Be More

Share

The following will be produced, hopefully by summer's end, as a YouTube video with hopefully only minor edits. Watch for it on my channel. I will announce it on my blog when I finish. Running Slug Productions is proud to present...

Over twenty years ago, I was introduced to a psychological exercise on the powers of negative peer pressure. In a particular religion class, one teacher had the great convenience to have all of the power players in the high school, the people like whom all the other students aspired to be as his students. These included for example the varsity football captain, the head cheerleader, the student body president, and the eventual valedictorian. The teacher drew four symbols on the board: circle, star, oval, and square and gave the students specific instruction. He then invited another teacher to send over one of his freshman.

The freshman timidly knocked and entered the room. The teacher invited him to occupy a single vacant seat at the head of the class in the front row. The freshman could not believe himself when he discovered himself in a class with all the most prominent members of his high school. Even more amazing, they accepted him as one of their own, inviting him to sit with them, joking and laughing with him, and making him feel quite at home.

Then the teacher began the test. He turned to the varsity football captain and asked him to help with a visual experiment and to describe the four objects on the board. He began naming them, according to the instructions: "circle, star, oval, triangle". The freshman, who couldn't believe someone he so admired could have made such an obvious mistake, laughed aloud. Quickly, he noticed he was the only one laughing, and the students turned to him with that look of disdain that only seniors can muster towards freshman. He slunk a little in his chair.

The teacher continued. Each of the others in the front row continued to name the objects "circle, star, oval, triangle", and every time, the freshman sank lower in his chair. Beads of sweat formed on his brow. He knew as he looked around that soon the time would be his to go through the exercise and he was nervous.

At length, it was his turn. Everyone's eyes were upon him. Tepidly, he began, each word phrased as if it were a question.

"Circle?" he began.
"Good..." said the teacher.
"Uh, star?"
Silence. You could have heard a pin drop.
"...er...oval..."

At this point, the freshman paused and looked around. He knew that it was a square. Would his admiration for all of these power players corrupt his judgment of what he knew? One of the others in the class prodded him, "What's the last one?" The time for decision had come.

We live in a world full of negative peer pressure. There are people all around you who will try to convince you that good is evil and evil good. They will try to get you to join in with them to justify their aberrant and abhorrent behaviors and beliefs. They are looking for people to bring down, and if they can get you to join in with them, they will use it to rationalize themselves. Remember that not everyone is doing it.

One of my great heroes is Sir Thomas More. During a time of great ideaological upheaval, he stuck to his beliefs even to the loss of his life. King Henry VIII sought unanimous approval for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon so that he could wed Anne Boleyn. In one of his letters to his daughter, Margaret Roper, he told her that sometimes we must stand fast a little at the risk of being heroes. During one of his interviews in the Tower of London leading up to his execution, we see this dramaticized exchange:

"Some men think the earth is round; others think it flat.  It is a matter capable of question, but if it is flat, will the king's command make it round and if it is round will the king's command flatten it?" What More means in this scene is that no man on earth can declare something to be good or brave or true unless it actually is so.

In his book, Human Action, Ludwig von Mises deals with values. He explains that it is not true that virtue does not pay. He explains that the people who choose to live virtuous lives value virtue more than any advantage the alternative affords.

Be More. There will be people who will tempt you to be less than that of which you are capable. There will be people who will attempt to get you to lower your standards for either a little temporary pleasure or security. However, one of the chief causes for failure and unhappiness in life is when we trade what we desire most for what pleases us at that moment. In our scene, the freshman faces accolades and acceptance by his peers or being true to what he has been taught.

You may be asked to come along, 'for fellowship'. The people who ask this of you do not do it for you.  Your 'friends' may make mention of how your spiritual, legal, financial and social status is on the line for your submission to group think.  Any person who offers you or invites you to participate in something that they know is contrary to your principles is no friend.  You can be better than that. You can be the miracle. You can be More.

The Role and the Goal

Share

I was introduced to a concept this week in a way that made it easier to understand. Although I have previously given thought to things in advance of their putative arrival, it was always about decisions. These were mostly things about what I would do if X or Y happened or if people invited me to option 1 or 2. What about things I might one day be?

Prepare for things that may be true in your life. As we consider our possible choices in life, we too infrequently think of our roles in life. What if we become parents? Teachers? President of the United States? What would we be? How prepared would we be? What would I do in this position to meet the goals I would be asked to achieve?

One of the things I resolved to do as a consequence of this conversation was learn to put a carseat in my car. At least then I wouldn't look like a complete nutcase on the way home from delivery with my first child! I remember months back, a friend of mine invited and impressed upon me that I hold her son. You could tell very well that I had never held a child before, because I had absolutely zero idea how to do it and looked as awkward as a hobbit in Mordor. We all know that children don't come with a handbook for much of the minutea of parenthood, and although we basically know how and what to teach them, we frequently do not know how to handle the roles that come upon us.

How we handle things is what makes us what we become. After work Monday night, I spoke with a young woman who was divorced last October. She still referred to herself as a 'divorcee' and I told her that we are not what happens to us. We are what we make happen. Now that she is in the role of a single woman again, what are her goals? What will she decide to be?

The example for us is that of Noah. When he was called to be a prophet, he was given two assignments; call the people to repentance and build a boat. Noah wasn't a lecturer, a professor, or a philosopher, and he certainly wasn't a shipwright. Yet, from stem to stern of his tenure in that office, he commended himself to the Lord and acted out his role. On a stone in a small Scottish town stand these words of inscription: "Whate'er thou art, act well thy part."

Today you may be understudy or stagehand. Remember that it is completely consistent with the Savior to call in strangers for the feast of the bridegroom (Matt 22:3-10). You may be in a minor role or not even on the program, but he has frequently drawn upon people who were available to fill important roles, especially where substitutions were necessary in case of wickedness or rebellion against his will. Neal A Maxwell in his book "Deposition of a Disciple" tells us that "God gives the picks and shovels to the 'chosen' because they are willing to go to work and get callouses on their hands. They may not be the most capable, but they are the most available." As understudies in the work of God, consider what you will do if you are asked to step into a different role, especially a leading one. As you keep in mind the goal and the role, you will find that you perform much more admirably than you or any other mortal expects, and it will be well with God and you.

Laws Don't Affect the Lawless

Share

Lots of people say "there ought to be a law..." about something with which they happen to disagree. When we do that, we frequently forget that there are lots of things we do that are disagreeable to others. More laws are not the answer. What we actually need are more people who respect the laws we already have, because otherwise the same thing could be said of us that Disney's Archimedes says of Madame Mimm (0:42-0:45). "Did I say no purple dragons?":

The Democrats make the rules. They owned every branch of government for two years, and they hold much of the bureaucracy. Yet, they are frequently like Madame Mimm, so much so that this Toothpastefordinner cartoon could be a tshirt issued to almost every member of the Democrat party.

