructive (forgive the pun)? Will the family structure continue its decline?

Legalistic versus Moralistic

The codification of English Common Law continues to remove common sense from the legal equation. The farmer always knew that he was responsible for the right half of the fence that separated his land from his neighbor’s. It did not require an act of the legislature. When the farmer went to the city he lost his space to the infringement of people, sights, sounds, and odors. Now there were rules for everything and if a rule did not exist then people didn’t seem to know what to do. It seems that in the city environment people will always push the limits to see how much they can get away with, or, perhaps more accurately, how much they can take that belongs to you.

In an agrarian society you did what was right, and that was taught to you by your religious leaders. What was right and what was wrong was ingrained in your upbringing. In the city environment, what was right and what was wrong was dictated by the various cultures living nearby. Leaving your possessions outside did not mean that you had abandoned them, or did it? If you came up with a great idea, was it yours or could it be taken by someone who overheard you? Different cultures have different answers. One thing is for certain, we should not have to be told what is right and what is wrong. If we do, then we need to realign our moral compass.

A nation without vision will perish (Prov 29:18)

How can we rebuild our community? How can we re-center our value system? How can we become more moral and less legalistic? It seems that we need visionary leadership. Prophets of doom and gloom are easy to come by. It is easy to say here’s what is going to happen if you don’t change your ways. It is much harder to state what we can achieve and here is the path to get there – Come follow me.

I do not have the solution, but I see the problem. Is there no one who can lead us?

###

Common Sense

During one of the economic tumbles that have occurred over the past few decades, my brother-in-law, Homer, was temporarily laid off from his regular job. Homer was a shade tree mechanic by avocation so he readily found a job at a small garage near the local university. Homer was not well read but he could take a flat head Ford engine apart and put it back together in his sleep.

One day a sharply dressed student came in with his overheated car. The fellow was immediately recognizable as an engineering student because of the pocket protector in his white shirt pocket. He told Homer that he wanted a new voltage regulator installed because the car was overheating. Homer tried to explain that what he probably needed was a new thermostat since that was what controlled the temperature in his engine. The student then proceeded to lecture my brother-in-law, telling him that as an Electrical Engineer he knew what was wrong and that he wanted the voltage regulator replaced. Being the gentle, easy going person that he was; Homer replaced the voltage regulator. The next day the humbled Electrical Engineer returned and suggested that they try replacing the thermostat. If it had been me, I would have replaced the transistor in the carburetor and the muffler bearing while I was at it.

My father did a similar foolish thing when the hot water went out at our home on 22 Clover St. I hate to admit it, but one of the solutions he tried was to switch the handles on the faucets. He probably thought that somehow the lines to the sink had been reversed and by putting the cold knob on the left everyone would stop bugging him. Then again, he really did not have much experience with electrical, mechanical, or plumbing items. As a matter of fact, he and his dad, my grandfather, were much more comfortable on the farm than in the city or with the city conveniences.

There are some things that people do that are just plain dumb, like the kid we watched trying to fill up his gas tank at the Sohio station in Englewood. He was obviously a new driver out to perhaps fill the tank for the first time. The kid pulled to the right side of the island, stopped the car, walked back to the pump, and realized that his fill cap was on the right side of the car. He got back into the car, pulled out, circled and came back on the other side of the island headed in the opposite direction. He got out, looked at the pump, noted that his tank was on the opposite side, got back in, pulled out, circled, and came back to the pump – again on the left side of the car. He got out, red faced, looked at my wife and I, who were by this time holding our sides, laughing, and pulled the hose across the trunk to his tank. He put in just a couple of gallons and left thoroughly embarrassed – as well he should have been.

People always seem to see solutions to problems from their own vantage point. Preachers want to resolve conflicts by praying about them. Soldiers resolve conflicts by beating the tar out of their opponents. Politicians resolve conflicts by jawboning so much that you forget about them. Lawyers will sue to resolve the conflicts. You get the idea – people’s first inclination to solve a problem is to use the tools that they know. Sometimes the tools that you have at your disposal are not the best to solve the problem.

