Nearly ten years after the name Osama Bin Laden was transmitted through the global media, and his photo stretched wide over television screens and labeled the face of extreme Islamic terrorism, his international exploits have finally come to an end. Thanks to almost a decade of intelligence operations, research, and detective work on the part of the American intelligence community, he has been tracked to Pakistan, where it is said he was likely in hiding for more than five years. Thanks to a crack Navy SEAL team, he has been located and killed. Thanks to President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and a dozen military and intelligence personnel looking on, directing the team's every move, Osama Bin Laden's fate was sealed, pun very much intended. And, thanks to the brilliant strategic minds of the decision-making intelligence officials, there is no way of ever actually proving to the general public that anything involving Bin Laden or a SEAL team ever in reality took place. Let me say that once more, there is NO way of EVER actually proving to the general public that ANYTHING involving Bin Laden or a SEAL team EVER in reality took place. Now, in order to prevent discredit to whatever I may call my current reputation, I will state that this post is not in any way an attempt to perpetuate what most people would label a 'conspiracy theory'. The purpose of this post is not to divine what the government may or may not have done, but rather to point out the frustrating fact that the amount of information given to the American people is sufficient only to render divination the sole viable option to discover the truth of what they have been told.
But, you say, it was reported on the news. Both CNN and FOX carried the same story without a single discrepancy in the details of their accounts. Osama Bin Laden was tracked down, and killed, what possible evidence does anyone have to the contrary? I would pose the question in reverse, what possible evidence does anyone have that what was reported happened at all? Unfortunately the answer to both of these colossally important questions is: none. To make more sense of this seemingly insensible idea, let us imagine for the moment that this Bin Laden incident is the subject of a courtroom trial. We, the general public are represented by the jury, while the United States government, along with the mainstream media are represented by the prosecution, since they have indicated that the events of May the second occurred just as they reported them. The defense in this case must of necessity be non-existent, since to date there has not been a single individual who has openly questioned, or has been allowed to openly question the validity of the information regarding the strike on Bin Laden. We as the jury will examine the claims made by the prosecution and determine the quality of the evidence presented in their favor. It will be readily accepted that our object is not to determine whether or not the events of May the second in fact took place, but more importantly to our interests, whether the evidence presented to the general population is such that it removes all reasonable doubt.
First, let us consider the initial claim as it came in. CNN reported that Osama Bin Laden had been located and killed in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan. They reported that it was done under a Navy SEALs operation and that they had confirmed through DNA tests that it was in fact Bin Laden. There were also reports of 'death photos' that were in possession of the United States, and word was pending on whether or not those would be released. My first reaction to the 'death photos' issue was indifference, since I assumed that the US was in custody of the body, the death having been from a gunshot wound, rather than some sort of explosive, or other method that would ruin identifying evidence. There would be no reason to see photos if they had the body. The only problem was, they no longer had the body. The very next thing I heard reported was that Osama Bin Laden had been buried at sea. Two very strange things occurred to me as I heard that piece of information. First, the rapid pace of it all. Not ten hours after the killshot, before US forces even transported the body into international waters, it was dumped overboard. Second, the reason the government gave for treating the body this way was that it had to do with some sort of 'Islamic tradition.'
Beginning with the issue of timing, questioning forensics labs all over the world, you would find that they all give the same time estimate regarding identification through DNA testing. Subject to the quality of the DNA, it can take anywhere from one week to six for initial results, even longer for confirmation. For our purposes let us assume that the US forces had on their aircraft carrier, from whence the body was disposed of, a team of forensic specialists with their own makeshift lab to perform the necessary DNA tests that were reported to have taken place. Let us also assume that because the death was from a gunshot, that the quality of the DNA used to identify Osama Bin Laden was optimal. Assuming all of that, the minimum time estimate for the top forensic labs in the world is five to ten days, and all that before the results can be confirmed. Even with the best forensic specialists in the world, how could these tests be done AND CONFIRMED in ten hours?
Now let us consider the reason given for burial at sea. There is an inherent problem with the United States behaving in any way that adheres to Islamic tradition; much more when the actions are for the man most wanted by the US government, the man who allegedly orchestrated the most deadly terrorist attacks to ever occur on US soil. It is beyond difficult to imagine the intelligence officials deciding in their minds that the best way to handle the remains of their number one terrorist should be with the utmost respect to his religion. They certainly did not have a problem hanging Saddam Hussein. It is even more difficult to imagine this decision being made by anyone who had family members or friends who died in the North or South towers, or Building seven of the World Trade Center on 9/11. To sum up this point, we will return to our courtroom analogy. Aside from the near absurd nature of the actions taken by the US in dealing with Osama Bin Laden's body, what evidence has been presented to the general public to give any certainty at all to what reportedly took place. Allow me to state here that neither the death photos, nor the results from the DNA identification tests were in fact released or made public by the government. The reason being of course, national security. I will revisit this point later. What evidence does the prosecution have that proves or even lends credibility to their case? So far, we have neither a body, photos, nor any certified DNA test results. All we have is the word of the government, and the media to whom it reports.