Conservatives are the ones who play fair. They're the ones who control their emotions and reactions. In another time, Michelle Bachmann might have sought satisfaction from Chris Wallace in the customary fashion, the same fashion that made Aaron Burr a fugitive. Obama demands that his opponents treat him with civility while he treats them like garbage. Now they're threatening to investigate Bachmann's 23 foster children, as if they are any more a reflection of her than her own, since anyone who knows how foster care works knows that foster children move in and out of homes with varied degrees of success.

Most Democrats don't seem very interested in obeying the law. That's not a qualification. When I was interviewed for a job with the NHP, they were not impressed with the fact that I obey the law. It mattered more if I had a criminal justice degree or at least did some ridealongs. I think it ought to be a better qualification that those who enforce the law be people who strictly adhere to it.

Much has been said of late of the gaffs. Michelle Bachman messes up John Wayne the actor and John Wayne Gacy the clown killer, and like that incident, thanks to the media, we will always remember when Quayle added an “e” to potato and how Bush mispronounced nuclear, but when Obama talks of 57 states, the nuclear bomb dropped on Pearl Harbor, the medal of honor awarded to a dead person, etc., they let his ‘little’ gaffs go. Media types are equally imperfect. If we’re going to let it go, let it go, and let’s have a consistent policy. Many evil men want us to integrate them continually based on what is now regardless of what has ever been, but if you ever do anything, they hang that millstone about your neck and sew a scarlet letter to your vest and bang their drums in the streets, branding you forever in both directions of time for a momentary hiccup.

We do not need more taxes. We need those who get tax money to be better stewards of the common treasure. We do not need more laws. We need better enforcement of the laws we already have. We do not need more citizens. We need more of our citizens to obey, honor and sustain the laws. We do not need more regulation. We need to regulate our government. If you would be free, govern yourselves and elect those who do likewise.

Interesting Search Exercise

Share

While looking for a particular story, I was interrupted in my search. I had only managed to type "Obama opposes" into Yahoo when I was called away from the desk. Upon my return, Yahoo had come up with some suggestions for what I might be seeking, and it came up with an interesting list. So, I also typed in "Palin opposes" and "Palin supports" and "Obama supports" just to see what the search engine suggestions drag up for me. It was an interesting exercise, and I encourage you to think of similar boolian strings to use just for grins and giggles.


Here were today's results:


Obama supports

Obama opposes:

Palin supports:

Palin opposes:

As you look at the candidates, these are interesting tag lines. Remember that they are taken out of context but that they are quite illustrative of general mentality and bias.

In Silico is Problematic

Share

Our reliance on electronics and electronic storage is a problem. There are people who cannot do math without a computer, write legibly let alone grammatically correctly, or find anything if it's not easily available in Google or wikipedia. The IRS encourages us to file electronically because it's easier for them but cannot guarantee that our information will be secure. Several banks have reported that their databases were hacked and that customer information was stolen. Let's not forget the big Facebook snafu when they were accused of being leakier than Senator Pat Leahy.

I have long been suspicious of digital media. I may have already mentioned how, in graduate school, I saw digital devices used to obfuscate date to either delete or obscure things that were either problematic to the conclusions or allowed the researchers who found it to work on it before anyone else got a chance to investigate interesting but unexpected results. There was a time when digital pictures were not permissible in court because they were easy to doctor. There are entire companies dedicated to information security and a new military operational specialty directed to protection of electronic information.

There are other problems with electronic data storage. We who are old enough remember how easily you could wipe a disk or hard drive by waving a magnet close enough to it. Electronics are subject to different kinds of environmental forces that either decay or destroy the integrity of information, and every time you move a file it loses at least some of its fidelity. Then there is the problem that electronics are only as good as the people who write the software and then use it.

People are part of the problem. I have a cousin who gets paid to sort out problems in code written by others. I can only imagine how frustrating that might be when you have no idea what you're reading or what they intend and must look at every character to find perhaps the one parenthesis that is left open in the wrong place that unwravels everything. Then there are users. Today, we heard about a baby killed because information was typed incorrectly into an electronic form. The automated machine followed orders and basically this baby was killed by a robot. So much for the three laws of Isaac Asimov...

The problem is that the more we rely on electronics the more we are at the mercy of efficiencies in a system that just does what it is programmed to do. Electronic records are easily lost, doctored, omitted, deleted, or missing. Electronic safeguards are no panacea, since they are written by people, the same people who have trouble with paper records or with the imput of data into computer programs.

This potentially dangerous situation has been highlited in science fiction movies and novels since after the close of WWII. Still, they see it as a miracle drug that will solve all of our problems and want to force us into it. About two years ago, I was working on one of my books and very near to completion. A computer error corrupted the file, and since it was my only copy of those particular edits, I lost 50 pages of work which I have not been able to duplicate. How would you like to be deleted from the system, to simply be erased because you're not in a database? Think about it. Technology is a tool, not a safety net. Plus, what do we do when the power goes out?

Torrent/Limewire = Piracy

Share

I was inadvertantly swept up into a discussion of piracy today on Facebook. Some of my younger friends were complaining about how to 'get free music' but didn't like my suggestion to listen to the radio. Someone suggested using Torrent/Limewire, which allows you to download media from other people's laptops.  (Sounds like a dangerous notion to me!)  What they really want is to own music without paying for it or having to listen to advertisements, which is funny because even YouTube now laces its site with advertisements. The notion of that discussion, quite frankly, is piracy.

It's not that I'm personally offended. I do not have any albums, or anything really at this time, out there available for purchase that can be stolen. Although I have had my own intellectual property stolen and published without attribution, I no longer remember the person, just the event, as a hedge against future events. This is about the law.

Ask yourself how you would feel if someone broke into your house and took your bed, your guitar, your laptop, or your dog. By all other accounts, this is clearly theft. Young people increasingly insulate themselves from this by saying that the music industry is full of miscreants and that it's ok because it's digital. One man's misbehavior does not license you to do likewise. Yet, that's probably why they think nothing of taking someone's pay and redistributing it to someone else- because they don't take it by force or in person. Yet, wire fraud is illegal, and if their money was wired to Kyrgyzstan tomorrow, they'd cry foul. If it is illegal to steal, it is illegal.

