Ground of Your Choosing

Share

One of the things about which I am passionate is history. I am fascinated with Patton's attack on Sicily. I am fascinated with Vincent Strong's defense of Little Roundtop. I am fascinated by Sam Houston's victory over Santa Anna. There is a consistent theme to these battles, which is that if you can choose the ground on which you fight, you can negate the enemy's advantages and control the battle.

On the table next to my bed is also the book by Sun Tzu, "The Art of War". It teaches you how to go about dealing with forces that are arrayed against you, whether on purpose or by consequence of circumstance, and much of it deals with the notion that good people are usually those who come under attack from others. People are going to talk about you and judge you no matter what you say or do or how you live. People are always going to find it uncomfortable to live like you because they are not you. Some of those people will engage in an active, albeit covert, attempt to bring you down as a means to elevate themselves.

History has taught us that the defender is usually in a tough position. The attacker has the element of surprise and the advantage that they decide how the attack will proceed. By contrast the defender has to anticipate what MIGHT happen and prepare with limited resources against what option(s)they suspect the attack might select. History is rife with examples of defenders who are overrun whose preparations for defense then serve the attacker. If he is able to take our strongholds, the capital parts of the land, he chooses what must be done in order to ultimately dislodge him and drive him back out.

War has demonstrated that with rare exception the defender cannot defeat the attacker in the strongholds the attacker has built. We must draw them out in order to even the playing field. A winning defense strategy for a passive defender requires that you govern at least where the battle is fought. You choose the field of battle, and you can control the outcome better than if you let him dictate. This is how Patton cleared most of Sicily while Montgomery was bogged down on the east coast and how Strong held the high ground with a single brigade against two divisions under Hood at Gettysburg and how Houston finished off Santa Anna's numerically superior force in about an hour. Every aggressor has his Waterloo, and if we can bring him to it, we can control the fight.

Too many people let their denigrators choose the field of battle. They begin with a premise, to which we respond. They claim they have the high ground and try to deprive us of it. They start the fight and then invite us to dash ourselves against the beaches of Normandy in wave after wave of fruitless effort attacking them where they are strong. For example, Romney keeps letting Obama choose the ground on which to fight. His political statements always parrot where the President chooses to steer the conversation. However, we can choose where we would like to fight and force them to come against you. You do that best by going after things we know they desire to defend or by setting a direction and forcing them to follow you.

It has been said that the best defense is a good offense. The leading army (the one that is out in front, not the one with the best scores) is the one who determines where the battles are fought. He sets the terms, the location, and the subject of the conflict. It is possible, on ground of good choosing, for a small force to eliminate a far larger one, even sometimes without any bloodshed. You do that by being proactive and setting the stage that forces them to come to you. People will always talk about and be critical of you. Let them. They just want a reaction. You can set the terms and fight on ground of your own choosing.

Courage, Choice, and Church

Share

I’m beginning to think that most politics, particularly from the left, represents emotion over reason. A famous opinion statement from Ann Hathaway currently circulates the internet that amounts to the following:

“There are people who have said that i’m being brave for being openly supportive of gay marriage, gay adoption, basically of gay rights but with all due respect I humbly dissent, i’m not being brave, i’m being a decent human being. And I don’t think I should receive an award for that or for merely stating what I believe to be true, that love is a human experience not a political statement, however, I acknowledge that sadly we live in a world where not everybody feels the same. My family and I will help the good fight continue until that long awaited moment arrives, when our rights are equal and when the political limits on love have been smashed.”

Even in her own statement, she speaks of "political limits on love", which counters her argument that love isn't something political, but I digress. I have to wonder to which of my beliefs she might happen to take exception all the while talking about love and rights and freedom. The truth however contains much more data than that, and with all due respect to Miss Hathaway, whom I liked as a younger actress, this is far from humble. Expressing your opinions publicly requires a bit of arrogance, particularly when it’s controversial, and jumping into a political issue, particularly if you run for office, means you must at least be a little arrogant. Humble people don’t like to volunteer their opinions, and that's all that Miss Hathaway has done- render an opinion.

From the data available, I am not convinced that Hathaway is anything more than just another person who isn’t interested in the truth. Rather, she strikes me with this quote as someone who secretly hopes the truth will happen to corroborate what she already believes. The only reason I can find for her advocacy of homosexuality is the fact that her older brother is a homosexual . She seems to demand that people support what she would like them to support rather than what they ought. After all, that’s very typical of teenagers (Anne was 15 when she learned this of her brother), which led her to leave her Faith and abandon organized religion altogether. This is not a mark of a serious believer in a divine being. It is no mark of maturity to say “give me what I want or I will be a miscreant”. In fact, she rationalizes this behavior, saying, "I realised my older brother was gay, and I couldn't support a religion that didn't support my brother. Now I call myself a nondenominational Christian (NDC), because I haven't found the religion for me" (Lipworth, Elaine (December 19, 2010). "The Rise of Queen Anne". Sunday Telegraph Magazine 'Stella'). In my experience, many NDCs are people who want to impose their will on God rather than being submissive to His. They want God to tell them they are right rather than what is right. Her final statement in that last quote shows her immature attitude when she talks about “the religion for me”. What about the true Faith? I am not convinced she can handle the truth. Either the Faith is true or it isn’t, and if it is, then the choices made my members of that Faith are mistakes made by men and not by the Author. After all, we are human. The moral man looks at Tenants of the Faith and says, "Oh, I should not kill, therefore I will change my Beliefs to conform." One reason why many people may dislike organized religion is because evil men, looking at the same Tenants say instead, "I don't like that, so I will build a Faith around my Beliefs" when he should align his Beliefs with the Tenants of Faith as given by its Author.

Contrary to her assertion, this isn’t brave of Miss Hathaway. This is personal, emotional, and political. I am willing to cede the notion that she truly loves her brother as she understands love, but there are four loves, and the highest form of love desires what is best for the other person, not what that person thinks is best. Perhaps that’s why so few of us exhibit that love, because so few of us know what’s best for anyone, particularly ourselves. The only way I would buy this is if Miss Hathaway had come out of the box swinging as an advocate for homosexuality before it was known that her brother was one. You don't really care about injustice unless you cry out against it when it involves strangers and people you don't like. Name someone Miss Hathaway has defended who is a stranger or an enemy to her, and I will buy her premise, but the data is as yet insufficient to reject my null hypothesis that her advocacy of homosexuality is political.

When I was a teenager, a friend of mine whose name I will not share introduced me to some literature and notions that tugged at the core of my beliefs. I had questions I could not answer. My parents had nothing to offer, the books I read had nothing to offer, and my prayers did not generate what I hoped to clarify the issue. Rather than responding as Miss Hathaway did, I went to my bishop, and I confessed my sins- all of them. I had written all of them down on a legal-size notepad, which I read to him line by line, sin upon sin. He chuckled, he frankly forgave me on behalf of the Lord, and then he told me this, which I say with the same amount of humility as Miss Hathaway: “If you do not make it into the Kingdom of God, I do not know anyone who stands a chance…You are like a finely-tuned radio, and I promise that if you listen, God will help you distinguish error from truth.” I went home, studied and prayed more, and the answers came, and I have never left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for it is true. Since then, when my beliefs have countered church teachings, I have taken them to my Maker, and when He corrects and directs me, I submit to His will. Behold, I am a Disciple of Jesus Christ, the son of God, and the fullness of my intent is that I may persuade men to come to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and be saved. Consider it a standing invitation.

