The ban on shame...

Yesterday I heard Dave Ross say this: "We have to know how he {Tamerlan Tsarnaev} got radicalized because, since this is something anybody could do, we have to figure out how to make sure nobody wants to."

This could be pretty difficult because we live in a society that seems to be committed to making everyone comfortable with their choices. Let's make alternative lifestyles normal. Let's make pot legal. Let's reward the lazy with a free ride. Let's explain away evil as the result of a bad childhood ...and so on and so on...

A lot of effort has been spent making shame shameful. I don't think it's helping.

At the base of this is the rejection of absolutes...If you reject shame, you reject that there are truths that apply to everyone. How can you make something unattractive without imposing shame on the activity? How can you make sure nobody wants to bomb innocents without imposing your truth on them?

It seems that moral relativism is all well and good -- until somebody you love gets hurt. Then come the demands to impose your particular belief system on everyone.

But you can't have it both ways...There ARE absolute truths -- absolute morals, and shame is appropriate when they are flouted.

Certainly, every culture has misapplied shame, and probably always will to some extent, but we are foolish to attempt to make everyone feel good by eliminating the emotion instead of the action.

A little bit of shame could go a long way, in my opinion.

Stop talking about the Second Amendment...

I’m weary of hearing about gun control and I think that its opponents are making a fundamental mistake in their argument.

First, let it be said that I am not for more gun control laws. I don’t want our Second Amendment rights to be diminished…And I don’t own a gun.

 

But, correct as it may be, focusing the argument against gun control as a loss of our rights and our freedoms is a mistake. Consider the audience they are trying to persuade.

The right to bear arms is a right most people do not exercise. Frankly, most people don’t care if they can get a gun or not. They don’t see a loss where there is none for them. It’s someone else’s problem. More gun control laws won’t have a direct effect on most people’s lives, and when this is so, they don’t really care about the subject. The loss of rights argument is moot to them.

They do care about 20 little kids who were killed by a madman.

If gun control opponents want to gain support from the general population, I think they should be focusing on the fact that the regulations being proposed will not work. They wouldn’t have protected those kids and teachers at Sandy Hook, and they won’t stop the next madman either. This is what they should be talking about – over and over and over. It should be stated as fact that laws cannot make us safe and secure. Security from the law is dependent on people who have the will to obey it. Madmen are not usually amongst this group…

The protracted discussions on what gun laws to implement; the endless arguments; the laws that will be passed are just a monumental waste of time, and a dishonor to those who died.

We are a foolish people indeed to think that a law about how many bullets you can carry will protect us from evil. If that is our solution to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, I would be embarrassed to look into the eyes of those little angels who faced the darkness and tell them it’s all okay now.

Because it’s not…and until we resolve to meet evil from a position of strength, it won’t be.

And that’s what gun control opponents should be talking about.

Newtown, Conneticut

Newtown, Connecticut…quite far away from my corner of the world, but my heart is still heavy with the grief of the losses suffered there. Just a few years ago, I was a school secretary and would have been the first line of defense for any threat that tried to enter the front door of the elementary school.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I would have done…and how my heart would have been crushed to fail at such a mission…and how those women in Connecticut gave their all, literally, to save the kids.

And still, not all of them were saved.

So immediately, there is the rush to outrage, and blame, and demands that such tragedies be prevented…

But what if we can’t? What if it is no one’s fault? What if we cannot always stop evil?

Our immaturity causes us to demand new laws that, in reality, cannot produce the desired result. Even worse, we are satisfied with the symbolism of such laws and consider the problem addressed, resolved.

We are content to say, “Someone should stop that!” instead of, “I will not let that happen again.”

Evil is real, and present in our world. Thank God that we are not blasé about the loss of life, the terror and the tragedy…But there are countries in our world where it is an everyday occurrence…where it is never a given that everyone will come home each night. It is good for us to realize that security is not guaranteed, nor can it be. There are madmen out there from whom there is no protection. And we are fools if we think that we can quarantine evil by laws directed at the lawless.