Giving your life is one thing, but taking it is another. Although Jesus encouraged us to give freely, he never spoke of force or gave men permission or instructions to take from one what he did not freely give. When you steal from someone else, you're effectively taking their life from them, because we trade our time and talents to create things of lasting or ephemeral value, and we cannot recoup our time. If you steal my work, my money, or my thoughts, you have in essense stolen part of my life, and the taking of a life is a capital crime in almost all nations, punishable by death of the offender.

Several months back, I asked a friend of mine to procure something for me. He told me that he would not pass it on because it was something he could obtain only by means of something "less than ethical" and knew my feelings about such methods. You may of course choose to live as you wish so long as you accept the consequences attendent with your choices. I have made a choice, and I refuse to use these filesharing methods, because they amount to modern piracy.

There is a higher law that states, "Thou shalt not steal." I have even gone so far as to return amounts ranging from small to large that I received either in error or as a bait, because I hope people will regard me ethically. Where I can, I obtain things for free, but if you really want it that badly, you can always borrow it as often as you like from the library, and if you want it that badly, why not purchase it?

Monday around lunch, I was in Food4Less while it was robbed. The woman escaped with a handful of groceries. I do not know if they will ever catch her or punish her. The fact of the matter is that she has punished all of us. As the cashier explained, the sad thing is that they pass on the loss to the honest shoppers. Perhaps that is partly why media costs what it does, because so many people procure it without paying, and they pass on the cost to those of us who actually pay. I know it costs thousands to produce and publish a book, a DVD, or a CD en masse. These people may earn more than we think they should, but if people are willing to pay it, who am I to argue with how they choose to spend their money? What I ask is that you not force a change in how I spend mine.

Jesus taught that we render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are His. I bowed out of the conversation after I made the point that it was about the law. It is often the little things that are the most dangerous. I will close with this story.

Many decades ago in Holland, there was a small boy who saved his town. One night, on his way home, he noticed water leaking through the dike and plugged it with his finger. He stayed there all through the night, through the next day, and into the following night as the temperature stayed bitterly cold. Although people noticed him standing there as they passed, nobody stopped to inquire or help or investigate. The boy stayed there long enough that he died of exposure. When they came to remove his body, they discovered what he had done, that if he had not plugged the whole, the entire town might have been flooded and all its residents killed.

It is often the smallest things that are the most dangerous. Viruses are very small, but by the time we know they have multiplied within us and begun their deadly work of abject destruction within our own systems, we have been infected for a long time. What small things we justify today may be gateways to greater things, greater crimes, that ultimately may end in our temporal or eternal destruction. If you are involved now, start paying the price for peace of mind. We get what we pay for, and when we pay for nothing, we often get unexpected things with hidden costs no matter how free they may at first appear to be. Oh be wise. What can I say more?

Reprint on MO River Flood

Share

I am reprinting an article on the Missouri flood because I think you need to read it. Before I read this, I predicted yesterday on my Facebook page that "Mark my words: the GOVERNMENT is responsible for the flooding in the midwest, having placed the well-being of endangered species over that of their own." The true shame is also that, however much they talk of endangered species, through selective breeding, the government has eliminated far more species or strains than it has ever protected. You probably don't know this, but I do because there was a guy studying rubber when I was in graduate school, but lettuce is the third highest rubber producer per dry weight. We have bred lettuce in America so that it makes as little rubber as possible. Oops. We have also bred out native chestnut trees, native apple strains, etc., for market purposes and via subsidies, while they keep Nevada off limits to prevent use of resources and protect bugs. Anyway, here's the article.

The Purposeful Flooding of America's Heartland

By Joe Herring

The Missouri River basin encompasses a vast region in the central and west-central portion of our country. This river, our nation's longest, collects the melt from Rocky Mountain snowpack and the runoff from our continents' upper plains before joining the Mississippi river above St. Louis some 2,300 miles later. It is a mighty river, and dangerous.

Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams. The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods.

The stable flow of water allowed for the construction of the concrete and earthen levees that protect more than 10 million people who reside and work within the river's reach. It allowed millions of acres of floodplain to become useful for farming and development. In fact, these uses were encouraged by our government, which took credit for the resulting economic boom. By nearly all measures, the project was a great success.

But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system). Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.

Things turned absurd from there. An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies. Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system. The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.

Congress created a committee to advise the Corps on how best to balance these competing priorities. The Missouri River Recovery and Implementation Committee has seventy members. Only four represent interests other than environmentalism. The recommendations of the committee, as one might expect, have been somewhat less than evenhanded.

The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a "spring pulse." The water flows would then be restricted to facilitate a summer drawdown of stream levels. This new policy was highly disruptive to barge traffic and caused frequent localized flooding, but a multi-year drought masked the full impact of the dangerous risks the Corps was taking.

This year, despite more than double the usual amount of mountain and high plains snowpack (and the ever-present risk of strong spring storms), the true believers in the Corps have persisted in following the revised MWCM, recklessly endangering millions of residents downstream.

Missouri Senator Roy Blunt agrees, calling the management plan "flawed" and "poorly thought out." Sen. Blunt characterized the current flooding as "entirely preventable" and told reporters that he intends to force changes to the plan.

Perhaps tellingly, not everyone feels the same apprehension toward the imminent disaster.

Greg Pavelka, a wildlife biologist with the Corps of Engineers in Yankton, SD, told the Seattle Times that this event will leave the river in a "much more natural state than it has seen in decades," describing the epic flooding as a "prolonged headache for small towns and farmers along its path, but a boon for endangered species." He went on to say, "The former function of the river is being restored in this one-year event. In the short term, it could be detrimental, but in the long term it could be very beneficial."

At the time of this writing, the Corps is scrambling for political cover, repeatedly denying that it had any advance warning of the potential for this catastrophe. The official word is that everything was just fine until unexpectedly heavy spring rains pushed the system past the tipping point.

On February 3, 2011, a series of e-mails from Ft. Pierre SD Director of Public Works Brad Lawrence sounded the alarm loud and clear. In correspondence to the headquarters of the American Water Works Association in Washington, D.C., Lawrence warned that "the Corps of Engineers has failed thus far to evacuate enough water from the main stem reservoirs to meet normal runoff conditions. This year's runoff will be anything but normal."

In the same e-mail, he describes the consequences of the Corps failure to act as a "flood of biblical proportions." His e-mails were forwarded from Washington, D.C. to state emergency response coordinators nationwide. The Corps headquarters in Omaha, NE which is responsible for the Missouri river system, claims they heard no such warning from Lawrence or anyone else. Considering the wide distribution of this correspondence, and the likely reactions from officials in endangered states, their denials strain credulity.