It became clear to me very quickly after hearing that the US military had buried Osama Bin Laden at sea, just how important those death photos now were. If released, they could be at least examined and verified by professionals who are not in the employ of the US government, thereby lessening the impact the lack of evidence produced by Bin Laden's body would have on the story's credibility. A few short days later, word came from the Obama administration that the photos would not be released. This came as far less a surprise to me than did the news about the burial. The point that gave me trouble was what brings me to the second issue surrounding the events of May the second, the reasons. Officials in the military stated that the death photos would not be released, and further SHOULD not be released at any time in the future, as it could lead to escalated hatred toward America and its citizens, threatening national security. It seems strange that the US government would consider the release of the death photos as more inflammatory to terrorists than the act of killing their leader. In our courtroom case, the government's reasoning would equate to the prosecution making their claim without providing any evidence whatsoever to the jury for consideration. When questioned about their lack of evidence, they explain that showing the jury proof of their actions would be too dangerous to the jury members themselves, and that keeping such proof concealed supercedes in importance the necessity to determine the truth of the very events in question.
Just two weeks after the Bin Laden incident, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates was quoted by CNN as saying that the American people should stop talking about the events of May second, including the SEAL team, the operation, and the photos altogether, that this too was endangering national security. Again, in court, this would be the same as the prosecution, after producing no evidence to substantiate their claim, refusing to answer their lack of evidence, and further petitioning the court to no longer discuss the issue and move on to other business.
The question now is, why does any of this even matter? So what if the government has given the people nothing but their word to go by? So what if there have been no witnesses, no testimonies other than those of the officials, which are vague at best? So what if we don't know why nothing has changed in Iraq or Afghanistan as a result of Bin Laden's death? The illustration of the courtroom is cute and entertaining, but I only use it to highlight the fact that the actions taken by the government and media in reporting this event which is monumental in recent history are of such a ridiculous nature that they would not be tolerated in a court of law.
I am not so concerned with the question of what really happened on May the second, but instead how we as a people have been trained by those who are in the seats of power to accept without question, heavy, world-altering claims without any evidence to substantiate them.
I'm not saying that US forces never found and killed Osama Bin Laden, nor am I saying that the United States government is working to cover anything up. I am only saying that based on the bits and pieces of information that have been presented to the American people, and furthermore how readily the American people have accepted those broken facts as truth, can you see just how easily it could be?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Mission: Inexplicable
Four years ago today, I returned home from serving my full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Orlando Florida; the most magical mission on Earth. I suppose to those who have not served a mission, no words can adequately express my feelings regarding mine, however, I feel that sharing a few thoughts about my experiences both on my mission and since I've been home may help to highlight one or two important issues that we all face at some point in our lives. Or perhaps the fact that I have never really written about my mission since I returned will serve me more than any other, to characterize and sort out for myself what the experience really meant. Either way, I expect that both reader and author will grow a little, in clarity and understanding.
In many ways, missions share common ground with what might be labeled the 'workplace'. Perhaps that is because certain organizations use the same sort of structure in their workforce, causing some people to confuse missionaries with FBI agents or police detectives. Assigned partners, dress and grooming standards, even standard-issue day-planners. With so many external similarities, one would not be surprised to find some internal similarities as well. Relationships between missionaries can function in the same way they do in the workplace. Unfortunately, this can prove to be a negative force on a young and impressionable missionary with preconceived notions.
Growing up in Calgary, I always thought that missionaries were the best people on the planet. The only thing keeping them from being translated into angels and flying straight up to heaven was that they had a job to do here among us. Teach people the gospel. I figured that was what they did all day everyday. No other option for spending time entered my mind for these people. Not only did they DO missionary work all the time, they must have THOUGHT about it all the time too. For me, this was what a missionary was. Needless to say, when it was getting close to being my turn to go on my own mission, my excitement knew no limits. I thought I was going on the adventure of a lifetime, that I would have the chance to become someone I had always wanted to be. To do the work of the Lord with others just like me. And to watch the hand of the Lord work the many miracles that I had always heard mission stories filled with. It took about four days for me to realize that there is a side of the mission that is in itself very different than what I had expected, and it shook me harder than an earthquake.
Not all missionaries are good missionaries.