Rather than look for someone else to secure our safety, we need to wisely consider how we will face the madman when that day comes. Perhaps it will be our day to give it all to save some…something that cannot be done unless one is certain of their purpose, and believes that ultimate security is in the hand of God.

In the meantime, perhaps we should be standing against evil by coming alongside the family of the difficult child, the mentally ill, the addicted, the out-of-control rebel. The first defense against evil is not another law, but for each of us to love our neighbor…in deed and in truth…

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”

Favorite Excerpts & Quotes from Atlas Shrugged...

Words from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

"So you think money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the priniciple that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is that what you consider evil?"

"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter or in spirit."

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

"A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in of his own will, and that he build the furnace besides."

"I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them, nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage..."

"...the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is a proper function of government."

"There was an air of luxury about the room, but it was the luxury of expert simplicity...This was Mullingan's concept of wealth, she thought -- the wealth of selection, not of accumulation."

"Mr. Rearden," said Francisco, his voice solemnly calm, "if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling, but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort, the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders -- what would you tell him to do?
          "I...don't know. What...could he do? What would you tell him?"
"To shrug."

Part II: The Sanction of the Victim

The second theme from Atlas Shrugged that has occupied my thoughts is the concept of “the sanction of the victim”.

There are many pages of dialogue explaining to the wealthy steel magnate,  character Henry Reardon, that his indifference to the increasing taxation and intrusion of his business by the government had made him complicit in the final takeover of his company. In effect, his passivity was a sanction to those who were abusing his rights.

Reardon’s friend admonishes: “By their {the government} own statement, it is they who need you and have nothing to offer you in return. By their own statement, you must support them because they cannot survive without you. Consider the obscenity of offering their impotence and their need – their need of you – as a justification for your torture. Are you willing to accept it? Do you care to purchase – at the price of your great endurance, at the price of your agony – the satisfaction of the needs of your destroyers?”

Wow! I had to ruminate over this. The inevitable question is: How am I sanctioning my own victimization? What should I be doing to avoid giving sanction to the government when they diminish my rights?

I have to admit that after all these months of consideration, I don’t have many good answers. But – I do see many regulations and government requirements in a new light, and take time to examine my response to them. I do not want to be giving the sanction of the victim. I believe, as God says, that I am subject to the governing authorities, and respect that God has put them there. However, I will not be passive or silent any more in my response to any attempt to diminish my rights as a citizen.

And that conviction to action does scare me, but I feel it very strongly, and even more so after the revelations of the 2012 election.

I think this is the most valuable concept I learned from Atlas Shrugged, though there are many more that have become part of my thinking as well. It’s a very good book, worth the many pages of reading, and the discipline of thinking through the principles therein. My only wish is that it was written with a underpinning of belief in God. Ayn Rand, the author, was an atheist, and so it makes for some curious reading when she writes of “motive power” as your moral code. A moral code based on what? Character John Galt describes that moral code “which holds that man is an end in himself and not a means to any end of others”.

I couldn’t disagree more…and I think how much greater this story would be with the inclusion of grace and redemption. Ayn Rand missed out on the beauty of that – but nonetheless, it is a book that has informed my beliefs and convictions, and has made me a better thinker.

It has also given me a vision of where our country may be going, that is, the consequences that may be ahead. While the possibilities frighten me, again I take inspiration from the Tramp’s words: “…I think it’s a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it.”

Or to let your country go…I’m more determined than ever to protect our right to freedom, and the country that is the freest in the world.

BOOK REPORT: Atlas Shrugged

It took me three months to read through Atlas Shrugged -- so many pages, so much to think through. When I got to John Galt’s 60 page monologue I almost gave up…but it was too close to the end. I couldn’t quit then!

I am glad that I persevered as I learned so much, and continue to think about it often. Every week, I see something in the news that reminds me of the world of Atlas Shrugged. We are on our way there, and the election confirmed that.

I wanted to write a book report back in June when I finished the book but couldn’t face the multitude of ideas and philosophies that I would have to describe, and the multitude of words it would take. I just felt I would need to tell it all, and how do you do that?

There is so much good in the book, but as time has passed, the message of Atlas Shrugged has distilled down to two things for me.