Overuse of 'Nazi'

Share

I'm a stickler for many things. I believe in the law. I believe that rules exist for a reason. In fact, I have written about rules and gamesmanship before. I am a man of faith, a man of reason, and a man of deeply-seated beliefs who lives as nearly as anyone he has ever known to the creed he professes. So, imagine my surprise to be referred to today as a 'nazi', a word that is far overused and absolutely misapplied.

Back during my undergraduate days, I first noticed this trend. Everyone complained about the 'parking nazis' who ticket cars. Nobody seemed to acknowledge the fact that jobs were hard to obtain at the university, and these people were making sure that people didn't park places without permits. Over the past week, I have seen a veritable smorgasbord of posts on the internet about 'grammar nazis'. Excuse me, but has anyone been gassed for a grammar mistake? I don't think so. You see, the Nazis make convenient scapegoats for things with which we happen to vehemently disagree.

Reason leads me to question how these people justify the use of that term. I have actually met some Nazis. Not all Germans, and not all members of the Wehrmacht are Nazis. Nazis are an ideological movement that persisted at least a decade ago in Austria. Twice, I was invited in by overeager older men; twice, I was offered books on white-supremism. I turned both books down and vacated the premises as soon as I could manage it. The men I met were former SS Sturmfuhrer or "stormtroopers", once tasked with and responsible for the systemic eradication of a race. Nothing these men did comes close to the things to which the term Nazi has become associated.

Use of the word Nazi seems to be nothing more than a bit of wordcrafting. People select words in order to evoke an emotional response. We are supposed to pull back in reversion whenever the word is used and associate the guilt with anyone who pracitices the associated words. A "_____ Nazi" is supposed to be morally repugnant to us, to create a political situation, and to get us to abandon reason for the feelings it evokes. Similarly other words are selected to make a man a villain for a word whilst those who coin the term and levy the accusation "clothe themselves in odd old ends stolen forth from holy writ and seem saints while most they play the devil".

People use the word Nazi because it makes people afraid. Two of the things most feared in our world are the totalitarianism of Hitler and the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic. The Nazi regime evokes for anyone who knows anything at all about that time period an irrational fear of red herrings. Such contumelies call us to question any disparity between a man's behavior and his personal creed, which once used to simply make man 'human'.

Rules matter. Laws matter. When we ignore them, sometimes we cause others to err. So, I will stick to the rules and tilt at that kind of windmills, because I think Cervantes was right and that the world will be better for it that rather than excuse human weakness someone strove for excellence instead.

Skyrocketing College Costs

Share

Government is actively engaged in creating a bubble of college costs and acquisition. We have heard recently that half of the graduates in 2012 are unemployed or underemployed. As Obama talks about lower student loan rates, students do not emerge able to pay off those debts. I am disappointed that Mitt Romney, who is proud of his alleged but so far undemonstrated business saavy, has bought into the same inaccurate notions. College isn't a guarantee of anything except great expense. 

Even when I was in school, I saw prices rise. Before I attended, rates rose at a more or less steady and low rate of around 5% annually. While away on my mission, those costs jumped inexplicably a whopping 25% for room and board. I got less board for my money, and I was crammed into a room not much larger than a prison cell for which I paid the equivalent of $400/month (it actually looked a lot like Tom Riddle's room in the asylum; this is the size of a double, but I had a single). My students pay more now than I paid in graduate school. Every year, their tuition goes up, and the Board of Regents adds fees. However, my pay not only remains static but has also been capped and then cut. I have no idea where the money is going, because it's not going into the classroom. 

No matter how good the cause sounds, we are never going to have enough money to pay for everything that we might like all the time. We have to make decisions. The trouble is that the kids who graduate cannot find jobs. We need to grow the economy so that after they graduate there is not only something commensurate with their education to do but also something that will help them extricate themselves from the shackles of student loan debt. Obama's student loan program is not a favor for students; it's a new form of financial bondage. Yet, he will pat himself on the back and gain accolades. Even the undergraduate that works in my department thinks Obama is awesome because of the student loan program. Will he think that way when he's asking people if they'd like fries with that?

When it comes to other expenses, the leftists insist on capping it, but when it comes to students, they want to force as many people through as they possibly can. Many of the students are ill-prepared or ill-disposed to success. Part of that is attitudinal and a matter of maturation, but some of it is endemic to the system because the selection relies too much on grades (which show an ability to regurgitate information) rather than knowledge. Programs such as Advanced Placement and the International Bacculaureat increasingly turn to anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-value literature and curriculum and do not prepare people for jobs as much as they prepare students at a faster pace than ever before to hate America, her values, her traditions, and the way by which it has become a force for power. I can hardly go a day without hearing something on the internet about how young people, particularly abroad, but also here, hate America, think her people suck and wish she would just go away. I get to tell students far more often than I like things like, "When you retake this class, make sure this experience helps you do better" because their minds are not in the game. It's something they believe they ought to do, must do, and are entitled to do.

Then there are those who game the system. Back when I was in college, I worked hard all summer to save as much money as I could only to hand it all over to the university. Now, to get financial aid, some students declare themselves independent of their parents, and become technically destitute, getting scholarships, loans, and food stamps. Where are their parents? My parents were, according to the FAFSA, expected to be able to contribute money to my college experience, whether they could afford to or not, because I was their dependent. Whoever thinks these kids are seriously independent, particularly when they are on the dole as it were for everything, needs to have their head examined. Some of them do not intend to achieve; those who do graduate often move back in with their parents, assuming they ever graduate, because they do not intend to become productive. Why should they? They may intend to rack up debt, live at our expense, and then die never having paid back the money they borrow just like so many people who 'bought' homes have done.

Enough is enough. Yes, it would be nice if we could afford to let everyone do whatever they like and if money was no object. We do not live in that world. We live in a world where things have a cost, and because the students don't have to pay money, they also seem unwilling to pay the other costs associated with EARNING a degree. I do not give grades; students earn them. We have Harry Reid out procuring land for CSN but for which we have no money to build buildings; we have buildings and remodeling in buildings that were adequate; we have some people earning paychecks that their ratings as professors do not justify; and when someone like me does something that saves money, they just spend it somewhere else, usually on something wasteful.

The joke is on us. They promise free education for everyone, but they never promise that it will be useful or that there will be anything for them to do when they graduate. The irony is that some of the greatest entrepreneurs (in terms of total wealth not in terms of actual worth to civilization) are college dropouts who started their own businesses. I am not convinced that those who endorse college intend for you to be successful as much as they intend for you to be conditioned by the educational process.

There are good professors. I consider myself one of that number. As a whole, however, I think college costs our culture more than just the money and far more than we realize. It prepares people to be somnambulent rather than independent. It encourages equality at the expense of freedom. It encourages sameness under the guise of diversity. We are all of mixed culture unless you come from some isolated and backward tribe on the outer reach of civilization. It is time to act serious and be concerned about what they are doing and why. It is time to stop buying the premise hook, line and sinker as if what they promise will happen even if it can. College costs are skyrocketing, and I am not convinced that they will bring the promised return. For graduates of 2012, you will find that out soon if you have not already.

23 April 2012

Conversing or Contending?

Share

I frequently get involved in conversations that feel more like contention than conversation. I ask questions, people take it personally, get emotional, and then attack me. I have questioned the argument; they question my virtue, my values, and my very being. I look for truth; they look to find fault.