In recent years we have had a lot of solutions proposed by politicians. Our elected officials have listened to the lobbyists or to the loud voices that have more votes or contributions than they have facts. I cringe at the thought of our society moving forward with the knee jerk reactions coming from people who see solutions from their perspective. Unfortunately for us, many of our legislators are lawyers and see the solution to any problem is to pass another rule or regulation. When we allow laws to replace common sense then we are doomed for the simple reason that laws can be interpreted and manipulated, whereas common sense is pretty absolute.

The Demise of a Great Society

I admit that I have a low tolerance for buffoons, bimbos, and bureaucrats. Specifically, I dislike working with people who consciously choose not to use their God given ability to think. I do believe that there are people with beans for brains.

Most of the times people do not think because it is easier to just do what has been done, cite the precedent, and not think of possible consequences to their actions. We have come to the point now that we even applaud those who “think outside of the box;” with the emphasis being on “THINK”. Because ‘that is the way it is done’, or ‘we have always done it that way’, has become the mantra of an entire working generation. Oh how I long for the days when a manager would say, “This is what we’re going to do and I will bear the consequences of that decision.” I have always felt that an average manager would make 70% correct decisions, an above average manager would make at least 80% correct decisions, and executive material would be correct 90% of the time.

I have had several jobs involving International Business Development. In one of those jobs I was part of an industry that, like much of America, was eager to outsource their products to overseas developing countries. I was actually hired to bring down the unacceptably high rate of return of merchandise due to poor quality coming from those overseas sources. I readily solved the problem by visiting the factories and finding two of the highest quality vendors who understood statistical quality control. I would always ask the plant manager if they knew what Mil Spec 104D was and how it worked. Those that would tell me that every worker was responsible for quality would be immediately dismissed as a potential vendor. It was impossible for me to believe that a worker living in a house without electricity or running water could possibly know the level of quality that would be acceptable to an American consumer.

The sad part about this particular industry was that the operating overhead was absorbed over the cost of labor just as it had been done for years. That meant that the cost reflected on the books as MLB was much higher than the incremental cost of the product. Consequently, the importation of products always looked very attractive to the executive leadership of companies in the industry; and, since everybody else was doing it, they too went to outsourcing. The obvious problem with this action was that as the plant-wide total of labor diminished then the overhead would be absorbed over dwindling labor costs such that outsourced products became even more attractive. The end result was that the manufacturers in the industry became only distributors of products manufactured by others. It has been a death spiral for American manufacturing.

The inability to think is not limited to the manufacturing industry. It is rampant through the financial businesses that are regulated by the government. Finance greases the wheels of manufacturing, distribution, real estate, retail, and personal credit. When we cannot get money to the places where wheels need to turn then we will soon see the economy grind to a halt. That is precisely what is holding back the recovery from our current slump. In my opinion we are in a recession because government intervention and regulations have clogged the wheels of the individuals and small businesses that make, buy, and sell what is consumed. There is no incentive for financial institutions to operate efficiently or help others operate at all. They have been given money and, without having to think, can loan it back to the government and reap the profits. The old adage of banks handing out umbrellas when the sun shines and taking them back when it rains is nowhere more true than in today’s environment.

Buffoons, bimbos, and bureaucrats are ruining our nation. They are neither contributing productivity nor facilitating anyone else’s contribution. Ayn Rand called them moochers in her book Atlas Shrugged and she just might have a point. We should really sit up and take notice of what has happened to our Great Society.

###

Volatility in Society, Politics, Business, and Our Lives

Worldwide trends increasingly concern me. Perhaps my observations are distorted by my own narrative, so I share them to elicit your perspective.

A God’s eye view of the battlefield is my favorite positioning for discernment. What I see concerns me. On a horizontal axis I see a great polarizing effect coming from two camps: on one side I see people who view individuals as being elements of society, persons being defined by the group to which they belong; on the other side are those who view society as an aggregation of individuals united for the common good. The tension that results is a threat to break apart the bonds that formed our governments. This tension is occurring all around the world, not just in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, or Syria but also here in America.