1) Beware the philosophy of “fairness”.

In the world of Atlas Shrugged, fairness came to mean that all would work to their ability, but would be rewarded according to their need.

The first application of this belief was higher taxation of the rich, to supply the needs of the government, who supplied the needs of the poor. Then it moved to the government trying to redistribute the resources and productions of larger corporations to smaller struggling ones, to make it “fair”. Finally, it moved to businesses themselves where “work according to ability; paid according to need” resulted in workers competing to be the least productive. Why should any one work harder than the next guy? They would all be paid the same –unless you were needy. The needy were expensive, and as productivity declined, the fulfillment of needs reduced the amount of pay available for those without needs. Babies were resented; sickly old women died the night before expensive treatment. Workers could not take the despair of this system and just disappeared.

On a larger scale, factories and businesses could not produce enough goods to stay in business, and closed. In time, people had cars but no fuel to run them. Trains ran fewer and fewer routes per day. The economy was slowly dying and the staples of living became scarce, and difficult to procure.

Of course, this anecdote is from a novel – but take a minute to think about how much “fairness” is talked about in our society. “It’s not fair that corporations make so much money. They should be forced to pay more taxes.” “The rich don’t deserve what they have.” “We should all have our medical expenses taken care of. It’s not fair that anyone should suffer from unexpected needs.” “It’s only fair that a business pay its employees at least a minimum wage.”

We are already a ways down the road of Atlas Shrugged; and the election results seem to make it clear that many Americans want to go there.

I think what the Tramp (in the novel) said to character Dagny Taggart is exactly true: “There wasn’t a man voting for {The Plan to work to ability, paid as to need} who didn’t think that under a set-up of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that they didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his betters wealth and brains. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits too.”

The needy can point to the greed of the rich, but often, their desire is based just as much on the greed they say they despise.

We need to be cautious about fairness, and examine more deeply and thoroughly where a call for fairness will lead. True fairness is rooted in my right to freely possess myself and my efforts. It should be based on equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If I work harder than the next guy, is it not fair that I am rewarded more than he is?

The people of our nation are embracing, as character Danneskjold says “...the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights; that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does...” “…practicing charity with wealth that {we do not} own, by giving away goods which {we} have not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of {our} pity.”

Tomorrow: Part II

To legalize or not to legalize...

I’ve been puzzling over the initiative to legalize marijuana. Well, more accurately, I’ve been puzzling over the implementation of the legalization of marijuana.

I keep asking how they are going to the get the drug dealers to sign up for a license to sell marijuana, and to take a huge pay cut. I suppose the lack of eventual jail time might be a motivator.

But I would think that the drug dealers might not be too happy about the possibility of legalization because now they will have to sell a lot of marijuana to make the same amount of money…and probably buy a license, and charge/pay taxes on their sales, and be liable for income tax on the now-documented sales of their product.

Not to mention, they will likely have to become farmers if they are going to profit from it at all. Hard work.

Somehow, I just don’t picture most drug dealers making the transition. And so far I haven’t seen any interviews on how they feel about the initiative.

{snicker, snicker}

I have to say that I don’t follow the reasoning of the backers of this initiative…They always begin their promos by saying that years of enforcement of marijuana laws have not reduced the number of users…Like this plan is going to do that! The premise of the plan is to increase the number of users.

If you legalize, you widen the market, you bring the price down – and more users (or more usage) is needed to make a profit.

That just might mean more DUI’s, and the costs associated with that…some much worse than monetary.

Of course, the proponents’ biggest justification is that the dealers are making all the money now, and why shouldn’t the state get some of that money? After all, the state needs money badly…and this business is already successfully running out there, just waiting to be exploited accessed.

So, again, the end justifies the means, especially when the end is money.

But I still don’t get how this is good for the drug dealers, and how they are going to get them to buy into it…Some of them are willing to risk death to do what they do now. I don’t think they are just waiting to be freed into a life of legitimacy…I suppose the marijuana dealers will move up the chain into the profitable drugs, and leave the mary-jane to the dispensary types.

And then, in a few years, there will be an initative to legalize crack.