Back while serving as a missionary, I learned to recognize this. We were meeting with a man and discussing the Book of Mormon with him, and he came prepared to our meeting that night with a long laundry list of questions. After I answered a few, I suddenly stopped and asked him if he had read the Book of Mormon intending to prove that it was not true. When he admitted that was his intent, I packed up my stuff and left the room, and I never went back. My companion was upset that we had 'lost an investigator', but this man wasn't really investigating. As I have been saying for some time now, most people are not interested in the truth as much as they secretly hope the truth will happen to corroborate what they already happen to believe. When you challenge their preconceived notions, often they will lash out at you.

That's exactly what happened to me over the weekend. I pointed out an incongruity in the logic of their analysis, and they looked at my questions only with the intent to find fault. I was not questioning them. I asked them to question their methods. I guess I identified a sacred cow, a pillar of her belief system, and so she lashed out at me. In the mind of this type of person, they believe themselves, their reasoning, and their logic, to be absolutely perfect. Contrast that to one of my atheist friends with whom I have had lively debates. He told me once that he tries to keep in mind four words at all times: "I might be wrong". In his case, there is point to having a discussion, but when people are absolutely convinced they are correct, they will reject whatever you say, or at least they always have. My friend Thom has said that he only worries about the people who are absolutely convinced that they are correct.

Technology has helped to create these misguided impressions. It reminds me of the words of TS Eliot: "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" As we turn to the internet for instant answers, without regard to the accuracy of those things, we show ourselves to be easily misguided. We are given over to the notion that the internet is infallible, and that since we have access to it we are by extension unable to make mistakes. Every tiny thing is magnified and 'goes viral' on the internet, and people swallow the premise without looking into it themselves at all. Too few people draw attention to the errors.

I think I can understand why. When you point out errors others have made, unless they are mature enough to seek correction and direction and humble enough to admit they are human, they frequently lash out at you as the villain. Even if you do so with the best of human intentions, the person takes it personally and behaves as if you have criticized them. They have not learned to separate the behavior from the being because growing up that bad pattern was started by other people who called them good or bad, smart or stupid, cute or ugly. We are far too complicated for that. We manufacture labels to avoid having to be more specific, more accurate, and more personal. As such, our attempts at courageous conversations frequently devolve into contention when that was furthest from our minds.

20 April 2012

Training Up a Child

Share

After playing racquetball last night, like I often do, I spoke with the woman who mans the front desk. She asked me for my opinion for a sociology paper she's writing on when the best time is to train up a child. I had never really thought about this before, but my answer surprised both of us.

Children learn amazing things. I remember this three-year-old I met in Innsbruck who spoke German, English, and Italian albeit not yet fluently. Her parents spoke to her in their native tongues (German and Italian respectively) and to each other in English, which she had picked up. I told the woman who asked that I believe young children can learn at an amazing rate, one far greater than we realize.

She countered my suppositions. I told her that I thought children needed to be trained before they turned eight. She thought that was too young. Yes, there are things they cannot conceptualize at that young age, but by the time you are eight, you can do and desire to do a great deal on your own. We discussed bullying, which typically arises around the age of ten, at least in the case of everyone we asked as to whether they were bullied or the bully and at what age they recall it. By that time, the behavior that is expressed comes from things learned in the preceding years. While it is possible and demonstrated that these behaviors can be corrected, they are often ingrained by that time.

Much of what we learn occurs before we realize it. I know that when I was five years old and living in England that my mother read to me. In fact, over the last few years, I have spent considerable amounts of money buying brand new copies of the books she read to me to read to my own (hopefully) children when they are young. Reading to me transformed my life. It made me the nerd that I am and kept me out of trouble and into other kinds of activities that cause me trouble now (because I am opinionated, educated, and articulated). The woman admitted that because she was not taught to read as a child it wasn't until now (she is in her 40s) that she values reading.

Before children can talk and act, they observe. If you can't communicate well but your eyes work, you can pick up on lots of nonverbal cues. They hear, they see, and they model what they observe. Children are I believe trained up far sooner than we realize. By the time they are eight, they are actively engaged in choosing their own adventure, and there are few limits on the opportunities besides naivete and the law. By the time they reach middle school, they are their own people; by high school, it might be too late to change their behavior without a concerted and individual effort to instill correct scripts.

Scripture means literally "true scripts". They teach us how we ought to be. For this reason, I think there is wisdom in the old Proverb of Solomon. Train up a child when he is young, and when he is grown he will not depart from it. The more we do to teach our children good scripts when they are willing, able, and inclined to pay attention, the better kinds of citizens, spouses, employees, students, friends, etc., they will be able to be as adults. If we train them up to be poor people, or their models for training are not the models we would like, then we cannot expect them to snap to attention and exhibit correct behavior at command. We must be good examples, because our children watch us for years before they can communicate at all, and even more years before they can effectively communicate. By then, the damage is done and the ruts are relatively deep.

By the same token, if the ruts we cut are good ruts, it will be difficult to derail them to dark paths. I attribute in many ways my ability to chart and hold a straight course to good models of behavior shown to me when I was a youth. My parents worked very hard when I was young to be the kind of parents who actually raised up their children. They taught me how to learn and were good examples, and so much of my original discipline and behavior was planted in me by parents who availed themselves of opportunities when I was malleable to build a good foundation. I thank them for the faithful execution of their role as parents. I stick the course because they helped me set a good one whose ruts run deep, and so I go on, straight on, headed to that distant horizon and a far, green country.

19 April 2012

Lexington Day

Share

Early in the morning in 1775, about 70 armed men gathered together on Lexington Green in Lexington, MA. They knew from Revere the night before that at least 700 Redcoats were marching from Boston to Concord to seize weapons and powder stores allegedly held there. Now as then the government thinks it wise to compel by force the surrender of weapons and munitions. Now as then, I know that some men will go to the green.

Before I left for work this morning, I posted the colors. Back in September 2009, I traveled to Lexington to pay my respects to the dead, whose names I know, and recognize the others who were wounded or enrolled. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for farmers and frontiersmen to stand across a field from the Irish conscripts that marched against them. Even if the Irish were green troops, when they marshalled it must have been a terrifying sight, particularly as the column of 700 men split to round the building on both sides that stood at the crossroads at that time.

There was no need for any of those men to die. The Redcoats were headed to Concord. The Minutemen stood on the green as an indication only that their town was not to be harassed. In total, seven men died of gunshot wounds, at least one of which was in the back on his own front porch, and one man was run through with a bayonet. The only Redcoat injured to my knowledge was the company commander who rode in front of his men to stop their volley of fire and was hit in the hand (by whom it is not known).

Oddly enough, lines from Cyrano de Bergerac come to mind.

I offer one universal challenge to you all. Will all those who wish to die please raise your hands. Approach young heroes and I will take your names. To the first I will build a monument.

The men of Lexington were dispersing, or at least they were ordered to. However, those eight men who died spurred to action one of the most famous American armed exchanges. By the time the day was over, the Redcoats who returned home wished they'd never heard of America.

Former Senator Paul Laxalt has said that "Every day Congress is in session, you lose a little more of your liberty". They are always passing new laws, partially because some of you talk about how "there ought to be a law..." all the time. We do not need more laws; we need more people who respect the law. This was supposed to be a nation of laws and not of men, and yet we have become obsessed with the cult of personality that allows the Obamas to talk of themselves not only as paragons but also messianically. Even as they talk one way they live another. That was what Lexington was all about. Let us live according to the dictates of conscience, not of whim, but of virtued conscience. Later in his famous speech Patrick Henry would talk of how "Two millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."