The notion that some missionaries are careless, lazy, disobedient, and even unworthy, which thing I never had supposed, was the strongest force against me on my mission. It started out in the Missionary Training Center, where for the short space of three weeks, I was appointed District Leader over two districts, the District Leader of the other having already chosen to go home. I was a little overwhelmed at first, wondering what a District Leader's responsibilities in the MTC were, but decided to take it on, and do my best, since this was the only time in my life that it would ever happen. That is, I think, how I would best describe my feeling toward my whole mission at the time: This is only going to happen once, so make it great! However, a position of seeming responsibility like that of a District Leader does not mean much to a group, when said position is only to remain in effect for three weeks. When I began experimenting with being a leader, at first by making suggestions to the district about how we should be making use of our self-directed block of time, or Missionary-Directed Time, I quickly found that such leadership was neither asked for, nor particularly wanted, and that attempting to be a leader had significant negative consequences.
Nothing had changed eighteen months through my mission, when I was a Zone Leader in the Cocoa Zone during the summer of 2006. There was still resentment of leadership among the missionaries, even some of the District Leaders, but I had not changed either. I found that as a leader, I had a monumental choice to make, which would have far-reaching implications for the rest of my mission. I could either seek the approval of my fellow missionaries, which meant slacking on the rules, and trying to be like them, or I could seek the approval of the Mission President, and I suppose one could extend that to the approval of the Lord, since He called the President in the first place. This would mean not only obeying the rules, but working actively to help the other missionaries obey the rules. I can safely say that it was my upbringing that made the decision for me. I had always been taught to be on the right side, and to have the right people on your side. It made sense to me that the other missionaries, though they might be on my side, could never help me with the work the way the Lord could. And I was there to work. It was my choice, my money, my time. I chose to seek the approval of the President. Immediately, I saw the zone divide, along party lines as it were. My fellow missionaries had also made their own decisions. It was about fifty-fifty. Half of the zone hated me, the other half liked me. The half that hated me, when I tried to be their leader, would tell me things like "I'm not a numbers missionary", or "I just do my work, leave me alone about it", or my personal favorite, "You're just aspiring". I had never had a word which meant so many good things to me before my mission, be used against me to describe something that I was doing apparently wrong. The cognitive dissonance was infuriating.
The feelings of the MTC came rushing back to me. How dare they, I thought, accuse me of wrongdoing, when all I AM doing is trying to help them make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?! I never got used to people intentionally not liking me. In trying to reason it out, I figured, everyone aspires to something. I'm just aspiring to be a good missionary. But no one believes that, when you are on a mission. There is always talk of position, status, titles, etc. The worst was the title and position of Assistant to the President. Funny, because you would think that is what all the missionaries are, but this was different. No sound-thinking missionary would dare want to be an Assistant, because of the immediate isolation from the rest of the group. That is basically what any position of leadership in the mission feels like. You become isolated by your title from the other missionaries, and if you are not viewed as one of them, then you certainly are not treated as one of them. Many leaders in the mission did not want to be called as leaders, and therefore tried with all their energy to remain part of the group. They achieved what they aspired to: sameness. Unity with the group at the expense of personal standards. I feel achieved what I aspired to: doing what I was told, and trying to help others do the same.
The pain of being rejected by the group that was supposed to be my family for two years never went away, but I had made my decision, and was not about to turn back. I gave up caring about what the group thought, and soon found that there were indeed missionaries like me out there. This was the greatest help to me. I could tell within seconds of meeting a missionary in my zone which half he was part of. The ones who liked me did not care that I was the zone leader any more than the ones who hated me, they just wanted to hear what I had to tell them. They responded quickly to any call, and with enthusiasm. They reported to me before I had to call them and ask them to. They looked for solutions to problems, and answers to questions. The fact that I was their zone leader had no effect on them, nor did it need to. In their minds, I was just like them, only with more work to do, and part of that work was to help them. I was not a bad guy, who was always chasing them about numbers, I was their best friend, because I had answers, and suggestions, and experience that could really improve their work.
No missionary is perfect, both sides of the aisle made mistakes. The difference between the two kinds of missionary was that the one made the mistake because he did not care and was not trying, whereas the other made the mistake because he did care and was trying. It was much easier to work with that kind of missionary, and although it was never my place to forgive, it was so much easier to forgive them when they did make mistakes. This taught me about how it must be with our Heavenly Father. He knows perfectly well that we will all make mistakes. That is why He provided for the Savior to perform the Atonement, and then goes on to COMMAND us to repent. It must be so easy for Him to forgive us when we are sincerely trying to do what is right, and come to Him for help.