Whether warned or not, the fact remains that had the Corps been true to its original mission of flood control, the dams would not have been full in preparation for a "spring pulse." The dams could further have easily handled the additional runoff without the need to inundate a sizeable chunk of nine states. The Corps admits in the MWCM that they deliberately embrace this risk each year in order to maximize their re-ordered priorities.

MWCM (Sec 7-07.2.6):

Releases at higher-than-normal rates early in the season that cannot be supported by runoff forecasting techniques is inconsistent with all System purposes other than flood control. All of the other authorized purposes depend upon the accumulation of water in the System rather than the availability of vacant storage space. [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps the environmentalists of the Corps grew tired of waiting decades to realize their dream of a "restored Missouri River." Perhaps these elements heard the warnings and saw in them an opportunity to force an immediate re-naturalization of the river via epic flood. At present, that is impossible to know, but to needlessly imperil the property, businesses, and lives of millions of people constitutes criminal negligence. Given the statements of Corps personnel, and the clear evidence of their mismanagement, the possibility that there is specific intent behind their failure to act must be investigated without delay.

In recent decades, many universities have steeped their Natural Sciences curriculum in the green tea of earth-activism, producing radically eco-centric graduates who naturally seek positions with the government agencies where they can best implement their theories. Today, many of these men and women have risen high in their fields, hiring fellow travelers to fill subordinate positions and creating a powerful echo chamber of radical environmentalist theory.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a victim/tool of the above-described process. The horrifying consequence is water rushing from the dams on the Missouri twice as fast as the highest previous releases on record. Floodgates that have not been opened in more than fifty years are in full operation, discharging water at a rate of 150,000 cubic feet per second toward millions of Americans downstream.

This is a mind-boggling rate of release. Consider that 150,000 cubic feet of water would fill a football field instantly to a depth of four feet. This amount of water, being released every second, will continue unabated for the next several months. The levees that protect the cities and towns downstream were constructed to handle the flow rates promised at the time of the dam's construction. None of these levees have ever been tested at these levels, yet they must hold back millions of acre-feet of floodwater for the entire summer without failing. In the flooding of 1993, more than a thousand levees failed. This year's event will be many orders of magnitude greater.

There are many well-publicized examples of absurd obeisance to the demands of radical environmentalists resulting in great economic harm. The Great Missouri River Flood of 2011 is shaping up to be another -- only this time, the price will likely be paid in lives lost as well as treasure. Ayn Rand said, "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

We need to begin the investigations immediately. It seems that it is sanity, and not the river, that needs to be restored.

The author writes from Omaha, NE and may be reached at readmorejoe@gmail.com.

The government has inadvertently caused the flooding because they wanted to protect other species. They want to restore the original river, to the direct temporary and long-term detriment of American citizens who live and thrive there because of the original project. To get a few "green" votes, these politicians have sold out the people of the Missouri River Basin. It's a dangerous river, moreso when the government controls the headwaters.

Honesty at Work

Share

Most people, when they think about dishonesty at work, confine their remarks to pens, paperclips, and the like that people are prone to pocket. Some of that is unintentional, which is probably why the police don't make a big hullabaloo out of it, but one man recently was so desperate for medical care, he managed to get himself arrested for robbing a bank of a single dollar. There are people who, like myself, also buy things out of their own pockets for work, like onions and yeast and bandaids, and most businesses don't consider it theft when pencils and erasers vanish. It's built in as costs of getting work done.

There is however a very common fraud going on at work. For people who do not work in environments with time cards, it is rather much the rule that people will not police themselves. As long as the work gets done, most people don't really mind, but when things start to go undone or when people get blamed for having done things poorly that only became their responsibility 30 minutes in advance of when it was needed, they tend to take a different tack. Too many people saunter into work whenever it suits them and saunter out whenever they like and require that their employers hold up their part of the contract. Such was the case famously according to some sources for why Megan Fox was cut from the Transformers franchise. Her head was not in the game. Like Luke Skywalker, her mind was never on where she was, what she was doing, aided by the presence of her blackberry which helps her be everywhere and nowhere at the same time.  Of his feelings for Megan Fox, Director Michael Bay reportedly said:

I'm sorry, Megan. I'm sorry I made you work twelve hours. I'm sorry that I'm making you show up on time.

Consider also that Fox earned potentially upwards of millions for her roles, is it really too much to ask that she actually pretend to be at work when she's at work? She is, after all, an actress.

Not everyone is an actress. Some people think they are just as important as everyone else. When I read a book by Frank Luntz, he mentioned a poll in which over half of the respondants reported themselves as above average intellectually, aesthetically, and other measures of worth. That's quite simply not possible. On average, half of the people are, well, below average, which is what that means. (Hat tip to Jimmy Carter for the dictionary plug.) Most people are not important enough to be irreplaceable.

A few comments on that from my personal experience. Recently, the department chair told someone in her office that "nobody is irreplaceable", which is probably true. At a previous job, a manager asked me please to not miss work again because it took three people to fill in for me in my absentia. You may not be replaceable in a 1:1 exchange, but we can always find Americans willing to pick lettuce for $50/hour.

Most people game the system. At a previous job, the policy was so lax that it took nine months for a guy with whom I worked to make a mistake and get himself terminated. He forgot whether he could be tardy or absent without getting fired, showed up for work, and was escorted out, having missed a total of 21 days in a nine month period and having been tardy 19 times. When you consider that we worked three days per week, this is an impressive number of absences (20% of days scheduled).  I'm sorry we made you show up to work on time. He was also a strong annoyance in that he would leave at the official 'end of shift' and not when the work was finished like the rest of us. This shifted his work to us, something that forced some of us eventually to pull two consecutive 18 hour shifts. Remember, I'm a biochemist.

Although it's never been prosecuted to my knowledge, it is no less common statistically for people to work more hours than those for which they are paid. This is the common lot of salaried employees, who are expected to work until the job is done, and for soldiers, who are subject to conditions that prohibit them simply walking home when the whistle sounds. However, it is technically illegal for you to work more hours than that for which you are paid, and it is also dishonest. At some point, people could very well find themselves victims of fraud in the opposite direction. See, as my friend John said, taxpayers have an expectation that their money is being well spent, spent on the best people available, and to accomplish the mission. If it takes longer to finish the legitimate responsibilities of government, we have no problem compensating them further for extra work paid, unless we're politicians trying to cut the defense budget.

Most people who stick around at work don't do it for the pay. Like me, they genuinely enjoy what they do and are willing to take one for the mission. I remember when they first instituted the furlough program, the Department Chair came down once to remind me that I wasn't getting paid overtime so that I couldn't sue for it. As if I'd stoop that low. I am here to make sure the job gets done and as such am here until the work is done. All I ask is that we're fair about it.