Lexington day asks us to consider for what we are willing to stand on the Green of Freedom. It asks us what price we are willing to pay. Is life so sweet or peace so dear so as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I cannot speak for you, but I do know that Patriots go to the green.

18 April 2012

Changing Taste

Share

Over the thus far short duration of my life, I have seen many of my tastes change. Foods I once enjoyed I cannot stand and vice versa. Things I once considered fun are things for which I no longer make time. I understand that this is natural, as what we value changes with times, fads, and information we convert into wisdom.

One taste that has not changed is my interest in Star Trek. Growing up, it was something we had in common with our dad, who was a fan albeit not a Trekkie. We watched the movies and the reruns as a family, partially to spend time together, partially because it was extra television beyond our normal quota that we were allowed, but also partially because it was something our dad enjoyed. I am probably the most Trekkie of all the children; when I moved to Vegas and started an earnest and dedicated regimen to get back into shape, my parents gave me the three seasons of the original series as birthday and Christmas gifts. While running on the treadmill, I would watch a rerun, because they were 43 minutes or so, which was my target time goal for running. Trek has become part of my life and my free time.

Several things about that world have surprised me. I dated briefly several years ago a young lady who despite her young age liked Trek. As a youth, her family took her to the Star Trek Experience (which is no longer there) down on the Strip. A few years ago, in repayment for some work I did for the fan community, they offered me a ship's commission. I have a plaque hanging on the wall and an artist 3D rendering of my very own Starfleet Vessel, the USS Resolute, of which I "took command" in 2008. A few months ago, I found someone who was willing to make me my own custom uniform, which I received about 10 days ago, and this is the result:

While researching the pose in this picture, I went through old stills from the original series. I discovered something else that surprised me.

When the series started, William Shatner was approximately my age. Back then, he was considered very attractive by many women, and his allure still makes some women who remember those days swoon. However, when I looked at the pictures, I realized that I'm in better shape than Shatner was back then, and yet women today don't think I'm in good enough shape. I guess that reflects a change in their taste.

I know things change. Just because they can doesn't mean that they should. You know, I found it very interesting to discover that I look better than Shatner, which might explain why older women think I'm handsome. I fit their definition even if I don't fit that of my peers. After all, how do you really account for taste?

People like different things, and that's ok. There's nothing necessarily wrong with them. They're just different. The trouble I see is that many young people tack an immature course and ground their relationships (romantic or not) on similar tastes in things that are subject to frequent and sometimes drastic change. When a young lady announced in church that music was an integral part of her life, I rolled my eyes. Her tastes in music will change. When that day comes, I hope that won't make her completely reevaluate her relationship with her eventual husband.

There are several reasons why people forge relationships. According to Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, there are three reasons why people engage in relationships with one another. The first and lowest level is friendship for benefit, where one selects to forge friendships with people who are advantageous to him. He surrounds himself with people whose talents, values, or status elevate him, and frequently he will leech off of them at least until they cut off the flow of freebies. The second level is friendship for shared interests, activities, events. Many people call "Friends" the people who fall into these two categories, but if they do not hang out with you at your house ever, they're probably not really your friends. Most of the friends, including many of those suggested by Facebook, that I know share common favorite bands, favorite movies, favorite activities, or belong to the same group, club, church, or other organization. Outside those, frequently they don't discuss or do anything else together. Finally, the deepest and most enduring relationships are friendships forged for shared values. Friendships for the sake of virtue are the ones that really stand the tests of time, changes of taste, and the differences of opinion that inevitably arise. You see, you value similar virtues, and that keeps you together when other things might tear you apart.

Yesterday, I counseled a friend of mine whose boyfriend decided he "just didn't have feelings for her anymore" that it was for the best. Even she recognizes and admitted herself that he lusted after her but did not love her. They had a shallow relationship, based on doing the same things together and liking the same things, rather than really liking each other. He viewed her as a means to an end, and so when his end was no longer satisfied, he opted to look for greener pastures. The best relationships are grounded in shared values, shared principles, because those are things that anchor on your character and not on changing preferences. My true friends are still there because we entered our friendship not based on tastes but rather based upon truths.

17 April 2012

Novel Ideas

Share

The department secretary asked me Monday afternoon if I ever read any fiction. I have not actually been to a theater to see a film since last summer. When I did, I went to escape the heat of the day and the humdrum of reality. You see, we go to the movies because they are distinctly different from our lives; if they were like our daily lives, nobody would pay $15 to see them, even if it was in 3-D. Most of my prized books are books of nonfiction. I enjoy reading them. I learn from them much more than from concocted circumstances that are unlikely to ever actually happen to me.

Many of my acquaintances, however, seem to prefer to live in a fantasy realm. They have this misbegotten notion that Jack Sparrow will fall madly in love with them, whisk them away, and make their lives complete. Saavy? They think they will be the exception to the rule and go out and buy lottery tickets, live beyond their means, and test the limits of human practicality. They are upset because I give them a reality check, because they are less interested in what is likely to happen than they are in what might happen, no matter how slim the chances might be. I have had people cut me out of their lives because of what I believe, which means they rejected me because of who I am, who then require me to accept them for who they really are. They are looking for a character to have as a friend, and then the godless among them criticize me for believing in a Being I have never seen while they swoon over a character that exists only on the pages of a novel.

I am not a Nicholas Sparks novel. I am not going to tell you that I do not respect your thoughts, wishes, and desires. I am not going to tell you that I don’t care whom you love, that I know we’re destined to be together and try to force that eventuality to become a reality.

I am not an Emily Bronte novel. I am not going to tell you that I am hung up on someone else. I am not going to hide my past from you, up in the attic who then burns down my house and costs me my sight. I am not going to hold you back to me out of some kind of codependent selfish love.

I am not a Stephanie Myers novel. I do not think it’s love to spend every waking moment with you, to shed blood for you, or to date you even though I’m 82 years older than you are. I do not think that staring at you constitutes communication with you.

I am not a ____________ novel. I do not think it’s wise for you to opine a man who doesn’t give a flying pinwheel about whether you live or die. I am not out to cause you pain. Contrary to even the belief of my students, I do not get out of bed in the morning thinking of ways to make your life miserable.

I am not a self-help book. I am not here to affirm your worth. I do not seek or need your affirmations to know my own. I learned a long time ago that the most important opinions of my own value are my own and that of my Maker. He and I are on good terms, and I sleep well at night because I live true to my principles even if you don’t like them. Who’s opinions am I supposed to have if not my own? Even if my principles are incorrect, better to live and die by them than by someone else’s.

I am not a novel. I am nonfiction. I know that people like Rihanna think that real and good men are boring, and in part we are. I prefer the term safe. You know what you’re getting. See, the problem with Trivial Pursuits is that once a guy catches you, you’re useful for one of two things: eating, or mounting as a trophy. He will then sit there and expect you to do all the pursuing for the rest of your lives together once he catches you. Then there are the guys who are into Catch and Release. They only want you as long as you are not theirs; they do not care what swag they have; they care what swag they have not yet managed to capture from another. The novel world teaches people to regard one another as objects. I will treat you as agents, even if that means I face losing you. I love nothing so selfishly that I will not let it go for its own good.