On the vertical axis I see the rise of social networking caused by the advent of the World Wide Web versus the resistance to modernity. Progress juxtaposed with intransience creates another threatening tension. Moving along this axis is disintermediation and its converse. The elimination of “middlemen” in distribution also applies to information. The demise of middlemen and middle ground means that grass roots information has become readily linked to what used to be the sources of information. What we now see is the ability to instantly react to information, e.g. flash mobs, and the ability to cleverly manipulate the recipients of information. We have effectively eliminated the filters that had previously protected the recipients, gatherers, and disseminators of information; we no longer have the Walter Cronkite’s of the world giving us the straight scoop.

The tensions inherent in this battlefield scenario are sufficient to draw and quarter our world in much the same way as those convicted of high treason in medieval England. It behooves us to consider the consequence of present trends lest we encounter the same fate.

Tension: Individual versus Society

It is easy to find those individuals who seek their identity by belonging to some group. This is perhaps the single greatest contributor to crime in our cities as more youth choose to become part of gangs. It is observable in athletics and school spirit. As many of us grew older we transitioned from high school to college to employment being defined along the way by our education / vocation. When asked who someone was, the response was likely to be, “He/she is a student at ____.” Or, “He/she works at ____.” Eventually, that individual may be defined by their title, e.g. “President of ___”, or, “Parent of  ___”.

Those persons choosing to be defined by a group, by necessity, subscribe to the philosophy, doctrine, and dictates of that group. When you listen to one of these individuals you hear repetition of phrases, talking points, and senseless prattle that shows their indoctrination. They behave as automatons clearly under the direction of a superior. I recently had a discussion with a labor union advocate who said that he was very comfortable following the party line since he had voted for his local representative, who had in turn elected a representative, all the way up the chain. He was content to follow the instructions from the top back down because they clearly had access to more information and made better decisions than he could with his limited exposure to issues.

Those who see the individuals as elements of society see the government’s role as one of assuring the individual’s conformation to the norms of society. Tolerance is obviously less for any deviation from the established norm. Some of the most visible examples come from governments derived from religious law, e.g. Taliban’s Sharia dominated Afghanistan. Our country has done similar things like establish blue laws to dictate the purchase of alcohol on Sunday. The difference between these two comes from the constitution and the protection it provides from the government being able to impose the will of the society upon the individual. In the case of blue laws the government breaks it down to the precinct level and empowers the majority in that limited area to decide what businesses, not individuals, may do. In America we would say that the business cannot sell alcohol but the Taliban would say that the individual could not drink.

Those who see society as an aggregation of individuals see government as providing for the common good. These are willing to pay their taxes, expect the government to provide the infrastructure for living, to protect its citizens, and establish the rules by which we get along with each other. As I like to put it – I expect to pay my taxes and I expect the government to build the roads, erect the guard rails, and even set the speed limits. But I want to drive my own car and go where I want to go. I do not want the government making me ride the bus and travel where they want to take me.

The philosophical differences along this horizontal axis have come to dominate the political scene, not just in America but around the world. The governments that are falling have not recognized that the individuals no longer want to be recognized as subjects of the king or subordinates of the state. Social networking has empowered and emboldened the individual.

Modernity versus Intransience 

The true enemy of radical Islamic fundamentalism is not the west as they would proclaim, but it is modernity. It is often said that people yearn for the days of yore, and nowhere is it truer than in fundamental religious groups around the world. We all know how rapidly the world has changed in just a fraction of a generation. In the past the stories told by our grandparents were relevant and relatable; but now the experiences of a generation just one removed is akin to fiction.

If an intransigent society wants to shield its members from exposure to the modern world then it generally isolates itself from the outside and fabricates the rationale to aid that separation. If that intransigent society is the recipient of large sums of money, then it can be emboldened to engage in acts designed to further isolate its people from a modern industrial world. That, I believe, is the mission of al-Qaeda. Unfortunately for al-Qaeda the World Wide Web has become double edged sword that is serving to enlighten the individuals suppressed by their society.