Employers use hours worked to determine how many people they actually need. We actually need more people because of the hours we have to cover. Our courses run from 0730 until 0000 hours, which means that we need people to be here all hours of the day, sometimes just to accomodate a few students on a relative scale. We have multiple facilities spread across the valley, meaning we need more support personnel who can be trusted to handle scientific apparatus and chemicals. When people cover for coworkers as a rule or claim hours they don't really need to work, management decisions are falsely manipulated. Such was the case at my last employer. I consistently worked at 130% of normal expectation, which meant they could understaff our crew and still get the work done. I could have just worked at 100% or 95% and still pulled full pay, or even extra overtime, but I'd rather work on my terms and not in crisis mode constantly, so I gave it my all. When they did hire someone, we would have to train them, which cut into my productivity as I was a trainer, and then wait to see if they could actually do the job before we could hire someone else.

Although I have been invited several times to participate in lawsuits for unethical payment by former employers, I have always abstained. My personal work ethic demands of me that I "Dare do all that may become a man (Hamlet, Act V Scene i)". I did everything I could. I knew the wage was the same regardless of whether I did 95% or 150%, and I chose to work at 130% because I could and because it made things easier for everyone else. I have felt that was the honest thing to do. When other people had bad days, I picked up the slack, because that's what a man like me does.

At the time, I had a coworker named Lisa, whose real name is not Lisa. She was almost old enough to be my mother, and since we started at 4AM, she frequently wore out before the shift was over or got hazzled during the stress of the day. However, Lisa always gave us 100% of what she was capable. So, on those days, I would go over and help her out. I didn't care who got the credit. I would rather have someone who always gives me everything she's got than someone who just does enough to get by. I know that there were days when my help kept her above the 95% required, and I hope that management recognized her contribution when I left. It was an honor to know and work with Lisa. I wish I could say the same for everyone at that employer. Honesty about my work too, a bonus for this article!

Hirelings and Shepherds

Share

I've been thinking about leadership a lot lately. There are a lot of people in leadership positions who know very little about leadership. One prominent among them said his greatest qualification for the position was that he campaigned well for it. Yet, for all the rhetoric, we don't see a lot of good people rising up to be leaders, and perhaps there are some reasons behind that I will attempt to address in this article.

One of the things on my mind is a story I heard a while back that goes like this. A falcon sat upon some craggy rocks atop a lofty mountain peak. As he surveyed the landscape, he looked down and saw a flock headed his way. They drew closer, and he started to salivate, realizing that it was a flock of pigeons. Ok, pigeons were not his favorite, but he was hungry, so he started to take flight. Suddenly, he noticed among their number a mighty eagle, flying in formation with the pigeons, and changed his mind. The eagle at length came to rest near the falcon as the pigeons continued on their way. Confused, the falcon turned to the eagle and asked him what he'd been doing with the pigeons. The eagle explained that sometimes pigeons lead eagles.

There are a great deal of people among us who are not qualified to lead. It happens frequently that the entitled group among us, what might pass for aristocracy in America, believe themselves by virtue of their birth, their names, their fortunes, or their educational pedigrees more well endowed to lead. This is a principle contrary to good leadership, and most of the people of this attitude go down in history as among the worst of leaders. They forget that leaders have two great and valuable charges- to accomplish the mission and to take care of the people on whom he depends to accomplish the mission.

In historical literature, great difference is made between shepherds and sheepherders. The first is a caretaker and the second is a hireling. Shepherds persuade their flock to follow; sheepherders manipulate people, frequently with the use of a physical object or with the help of dogs. When threats come upon their flocks, the two react very differently. The hireling says to himself, "I'm not getting paid enough for this" and heads off to play golf, read a book, or find some other more lucrative employ. The shepherd takes care of his charge even at the expense of his own life. He knows that it's his charge to take care of his people even if circumstances eventually force him to resign.

What of that flock in the story? Most people, when it comes to leadership mentality, are pigeons by nature. We prefer to go with the flow and not make waves and do enough without standing out, because we know that although sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease, sometimes the squeaky wheel also gets replaced. The simple fact of the matter is that the few eagles among us are, either by virtue of the GOBNet or by virtue of their own deference frequently at least for a time at the mercy of pigeons to lead them along their way.

Sometimes when the pigeons lead, things are ok, but sometimes they lead us into great danger. Pigeons have a rather narrow field of view, to eat, multiply, and deficate. They are not known for being particular about what they eat, with which birds they mate or where they deficate, and sometimes, however well meaning though they may be, they make among men a malaise of circumstance.

The bard wrote, "We're oft to blame, 'tis too much proved, that with devotion's visage and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself" (Hamlet Act III Scene i). Shakespeare means in this that the reason pigeons lead and lead us into difficulties is sometimes the fault of the eagles. We are too self-effacing (in part because we're taught that confidence is arrogance and pride), too humble, too busy, and very, very frequently, too selfish and as such allow the devil his way. We're too concerned with ourselves than with other people. We jealously guard what we have against the pigeons' invasions upon our well-being and adopt an attitude of "every eagle for himself".

Eagles let pigeons lead so that pigeons don't become dependent on them. We know that the more other people rely on our advice, the less able and willing they will be to think for themselves, and while they may never be eagles per se, we hope they will become the best possible of pigeons.

Eagles let pigeons lead as long as the leadership of pigeons doesn't put them in danger or hold them back from their ability to soar to heights. Too frequently, we're ok with 'live and let live' that works in only one direction. The pigeons don't look at us that way. They want what we have, like the seagulls in Finding Nemo. They are used to getting what they want no matter what it is and never compromise. When compassion, compromise, and cooperation go only in one direction, it's not real, it's codependency.

Eagles let pigeons lead them sometimes because it's difficult to always be out front and you can benefit by flying in the back of a formation as you rest and recuperate. It can be taxing to always be on your best behavior, and pigeons are not known for their standards, so the bar is much lower for them in terms of behavior. It's much harder to be even an average eagle than the best of pigeons, and yet the standards are set very high for some while others are exempted from similar expectations. Some eagles would rather not be subjected to the scrutiny of pigeons intent on finding the mote in the eagle's eye without regard for the beam in their own.

Eagles sometimes let pigeons lead because it's much easier to do the work when many hands are involved and not just those of the eagle himself. If you have to do a lot of work, it's always better to enlist other people and help them catch vision of how it's a mutual improvement association to fly together. Ducks know this very well.

Eagles are afraid that other birds will not want to follow them because they are afraid or uncertain of the eagle's leadership. Eagles are, after all, birds of prey. When you're used to one thing and one thing only, it's hard to believe that something else is possible. Pigeons never soar, rarely fly, and spend most of their time scavenging and staying just far enough away from humans so as not to die suddenly. These people forget that people once forgot the world was flat.