Most people are inherently selfish. They get together into relationships that benefit them, and when it no longer meets their needs they move on rather than sticking with it. I was talking with one of our older professors the other day who agreed that most people today are immature and lack follow through. Imagine how bad of a golfer Tiger Woods would be if he never followed through! As soon as it gets tough, people bail and look for something that’s less resistance, forgetting that the grass still needs to be tended. When the going gets tough, they quit. Neal A Maxwell said that “Our whole selfish society tends to travel light, pushing away from anyone who might be an obligation—jettisoning “used” friends, relatives, and even partners. This disposability is one of the final stages of selfishness in which the individual is not willing to risk a commitment of any enduring nature, nor to be depended upon for anything. Those whom sensuality has made into such ciphers must remember in their efforts to erase their loneliness by being surrounded by sensations that in the arithmetic of appetite, anything multiplied by zero still totals zero!” Too many people do not want to be with another person; they do not love them. They love the status, the prestige, the attention, the tax advantages, etc. A friend of mine described a real loving relationship as one in which both partners do everything they can to establish an environment in which their partner can be happy.

Human beings rarely do anything for purely altruistic reasons. Even the best of men see the opportunity to do right as a win-win scenario. I am not here to hawk Covey’s book, but win-win creates a greater synergy and is multiplicative for the participants. Both benefit from it. That being said, even when great men do noble things, they do so to be true to their principles, which either satisfies their soul or supports their state of grace with their Maker. Consequently, the few associations I have are ones where the association is greater than the sum of its parts. I know I have students who don’t like me because their grades are lower than they would like or because I discuss things that are not actually going to be “on the test”. However, my efforts are aimed at an attempt to create greater things from their lives if and when they reach the vocational pursuit they declared when they came to college. You see, life is more than dreams and wishes. It also takes work.

16 April 2012

Thermophylae of Morality

Share

This week at Church, I heard an interesting comment. The woman who spoke mentioned how in chaperoning our teenagers she didn't have to worry about drugs and alcohol, only a bit of excessive roughhousing. It struck a stark contrast between what I see and hear happen with students at work, who are obsessed with recreation and procreation. Our society is far too focused on aberrations of morality.

Over the weekend, I was reading Herodotus. Yes, I read things like that. Unlike the popular versions of historically related films such as those depicting Thermophylae, I learned a few interesting things from Herodotus. See, he knew that for the Greeks the Persian army represented an unprecedented threat against the infant ideas of democracy, freedom and justice, which had only after centuries of mysticism and tyranny begun to take root in tiny Greece. For the Greeks, who fought amongst themselves as often as they fought their non-Greek neighbors, the landing force near Thermophylae would have looked as if the entire world had marched to war against them.

As then, a beast approaches. The Xerxes of modernity brings a mighty army hoping by force of weight and mass to impose upon us his morality. His army has many slaves but few soldiers, the people enslaved to the lusts of the flesh rather than inspired by a greater cause. Like Leonidas, the small force that stands against him stands on good ground, has good training, and holds a narrow pass. For all his strength, the weak ideals of the mentality that preaches "whatsoever a man does is no crime" must funnel against people who have been taught and trained to resist this notion to the death. Now as then Xerxes army is a great spectacle, poorly armored, poorly trained, dependent on their reputation and special tactics rather than on the men who are tasked with forwarding the notions.

Our army was trained differently. We were trained by our mothers to love what was good and brave and true. They taught us to trust in our God, to trust in what we know, to trust our hearts rather than in the lusts of our eyes. Many armies are inspired by land or money, because a king leads them, because they like killing, or because they fear the whips that force them forwards. Even Sauron had to force the minions of Mordor to march forth. We are inspired by a better cause. We are fighting for our loved ones, for our freedom, and for our right to worship and live in peace.

Our army is armored differently. Just like Xerxes hoard came with wicker shields, slight armor, and irregular weaponry, most of the weapons deployed against us in the war on morality are used inexpertly by amateurs in desperation. They rely on strength of numbers. We rely on each other. We have the helmet of salvation, the breastplate of righteousness, the shield of faith which helps quench all the fiery darts of the wicked (Yes, one of Leonidas' men did say "We will fight in the shade"), a leather girdle of truth, and the sword of the Spirit of God. We have on the armor of God, and it makes the enemy quake and tremble for fear of our preparations.

Our army holds a straight and narrow path. Free men, who have chosen the way of truth and light, stand against many who are driven by things that cannot and do not last. We have, as Thomas Jefferson, "sworn on the altar of freedom eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man". We have a safe position, a firm position, one grounded in truth.

Our army fights differently than theirs. Our strength comes from the phalanx. We are not individuals. We rely on the strength of the men who fight alongside us, knowing that as long as we fight together they cannot penetrate our defenses. When the battle grows dire, few of the enemy will be able or inclined to hold the line.

Making a thing popular or legal does not make it right. The correctness in a principle comes from its ability to not only bless the life of the man who lives it but also from its ability to encourage and empower him to range forth using that principle to bless the lives of others. The new morality today is a reflection of our society. Like our gas stations, our lives have become self-service. New Morality teaches "You only live once, so live it up" instead of "You only live once, so live well".

Like Leonidas, we know we can hold this ground indefinitely unless we are betrayed. Somehow, Herodotus is not sure exactly how, the Persians found a way to flank Leonidas. If not for that, Leonidas could have held the pass indefinitely, because he had managed after two days to kill tens of thousands with few casualties of his own. This is a fight that can be won, that must be won, because we know that good will triumph in the end. The barbarians quake and tremble in their distant camp, knowing that at least since Leonidas made his last stand that the ideas by which we live have not only survived but also thrived. Our God is with us; our friends are with us. We will be victorious if we trust in right and hold the line at the Thermophylae of Morality.

14 April 2012

Liberals Hate Westies

Share

Liberals hate Westies because we represent everything they don't like. When you head out west, what you find mostly is less a community as it is a conglomerate of people who live in proximity because it's rational so to do. We are not so much neighbors as we are allies, living together because it's to our advantage. Settlement in the west was generally done this way, and the west attracted people who were interested in freedom.

Liberals do not like freedom. As I have said elsewhere, according to them, you will always have too much money and freedom until you have none at all of either. They like people bunched together in urban areas because they're easier to control. Westies were originally rugged ranchers, very difficult to control, which is what spurred the men to action who would eventually become legends of the west like Hickock, Holladay, Earp, etc.

Westies do not really live a life compatible with leftist policy. The only reason why some of those things have made it into the culture and municipal codes of the west is because people have moved here now that it's easier to live in the west who have imposed those notions on us. Most of these liberals would never have survived out here back when my ancestors crossed the plains. They love the beauty of the west without having to pay the price, and now they like to impose their way of life on us.

By definition westies enjoy freedom. Sometimes, they like it too much. A friend of mine created this graphic which I actually like that describes the balance well, even though out west we tend towards rights over responsibilities in terms of the general populace.

In our families, we are all about responsibilities. To strangers, particularly if they come intent on mischief, we are much more skeptical. They can sleep in the barn.