Leadership attitudes towards the flock reflect ideas the leader holds about the nature of man. Thomas Jefferson wrote "We both consider the people as our children and love them with paternal affection, but you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses and I as adults whom I freely leave to self government". For the shepherd or eagle, men are capable of almost anything, but for the pigeon or hireling, people are animals with basic needs and some of them are better than others. They forget that even if some pigeons are better, they are still pigeons.

Bad leaders dislike people and do not trust them. Pigeons of men blame people, fire people, and punish people to preserve themselves. Such hirelings despise people and see them as a means to an end, the cost to receive a paycheck. They want everyone to remember why they need government. They want you dependent on them. What this means is that eventually, they end up leading a bunch of pigeons, because eagles do not stay where they are treated incessantly like pigeons. They really resent when pigeons are consistently elevated above them or protected by management not because of their good deeds but in spite of their bad ones. I once left a job and told my manager that "you need me more than I need you" because I knew it would take at least two people to take my place. Two pigeons do not make one eagle. When the wolves come, no matter how great their numerical advantage the hirelings still flee.

When you find a great leader, get behind him. Follow him. Encourage him. Chances are he's not very far from surrendering the position to a pigeon. It takes a large degree of gumption and confidence to assume a true leadership position, even if you are a lesser eagle or a gull or a hummingbird, which for their lack of size make up for it with other skills and traits relative to pigeons of men. If you discover you are dating or married to an eagle, please stand with and by him or her. They will greatly value your encouragement to do what is right, even if that comes at their own personal, however temporary, expense. Show them you understand. Every John Adams deserves an Abigail. Sometimes the shepherd may, as did John Adams, have to lay down his life for the sheep.

Tort Reform

Share

There are lots of people who think that suing is the best way to get justice. The trouble is that in doing so, they frequently hurt many other innocent people along the way who had nothing to do with it whatsoever. A close friend of mine advised me, when I was wronged, to "seek only that remedy that will remove the problem", and a leader in my Faith advised me to "seek justice without vindictiveness". My attorney's advice was perhaps the most useful and enlightening. He told me, "If you decide to sue, I could use the money, but you will have better peace of mind if you just let it go."

A Supreme Court decision today reaffirmed my faith in justice. After years of complaints and appeal, and amidst a lot of emotional fervor, the court rejected a class action female lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. I was happy to see these justices aware that Aristotle reminds us that the law is "reason free from passion". Even if the people wronged were indeed wronged, this is about passion, and when that door swings, it swings very wide ajar and is often difficult to close.

Part of the problem with this type of lawsuit is that it treats everyone equally in an attempt to correct inequity. However, there are probably people in this lawsuit who were not actually harmed who joined in because they can stick it to the man and get money from this very wealthy corporation. In fact, I have also been solicited to join in on a class-action against Wal-Mart for improperly paid overtime, but I know that I was adequately and honestly compensated according to company policy, and my conscience will be clear abstaining from the litigation. The company did not do this to people. People did this to people.

When you attack something large, you inadvertantly hurt other people. Take for instance law suits against the government. Who pays that? Not the officials who hurt the complaintant. TAXPAYERS fit the bill, people who may not even know who you are, let alone wish you ill. The practical application of a lawsuit against Wal-Mart is that it will hurt other hourly associates, other managers who were ethical, and everyone who shops there, because Wal-Mart will adjust pricing to compensate for the loss. In other words, these women want every single one of you to pay for an injustice done to them by a few or the one.

A sweeping 9-0 decision, as uncommon a result as possible, accepted Wal-Mart's argument that these were too dissimilar to be lumped together. Individual actions require individual investigation. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to justice, and what some of these people claim will probably turn out to not be justice at all were the court to grant the request. Perhaps you have forgotten the Duke LaCrosse case? You can read about it here. Just because someone alleges something does not make it true.

What we really need is some tort reform. There is very little if any cost to the complainants in class action suits, and yet they stand to earn from $3 to $3,000,000 apiece for the claim. That's a marvelous return on investment for a little time and a little lie. If, for example, you could only sue for the amount of personal liability coverage you actually carried, that might dissuade some of these professional slip and fall clients from such shenanigans, like this fictitious one that comes to mind.

Truth eventually wins in the end. You do not usually need to sue to get justice. All that really brings you is money, which isn't always enough let alone useful to set things right.

We'll close with this song from John Batdorf called "Let it Go". When people hurt me, I listen to it, and I have so far always followed his advice.

Advantageous to Integrate

Share

During the last few years of the previous millennium, I lived, worked, shopped, and socialized in Austria. By the time I left, many of the people who did not know that I had left from Las Vegas to live in Austria believed me to be either Swiss or Danish due to my command of the German language. Although I did take classes in High School to learn German, I learned most of what I now speak because I spoke it there.

We were encouraged to study the language and use it whenever possible. As such, I gained a reputation for being one who never spoke English with people who spoke German fluently. One prominent leader there told me only a few months ago that he remembered me because I refused to speak English with him. At first, it offended him, but when he realized what I was doing, he gained a great deal of respect for me. He is only one of many to tell me that.

I believed that it would help me to integrate into their society. I continued to study German up through my final days in country. I attended their festivals as often as I could, watched “Die Fledermaus” in the Stadtsoper, ate their foods, shopped at their stores, hiked their mountains and joined them in celebration of their holidays and remembrances. All of this I did because I did not know if I would ever have the opportunity to return to Austria to revisit opportunities lost if I did not avail myself of these chances at the time.

One night, sitting around after dinner, I saw direct evidence of how well this had served me. The Hofers were complaining about all the foreigners who come into Austria and take over the jobs, the culture, etc. I pointed out that I was also a foreigner. They turned to me and said, “yes, but you’re ok. You’re not here to change our society.” Later on, another leader paid me the compliment of addressing me in German. Gerald Roth had a fluent command of English, he having lived in Manchester, UK, for several years, and as such, he usually spoke English with Americans to be sure we understood exactly what he said. After someone heard him speak to me in German, he pointed out how Gerald had never done that to an American before, especially interesting when you consider that there were others who outranked me, yet he came to me.

Around that same time, I had a funny experience. I was in the Vienna main train station to pick up a new associate I was to train. I spoke with the ticket agent quite a while trying to determine my best options to return that same night and then went over to get my day passes for transportation within the city. As I stared at the board, a woman tapped me on the shoulder and said very pronouncedly and slowly, “DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH?” to which I responded, “Yes, I’m from Las Vegas. How can I help you?” She was taken aback. As I recall they were from Louisiana and were surprised to find I was an American after having watched me hold several other conversations prior. Most people were surprised when I produced my American passport, like the customs agent at Vienna-Schweichau Airport, who swore based on my attire and my conversation that I was one of his countrymen and not a Yank. I was given locals discounts and special treatment everywhere I went because I looked and spoke the part of one who belongs. It saved us lots of time and money and opened interesting doors to opportunities we might not have otherwise had. All of this they did because I respected and honored their laws and customs.

This past week, a Texas lawmaker came under fire for requiring an appellant to speak English at a hearing protesting a bill that applied to him. The man has been a resident of the United States for 23 years and refused to speak English.  I once accompanied another of our associates before the magistrate of Tirol. When the court officer asked why I was there, I explained that Casey had been in country for all of two weeks, but that I had been there for almost two years and had been asked to accompany him during his disposition. The officer was most surprised to find that I was not one of his countrymen. Casey was excused with his ignorance. The man in this story, Antolin, has no such excuse. He has contempt for American law and American customs, thinking we should conform to his notions. Only in America does the minority hold sway over the majority; only here can the tail wag the dog. The Texan was correct.

Immigrants will never be embraced as long as they refuse to integrate. Austrians accepted me because I learned their language, their history, their customs, their colloquialisms, their landscape, and their people. As I have found true in this country, I frequently knew more about the history and infrastructure of towns where I lived than the natives. I often gave directions or recommendations, told stories about monuments and such, helped people who were lost, or even interpreted between citizens who, for their own dialects, could not converse with each other, even when I had only lived in the area for a few months. Sheepish though these people sometimes felt, they embraced me wherever I went because they knew Austria was my home as long as I lived there.

Unlike the Mexicans, I was respected by the natives in my temporary home. Mexicans tend to be the only nation that comes to America as a block that insists on bringing Mexico with them. If Mexico was so great, why did they come here? Similarly, I had a coworker once who talked about how much better things were at a previous facility at which she had been stationed. After a while, it bothered me enough that I asked Chrystal, “If it was so good there, why did you leave?” She went back. I respected that choice.

Immigrants are fond of the melting pot theorem. Mexicans tend to resist blending at all, adopting little of our culture and abandoning none of their own. It’s similarly true in certain neighborhoods on the Eastern Seaboard. While in Boston, I scared a cluster of folks in the Italian quarter because I responded when they started to make suggestive comments about some people directly in front of me, and they did not expect me to speak or understand Italian. The homeless man sitting right there and I got a good laugh out of it when they scurried away sheepishly. Too many do not blend in, even while they insist that others do precisely that. Everyone wants to be accepted for who they really are without having to return the favor.

The benefits are interesting, amazing and far-reaching. Since returning from Austria more than a decade ago, I have many friends there still. Some have asked me when I plan to return and offered to put me up if I come to visit at no cost for lodging. Some have asked me to come visit. Some of them remember how I helped them with their homework and asked nothing in return. I am welcome there as are the immigrants who integrate themselves into American society.

I got to know and love Austria because I immersed myself into their cultural beliefs, values, norms, and practices. Immigrants who come to America will find things to love and praise about her as they do likewise. Like the Reverend Ford tells Pollyanna, “we looked for the good in them, and we found it”. Like so many things, we only find them when we look, and so it seems to me that finding the good in America requires nothing more than taking the time to look for them. As long as you’re looking backwards to your old home like Lot’s wife, you will miss the opportunities and virtues available to any here who avail themselves thereof.

What we ask is for people who come here to respect us. I was accepted among Austrians because I respected them and knew them. Our motto is E pluribus unum or “one among many”, which implies a unity, or else it would say “one of many”. I don’t care what color people are, how tall they are, how rich they are, how smart they think they are- I am interested in people who love America and see her virtues and support them. Like so many things, we forget betimes to notice the good things we see because they are there all the time. That’s partly why when people ask us how we are we frequently mention only the negatives, because the positives are constant and the negatives are uniquely different and therefore at the forefront of our minds. Respect for the virtues of America belongs on the forefront of the minds of every person who calls this nation home.

Why the 10th Amendment was Necessary

Share

All too frequently, the judicial branch shows complete contempt for the people of a state or nation-state. In California, the court overturned a ballot measure defining marriage. They have tried to overturn repeals of Obamacare and for now stalled Arizona's border enforcement measure with threats to do the same for Alabama. Fortunately in Wisconsin, there is a judge who knows his real place.

It shouldn't be news that the Wisconsin state supreme court upheld the actions of the Wisconsin legislature to throw out collective bargaining rights. The legislature met and voted on a measure. If the unions had a problem with that, they should have strong-armed the legislators that are sympathetic with them to return to their state and go back to work. When Romneycare was passed in Massachussetts, that was the right of the legislators of that state, bad an idea though it may have been.

I protest the actions of these judges. So many of them are clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood, claiming power and authority and setting themselves up as gods among men. Furthermore, they veribly demand to be called "your honor" when they do not honor the law or the people who established it. This is especially arduous in places like Nevada where judges are selected by election. As soon as they get the robe on, they act as if they're better than we are.

This is why so many of the states were hesitant to ratify the Constitution of the United States, because they were afraid that national law or judges would overrule their own state legislatures. They proved prescient in their fears. Congress is ultimately responsible for the current state of tyranny, having allowed the Executive and Judicial branches to usurp Legislative authority. We are so hesitant to pass laws for fear that the court might strike them down so as to give them the final word on what laws should be extant. It says "We the People" not we the judges, the senators, or the president. Those are titles, and when you leave office, the mantle of authority returns to the people in whom the power rests and from whom the authority came in the first place.

I'm a 76er

Share

The Left has taken it upon themselves of late to assign titles to people on the Right. Many of these are drawn up in such a way as to show contempt. Rather than label them, I will label myself and tell you why. I may also fit into some of theirs, but the one I have chosen for myself has personal meaning to me, and you are welcome to join me in the title of 76er.

Among the titles used by others, almost all are denigrating. Leftists refer to those who demanded Obama's birth certificate as 'birthers', to those who emphasise states' rights as 'tenthers' (tenth amendment), and to most Americans interested in politics as 'tea partiers'. There was value in all of those political stands, and I am as interested in the disposition of those movements as well. There is however a movement that is much more important and that appears to me to be much more lacking.

Early in the morning on 19 April 1775, the drummer beat to order the men of the Lexington, MA, militia to gather on the green. Captain Parker dressed them in lines, ordered those who needed it to resupply, and asked some visitors, one from as far away as Connecticut, if they would stand with the company. By the time the British Regulars column appeared on the road, there were 76 men standing on the green with Parker, according to the research at present as of the time I visited in September 2009. The British marched to within three rods (less than 25 yards) and drew up their lines for battle. When the British withdrew, nine men lay dead, all Minutemen, some on the green, and others on the doorways of nearby houses, some of which still stand adjacent to the green.