What kind of people, in general, does one find out west? Many westies are fiercely independent, not reliant on government, and consequently not controllable except by persuasion. This might be why so many seperatist movements originate here. We remember that the United States ran us out, annexed the states where we now live from Spanish Mexico, and then forced us again to comply with their laws. We are the people who held on longest to such pictoral vestiges as the one-room schoolhouse, self-reliant farming, stay-at-home mothers, and the like. Our family-centric lives kept families close, valued children, and encouraged everyone to play their part long before the leftists talked about 'shared sacrifice'. If we were not successful, we were dead. We drive almost everywhere because it's a long journey to go anywhere of any significance, and because the Federal Government STILL hasn't finished the Eisenhower interstate system out here. Many of my ancestors "never worked a day in their lives" for a paycheck, but they worked a lot more in their lives than I ever will. Among westies, there is a greater focus on the family and Faith rather than on government or mother earth as god. Like Inga Barks once said of us, out west, "There is God and there is government. God is greater than government and government doesn't like that".

Government is mostly run by liberals who hate us. We are not supposed to be self reliant, and heaven forbid we start to depend on our spouse, our self, or our parish. According to liberals, you are supposed to turn to the government, which will make everything perfect. They forget we came here to escape government in the first place. What makes them think we'll buy that argument now? We remember Johnston's Army, how the Senate refused to recognize the election of Reed Smoot, and the dissolution of the Territory of Deseret. They have always hated us. They have always sought to control us because we do not need them. We have our God and we have each other, and we know that is enough.

11 April 2012

What is Normal?

Share

Yesterday was a fairly normal day for me. It involved a lot of paperwork, a few meetings, some more paperwork, going to the gym, cleaning up around the house and thinking. I think a lot. For the record, I would also probably think a lot if I had a girlfriend, just perhaps about different things. The conundrum of the day was about what is normal.

According to the news, I am weird. Now, the news hasn't said that about me directly per se, but they did say it about Mitt Romney, which is probably a PC way to say Romney is Mormon. Thank you, Captain Obvious. We know that. What they really want to say is that Mormons are weird. When people say that I am not like them, I thank them; I tell them I would not want to be. I seek to be like Christ.

Of course, like most derrogatory remarks, the people who say this do not make any allowance for their own idiosyncrosies. They say we should look at things from both sides but they look at it from their own personal bias. They would do well to remember that in a multidimensional world every story has at least two sides. It's not weird at all that Barack Obama chose to attend Jeremiah Wright's congregation of his own free will and choice for 20 years, baptized his daughters there, and never heard any of the hate speech fomented by Wright. That's not weird at all.

I have never really been what most people call normal. On the rare occassion that I fit fashion it's because the trends have swung to be what I already wear. It actually kind of amuses me that most of the people I know, despite the fact that they claim they are different from most other people, are exactly like most other people I know. "I'm different", "I would never treat you like that", or "You can count on me" are all things I have heard before. Those people are now abject strangers and they have earned the right to be treated that way.

Frequently, we talk about normal without ever bothering to ask, "compared to what?" I have learned that 98.6F is not always the normal body temperature although it's close to normal for most people. Some things are very normal for me but very abnormal for you. Some of my favorite activities would be more normal if people were not ashamed to admit it. Rather than tell people what we actually think or prefer, we sometimes try to appease what we think they would like to hear. So many of our politically correct phraseology comes from a desire to avoid offense against people who seem to worry very little if what they think or say or do comes across as offensive to us. I don't do PC. I'm a Mac. I was a Mac before it was cool.

Long before I was born, it was once cool to live as I do. My paternal grandmother had hung in her home a cross stitch that read, "Use it up; wear it out; make it do, or do without." I travel with my now 10 year old iBOOK. It originally cost me $1500 in graduate school, and since it still works, does everything on a trip that I need it to do, and isn't likely to be stolen, I keep it. It's the same with my clothes, my car, my dishes, and some of my furniture. It is still serviceable and meets my needs. So, I continue to use it. When I showed up at my cousin's house last weekend (she is a successful medical doctor) driving a rented Mustang, she asked me why I still drive the stupid Saturn. It is cheap to operate, meets my needs, and allows me to use my money elsewhere. She acquiesced. I continue to use things that meet my needs that don't meet the needs of others. That way, I'm abnormal enough that hopefully people will leave my stuff alone and leave me to do my own thing.

What I really want at the end of the day is to live, be free, and pursue my happiness without interference from other people. I happen to think that's pretty normal.

09 April 2012

Fahrvergnuegung

Share

I used to drive for fun. I still do from time to time. Before I moved to Vegas, I took a road trip almost every week to see a different part of the State of Nevada. Some of them were longer than 400 miles round trip just to see what was there. Most people don't do that much anymore. My parents admitted a few weeks ago that they no longer jump in the car to spend time together because it costs too much now.

As an American, but especially as a Westie, driving is a huge part of our lives. Many westies live far away from the 'comforts' of civilized life, and so in order to attend church or buy sundries, we have to travel quite a way. With the advent of the automobile, this became easy, economical, and practical, especially compared to walking or horses. When I was younger, we took annual family vacations to see historical places of interest or scenic country. Driving also allowed my mother to lull me to sleep when I had chollic. When my dad was transferred, we drove, and along the way we saw things, spent time, and built memories at places you can't see if you don't have the freedom to take back roads.

The news claims erroneously that gas prices are not a big deal because a paltry 63% of people consider them a hardship. Truth is that the peopel annoyed by this are not the people who go out with signs and pickett federal buildings. They seek solutions. For several weeks, my dad has been talking with me about his plan to buy a CNG converted car for use in his commute because it's only $2.50/gallon in Vegas, and Vegas has the highest price around. He's not complaining and asking government to help; he's being proactive and working to find an alternative.

Americans don't drive as much because of government intrusion. We don't drive because, like the article claims, we are more efficient at managing inconvenience. We are cutting back where we can everywhere we can. It's because we're no longer free to move about the country because the government does not want us to. They seek to control us. Government is actively trying to put us in smaller cars that are less safe and less comfortable. Government officials are trying to make us feel bad because we have had things too good. Government advocates are trying to make us use more efficient fuels even as they refuse to let us go get them. Government is trying to keep us from making use of the means with which the Lord has blessed us. I have to ask why CNG prices in NV are so high. Do we not have any natural gas? I know from previous posts about Nevada Energy that most of their power is generated by coal (78%), but none of those power plants are new. I suspect the price of CNG is high because we are only allowed to go after solar and geothermal projects.

Despite that, I still enjoy driving. This weekend, I drove up to Provo, saw a play by BYU's Divine Comedy (which is a tradition with my sister), visited some family and friends, caught up on my work, and saw some beautiful country. It cost me $270, but I believe it's worth the money to build memories with family.

Although Volkswagon has abandoned the Fahrvergnuegung advertising campaign, I enjoyed it. In driving there is enjoyment. I love the wind in my hair, the sun in my face, and the company of someone along the way. I love the journey as much as the destination. Sometimes, we just need to get away, and I miss the days when it was easier to move about the country. Gas prices are a symptom, not a cause. There are people who believe that gas prices are the cause. Surely they cause other things, but if we were allowed by our own government to actually use an "all of the above" approach like Obama's own campaign website claims, we'd see lower prices. Last night, my mother read a story about how we have so much CNG that we're running out of places to store it, which is similar to our huge gasoline reserves in the USA which we then sell to other countries. That's just stupid. Government is shackling industries, which causes prices to rise, which causes hardship. Sometimes individuals in companies are unscrupled; government is however normally nothing more than legalized plunder.

I enjoy driving. I enjoyed driving a Ford Mustang. My cousin thought I could totally pull it off as my own, and my sister thought I looked good with it. It sure beats driving my Saturn, but I love that car because it has taken me to amazing places at a great value. I have enjoyed driving it, and I will continue to enjoy driving it as long as the cost of operations is less than the benefits I reap from being able to go where I like when I like at a price I like.

05 April 2012

Picking at Scabs

Share

Tonight, one of my Facebook friends sent me a private message. This particular individual knows that for the past several weeks I have actually had a prospective lady friend actually go on a date with me and then get together for regular albeit brief conversations since then. This person also knows that within the last few weeks the prospect has changed from "likely" to "slim to none, with slim walking out the door" and is concerned about my social prospects and reaction. So, this person has on his own recognizance taken it upon himself to look through my Facebook friends and tell me how many attractive friends I have.

I appreciate the concern. I appreciate the statistical analysis. I appreciate that they did not have to be asked. It's very supportive. I know this person wants to make sure that I can look back on this time without regrets and enjoy some modicum of happiness now.

Last weekend, the leaders of my Faith once again called to task those males of my faith who are deliberately postponing marriage. Interestingly enough, this message bothered me, even though it's not like I'm actively engaged in an effort to avoid fatherhood. In fact, most of my pleas fall on deaf ears. I didn't go on a single date in 2011, not because I didn't ask, but actually because at least nine times I can recall offhand I showed up and was stood up by girls who were no-call/no-show. By the time I was 30, I had accomplished everything I initially wanted to do with my life besides be a dad.

I find it interesting that in trying to be helpful this person has actually picked away at a scab and caused a new injury to an old wound. I know this person thinks he is being helpful, but all he has done is reawaken an old wound. Last weekend in Microbiology, we discussed what happens underneath a wound to help heal, and so I know full well not only the consequences but also the mechanisms involved when we open old wounds. In fact, I came very close within a 24 hour period this week to having face-to-face confrontations with two young ladies who frankly friendzoned me and harshly so with contumelies after having led me on for quite some time. I do not wish to talk to them because I am trying to heal, and that will just leave me vulnerable to repeat injury if I allow them to pick at my scabs with their ostensibly friendly banter.

One of my first reactions to this was a scene from the Princess Bride (1989). When they go visit Miracle Max, they verify his identity, asking if he's the Max who worked for the king. Max sneers as he replies, "The king's stinking son fired me. Thank you so much for bringing up such a painful memory. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice papercut and pour lemon juice on it". I know the men who asked didn't mean to cause him pain; in fact they came to offer him business. It was a win-win scenario poorly enough handled that it looked painful to Max.

God saw fit when He created me to bless me with an above-average ability to recall at will and sometimes against my will things I have read or heard or experienced. When this particular lady friend of mine this week decided to give me the cold shoulder, flashbacks of a similar situation with another young lady who even has the same name flooded back after years of dormancy. They say that time heals all things. I disagree. I think that over time, your heart puts scabs over painful experiences so that your brain can move on. Somehow, I know that God handles this better than that. I know He has them because we wound Him constantly. Some day I hope and ask Him to teach me how He deals with painful memories.

There is a healing process. It involves the right things done by the right people at the right place at the right time and with right authority. You're not a doctor or a psychologist or a pastor; what I really need to heal is something else to do, some other reason to exist, and direction to make something else with my life. I need to be healed, which means that the old must pass away and become new as the proper mechanisms operate beneath the scab to replace the damaged areas with new life. When we do not allow this process to proceed as it should, scars result. Let me heal with a wise heart and a submissive soul. Only then can I be whole again.

04 April 2012

Willful Ignorance

Share

Sometimes I see quotes on the internet that I really want to be true. People will attach names to quotes in order to give them greater credence, which is one of the more common logical falacies- appeal to authority. I really want some of them to be true, but I try very hard not to pass them on unless I can cite the source. When I can prove it was said by someone else, I cite that source too.

This is a primary driving force behind the books in my library. I have tracked down books that are out of print so that I can prove not only what people said but also the contextual clues that surround those quotes. Several years ago, a prominent member of my Faith quoted something out of context in an attempt to coerce me. All he did was cite chapter and verse, probably thinking I wouldn't know what it said, and when I challenged him on it, having unbeknownst to him committed it to memory by a coincidence several years earlier, he balked.

When I see fake quotes online, I try to address them. I know many people rely on Google and Wikipedia for their information, but like I tell my students, it's always better to do your own research, to do your own homework. I have spent a lot of money tracking down books so that I could accurately verify what was said by whom and why. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation knows that I have a complete and matching original set of his works, making me one of a few select private individuals who can say that. Added to that, I have actually read these books whereas other people go online and just assume that what they read Jefferson said is true.

I believe the worst type of ignorance is willful ignorance. Blithely passing on things as if they were true without verifying them is laziness atop ignorance. Parrots do that. Even where I cannot prove it, I will admit that, saying something like, "It's true, but I forget where I read it. I invite you to verify the truth. --Gavin Sweeting". I was there when Gavin said that, so I know it happened.

Several years ago, I visited Independence Hall for the first time. Immediately prior to my visit, I had completed reading John Adams' notes from the continental congress. When the tour guide said three things that were not true, I called her on it. "Don't make me go back to my friend's house, grab the book, come back here and prove you wrong," I told her. My friend calmed me down enough to back off that challenge, but I complained to the National Park Service because I had been rejected for a job at the site for "inability to demonstrate sufficient subject matter mastery for the job". I still have that job rejection letter. I was angry. I knew more than the tour guide, and she told me I was off my rocker. Several weeks later, the Secretary of the Interior called me, and events were set in motion to make things right.

Some people are paid to study. I'm a professor, and we are paid part of the day to prepare for lectures. That means reading the book, getting our facts straight, keeping abreast of current events, etc. Very few professors prepare every semester (I have had no choice since I have never taught as yet the same course twice), relying instead on old notes to save time. We do the students a disservice when we teach falsehoods or "the philosophies of men mingled with truth". My opinions are irrelevant. Nobody will ask them what their professor's opinion was. They will ask them for truth. If I do not do this, I am willfully ignorant, and many other innocents may pay the price.

I am convinced that willful ignorance is related to sloth and arrogance. When you think you know everything, what need have you to learn? However, I cannot prove that Einstein ever said that the only thing worse than ignorance is arrogance. I think the worst kind of ignorance is willful ignorance, because if you have the opportunity to learn and reject it, that makes you more foolish. Who is the bigger fool- the person who cannot read or the person who can who does not?

Do not be afraid to learn for yourself and challenge people on their premise. As I teach my students, everyone has an angle, and my angle is to convince them that everyone has an angle. At least I own that I have one. When we pass on things that are not true, we waste their time and substance because people make decisions based on the information given to them. The better the information I have, even if it's not complete, the better my decisions will be and the more reliable and useful my conclusions will prove to the world. You get out of something what you put in. Make sure you put in something quality, something learned, and most of all something true.

Romney: Albatross?

Share

Romney is an albatross as a political candidate. I am not entirely sure which way it will go yet. I do know that an albatross was once a sign of good fortune until some idiot killed it, but normally it is taken as a bad omen. If Romney is elected, Mormons may rue the day.