I am a 76er. When I visited Lexington, I signed the Minuteman register, but it's not enough to me to be just a Minuteman. Not all the Minutemen were there. The ones who went to the green, who dressed their lines, who followed orders, and who steadfastly and resolutely took that spot to prevent the Tyrant from taking something from their town to which he had no right, those are the men among whose number I would like to be counted.

We have lots of men in this nation and this world who mean well. Some of them do less than they can in order to protect their homes, their jobs, their wives, their children, or themselves. I cannot fault them their choice, because I do not know exactly why they do what they do. However, I do not wish to be an inactive spectator. I will go to the green.

Name me whatever you will. I am sure it will be a derrogatory term. I am equally sure that the Irish conscripts who fired into that body of men that bloody April day thought of their targets as you may of me. I know the officer referred to them as "damned rebels". Well, I'm proud to be a damned rebel if that's what it means to be one- to resist a tyrant. I am a 76er, and God is my Captain.

Malversation Goes Mainstream

Share

By now, if you haven't heard, we have wide-spread miscreant behavior when it comes to morality. From the teachers and students who send sexual text messages to each other to congressmen from New York who flirt inappropriately, it has now crossed a line for me. The President jokes about it, saying "If it was me, I'd resign." I'd never tweet around pictures of my private parts. That's a non-sequitor for me. Have these people no shame?

As a boy, I was taught to seek for and endorse the following principle:

A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. (Proverbs 12:4 and 31:10).

One night, when I was a teenager, at a dance, I pointed out to a good friend of mine that her bra was showing. She sheepishly tucked it back in and was forever grateful. A few years back, I complimented a young woman on how nice she looked and how I appreciated her modesty. We're Facebook friends now although we have never seen each other since. There was once a push for sexual purity, and now there are loads who pursue another path.

Some of them do not know any better. I knew a girl a year or so ago whose mother never stressed that and allowed misbehavior with her sister. I know another girl whose mother told her not to put out unless she got dinner. Put out? She shouldn't give up anything until and unless they are in a committed marriage relationship. In a book I've carried around with me for years, it reads this:

That man or youth who demands without marriage as the price of his favor or love the enjoyment of your body, has in fact nothing but sorrow and degradation to give you in return. That woman who offers to you her body outside wedlock invites you to a feast that brings disease and corruption that will pollute you until death. And any man or woman who demands as the price of his favor or friendship a surrender of any of your righteous standards of living, is offering you nothing worth buying. What it brings to you is false as Evil itself" (J. Reuben Clark, 1940, quoted in Principles of the Gospel, 1943).

Parents think they are good at keeping their children away from the obvious miscreants, but they are not teaching their children to value the men and women who are worth having. Good people will neither offer nor demand something of you that puts you at odds with yourself or asks you to part with something of value without so much as even a promissory note. Part of parenting means to teach your children how they ought to be. Since being moral begets correct actions, focus on their natures and values will manifest itself in their behaviors.

Anyone who knows anything at all about me knows what I value. I find it almost laughable, but mostly because it's so sad, when girls approach me and offer up things as if it will interest a person like myself. Such a notion to offer any sexual favors outside marriage is going to turn me off because it's completely inconsistent with my principles and with the principles that can lead to the best, happiest, and strongest family associations. Years ago, I read this in the book mentioned above:

How glorious is he who lives the chaste life. He walks unfearful in the full glare of the noon-day sun, for he is without moral infirmity. He can be reached by no shafts of base calumny, for his armor is without flaw. His virtue cannot be challenged by any just accuser, for he lives above reproach. His cheek is never blotched with shame, for he is without hidden sin. He is honored and respected by all mankind, for he is beyond their censure. He is loved by the Lord, for he stands without blemish. The exaltations of eternities await his coming (J. Reuben Clark, 1942).

A few years ago, a woman I really liked and briefly dated called me up out of the blue after a long radio silence. She had chosen another guy for reasons at which I can only speculate who was supposedly like me. They were still not married, and she told me she was pregnant. It was comforting to know that the child was not mine and that I was free from the social repurcussions and legal responsibilities that attend wanton misregard for the power of procreation.

We were taught to avoid sin or anything like unto it. Now, they are taught that since you only live once to live it up or that it's perfectly natural to give in to animal tendencies. That might be true if you want to be an animal, but we're better than that. We were born for glory.

I will go back to CS Lewis, because I love what he says on the subject better than I could write myself. C. S. Lewis wrote:

“When I was a youngster all the progressive people were saying, ‘Why all this prudery? Let us treat sex just as we treat all other impulses.’ I was simple-minded enough to believe them and what they said. I have since discovered that they meant exactly the opposite. They meant that sex was to be treated as no other impulse in our nature has ever been treated by civilized people. … it is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong—unless you steal a nectarine. …” (A Mind Awake: An Anthology of C. S. Lewis, ed. Clyde S. Kilby, Harcourt and Brace, pp. 193–4.)

Either you live morally, or you don't. The powers of procreation are a precious fruits to be enjoyed in the right time, the right way, for the right reason and by the right authority. Most of the other animal impulses only harm the individual animal and are not issues of morality. When you conceive a child, or go through the motions to create one, you accept a contractual obligation to that child. Why else would you rehearse if you didn't want a child? As Isaac Asimov's characters would ask, it sounds painful and messy. It certainly becomes messy when malversation goes mainstream.

We are not good enough to constantly withstand the clarion call to rationalize malversive behaviors. The line must be drawn here. If things are wrong, they are wrong. There are no half measures of morality. In addition to the predatory male, there is now the predatory female, but that has been true for longer than my entire life, and I have met a few of them. Rise up and be men who resist aberrant and abhorrant behaviors.

Men are not all the same. Men are not all pigs. I am living a moral life, and while I will not tell you it is easy, I know that it is possible. I hope with every energy I have that I will never be so weak as to 'sext' someone or transmit inappropriate photos. How did Joseph survive Potipher's wife? He got himself out. Mr. Miyagi warned Daniel that "best way avoid fight? Not be there", and my own martial arts instructor taught us that the best self-defense technique is to run. Wrote the poet: "All the water in the world, no matter how it tried, could never sink the smallest ship unless it got inside. And all the Evil in the world, the blackest kind of Sin, cannot hurt you the least bit, unless You let it in." May we be strong and resolute in our principles and values. May we set the right example to which good men may repair and rally for strength. May we be Men.