The last member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to mount any kind of successful presidential campaign was also the first person so called in this millenium. Joseph Smith, Jr., Lt. General of the Nauvoo legion, mayor of Nauvoo, IL, founder and first Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ LDS mounted a fascinating campaign. I have read his platform, and while some of it sounds spectacularly silly in modern times, it was fascinating in its day. Romney's platform doesn't sound much like Smith's. Despite Romney's claim to fame as a blood member of a leading church family, he apparently forgets that God sometimes chooses farm boys and shepherds and fishermen rather than members of prominent families to do His work. Smith was also the prophet of the church at that time. Romney would do well to remember that he is not THE prophet. Smith was also assassinated by a mob during the general election. Romney would do well to remember that also.

Romney needs to realize that all of the world will be watching him. Whether justified or not, they will unjustly ascribe everything bad that happens during his presidency to him and by proxy to every other member of his Faith. Church members will be blamed for what he does, and it may curtail many of their achievements and advancements in society in addition to the existing unfairness with which they are currently regarded.

Although I cannot be entirely sure, I believe that during the General Conference last weekend the leadership of the Faith spoke to him. Whether he realized it or not, I have no idea. They spoke of unrighteous dominion, or the tendency of almost all men as soon as they acquire the least scintilla of power to immediately begin to coerce, compel, and coopt men, forcing them to act according to the mastermind. Elder Larry Wilson said, "Any time we try to compel someone to righteousness who can or should be exercising his or her own moral agency, we are acting unrighteously...We cannot simply force others to do the right thing. The scriptures teach us that this is not God's way." I would warn Mr. Romney against attempts to apply the Adversary's methods as a means to enact the Father's plan. If doing were the same as being, then Lucifer's plan would not have been rejected; we would have all been compelled to be righteous, and that would have been enough. We must lead in righteousness, and I am not convinced that Romney has internalized that message. I am not convinced that Romney believes he is capable of making any mistakes or has any need of the Atonement. If men can make other men or even themselves perfect or if they can usher in a utopia among men without changing their nature, what need have we of the Savior?

In truth, my biggest complaint against Romney is that I cannot tell the difference between him and Obama. This goes far beyond Romneycare v. Obamacare. He may think such policies are for the good of the one being controlled, but if that's the case, then why is he better than Obama who believes his policies to be likewise? As Daniel Webster might say, although both men mean in their own minds to rule well, both of them mean to rule. Compulsion builds resentment, conveys distrust, and forces people to lose learning opportunities. We are taught in the Faith that we must act only by persuasion, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned. From what I can tell, Romney does not believe in the market system; he does not believe in liberty; he believes in masterminds who tell you what to do and force you to do as you are told. He believes he knows better, but he is a MORTAL MAN. His economic activities notwithstanding, he is also flawed and needs the Atonement just as much as you or I.

I know that I am about to make many Mormons my enemies. I know that many people won't like what I say. I invite you to clarify this for yourself. Look at the man. Look at the plan. Look at his dogma, his creed, and the doctrines of the Faith he ostensibly follows. I fear Romney will contribute to exacerbation of the self-licking ice cream cone syndrome, where men surround themselves with people who parrot their politics rather than people positioned and poised to do the best job possible with the means at hand. Romney seems to me to be a trojan horse rather than a panacea. If he were as strong as everyone likes us to think he is, then how come he has just barely over 50% of the delegates he needs?

My other concern about Romney is how he campaigns. Elections seem to me like a job application. I don't know anyone who got a job by going into the interview and telling the board why they shouldn't hire the other guy. They always sell themselves. Romney attacks not the ideas of his opponents but their character; ideas are where Obama is weak, but Romney is weak on them as well. They will not talk about their records; they will probably sling mud, and the problem with that is that the first person to sling mud is the first person who gets dirty. Do we want success and freedom and happiness or do we want to centrally plan? Even in the Faith Romney ostensibly practices, the men who hold positions of authority bow to the will of God, not to the will of any man, who is fallen. I am not aware of any ceremony under the auspices of which Romney has been made immortal and been exalted to the status of deity. Then again, maybe I'm just not invited to those kind of ceremonies. Romney should consider the folley of trying to make earth, which is fallen, the utopia that heaven alone can sustain.

It is, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ, in Christ that we trust. We do not worship Romney. He cannot save us. He cannot even save himself. Just because he sits among us and calls himself a Christian does not make it true any more than it makes me a car to spend lots of time in my garage. I have said for years that membership in the Kingdom of Christ depends more on who has your heart than who has your records. If Romney will realize his true position, I think he'll do better, as we will also if we remember it too.

03 April 2012

In a Good Place

Share

After I finished racquetball this evening, I ran into a young woman I knew from high school. I think she was two years behind me, but she saw through my beard and sat to chat a while with me. As we spoke and she caught me up on her comings and goings, I realized it has been almost 15 years since I finished high school, and I started to weight my standing. Recognizing some of my feelings, this young lady volunteered that her husband, who is seven years her senior, was just about ready to give up when they met. Partially, I think she did this to give me hope.

When you consider all the details, I'm in a good place. Add up the time since high school spent in school and the fact that I've been working as a professor for four years (I was hired on in October 2007 and started teaching in January 2008), and I'm basically right on track. My track record is even more impressive when you consider some of the hiccups that have come my way along the way. Sometimes it's funny to watch people's eyes glaze over at parties or other social functions when they discover I'm a chemistry professor. Frequently some of them will tell me how much they hated chemistry; I tell them I won't take it personally. Being willing to teach classes professors hate got me the gig in the first place. After all, how many 28-year-old college professors do you know? I started very young in the business.

Along the way, I've had some interesting experiences and learned many things. Chief among these are that I decided that if I was going to be damned anyway I might as well be damned for who I really was. I learned to be true to myself, to give myself permission to be myself, to allow myself some pleasures in life and how comforting it is to the mind and soul when you are. I sleep very well at night as a consequence. Everything that is in my control is under control or headed in that direction. The only facet of my life that isn't as I wish it were is one in which I am not the only decisive factor.

Last Friday, I was on Skype with an old friend from Austria helping her with her English. At one point, she turned and asked me point blank, "I know that you're unhappy there. Why do you stay?" In 2010, I felt very strongly that I needed to put down roots here. When I walked into my house, I knew that it was where I needed to be. I had just settled all accounts (and painfully so) financially with my ex wife, and it was time to be me and do what I do. I bought a house, which I have made largely my own, and by next weekend the front yard landscaping will be completely finished, a far cry different and a large degree improved from the previous product. I'm doing my small part to beautify the small rectangle of the planet that is mine.

From here there is room for much improvement. Whatever surprises may raise their ugly heads from time to time, my past has demonstrated to me that I can do hard things, that I can cross great deserts, and that I can overcome great challenges. This weekend, I'm continuing a tradition, and this summer I intend to finally make it to Alaska even if I go alone. Soon, I'll have my renewed passport, and then it's off to Japan and Israel, because I can and because I desire to.

I am sad because of the people who once meant something to me who have extricated themselves from my life. However, I have also learned that the people who belong will remain and that God will strive with those who should remain to persuade them to stay. If it's good it will happen. If it's really good, not just if I think it's good. Also, as I shared previously on Facebook, I have learned that no matter how amazing you believe something to be, something at least as good comes around again if you remain patient.

While I wait, I'm in a position of strength. I live as I please, and I do things that are good and brave and true. I continue to improve and grow. I bought a violin today because I can and because I think it would be cool to play one. Nobody got upset about the expense; nobody will be bothered if it takes me a long time to learn it. One of the greatest things I have is freedom, and it is sweet even when sometimes I crave something else.