After my time in the Cocoa zone, I was transferred to the Stuart zone, which ended up being my favorite zone and my favorite transfer of my entire mission. The zone was full of the kind of missionaries that wanted to work. We became a family instantly, and saw miracle after miracle after miracle, which is what I believe every missionary wants to see happen on their mission. I think the Lord placed me in that situation so that I could see how missionary work could be done, and so that I could then take what I had learned to my next area, which was, I think the worst area of my mission, and also happened to be my last. It was not the worst area because of the members, or anything like that. It was that I went from a zone of complete unity, where every interaction between the missionaries felt familial, to one where over half of the missionaries, I believe, wanted to have me shot. After everything I had seen and experienced, you would think that I would have been able to handle that, but I am ashamed to say that it took me down. I was discouraged, and for the first time in my mission, I wanted to come home. I slowed down, and did not try as hard. I lost the fire. It was like finding out what I had in the first four days at the MTC all over again, and it was just too much for me. I did find happiness in the few friends I had in the zone, and in the work I was doing with the Spanish-speaking people in that area, but I was exhausted.
I look back on my mission and the decision I made to stay on the side of the Mission President and the Lord, and I see now that it has defined my leadership roles ever since. I have no regrets regarding that decision, nor any other that was made based upon it. I do not envision myself ever choosing otherwise for the rest of my life. That determination in itself is one of the greatest rewards I have received from serving my mission.
It is unfortunate that not all missionaries who are called choose to be their best. It is sad to see a missionary choose to go home before his time is finished. It is painful to be despised for doing what you have always been taught was right and by those who have been taught the same. But the stability, security, and dedication that come from the voluntary and willful choice to continue despite the fact is worth all the negativity associated with the process of discovering it. For this and many other reasons, my mission was the most important thing I have ever done. It has already completely influenced the course of my life for the better.
In many ways, missions share common ground with what might be labeled the 'workplace'. Perhaps that is because certain organizations use the same sort of structure in their workforce, causing some people to confuse missionaries with FBI agents or police detectives. Assigned partners, dress and grooming standards, even standard-issue day-planners. With so many external similarities, one would not be surprised to find some internal similarities as well. Relationships between missionaries can function in the same way they do in the workplace. Unfortunately, this can prove to be a negative force on a young and impressionable missionary with preconceived notions.
Growing up in Calgary, I always thought that missionaries were the best people on the planet. The only thing keeping them from being translated into angels and flying straight up to heaven was that they had a job to do here among us. Teach people the gospel. I figured that was what they did all day everyday. No other option for spending time entered my mind for these people. Not only did they DO missionary work all the time, they must have THOUGHT about it all the time too. For me, this was what a missionary was. Needless to say, when it was getting close to being my turn to go on my own mission, my excitement knew no limits. I thought I was going on the adventure of a lifetime, that I would have the chance to become someone I had always wanted to be. To do the work of the Lord with others just like me. And to watch the hand of the Lord work the many miracles that I had always heard mission stories filled with. It took about four days for me to realize that there is a side of the mission that is in itself very different than what I had expected, and it shook me harder than an earthquake.
Not all missionaries are good missionaries.
The notion that some missionaries are careless, lazy, disobedient, and even unworthy, which thing I never had supposed, was the strongest force against me on my mission. It started out in the Missionary Training Center, where for the short space of three weeks, I was appointed District Leader over two districts, the District Leader of the other having already chosen to go home. I was a little overwhelmed at first, wondering what a District Leader's responsibilities in the MTC were, but decided to take it on, and do my best, since this was the only time in my life that it would ever happen. That is, I think, how I would best describe my feeling toward my whole mission at the time: This is only going to happen once, so make it great! However, a position of seeming responsibility like that of a District Leader does not mean much to a group, when said position is only to remain in effect for three weeks. When I began experimenting with being a leader, at first by making suggestions to the district about how we should be making use of our self-directed block of time, or Missionary-Directed Time, I quickly found that such leadership was neither asked for, nor particularly wanted, and that attempting to be a leader had significant negative consequences.
Nothing had changed eighteen months through my mission, when I was a Zone Leader in the Cocoa Zone during the summer of 2006. There was still resentment of leadership among the missionaries, even some of the District Leaders, but I had not changed either. I found that as a leader, I had a monumental choice to make, which would have far-reaching implications for the rest of my mission. I could either seek the approval of my fellow missionaries, which meant slacking on the rules, and trying to be like them, or I could seek the approval of the Mission President, and I suppose one could extend that to the approval of the Lord, since He called the President in the first place. This would mean not only obeying the rules, but working actively to help the other missionaries obey the rules. I can safely say that it was my upbringing that made the decision for me. I had always been taught to be on the right side, and to have the right people on your side. It made sense to me that the other missionaries, though they might be on my side, could never help me with the work the way the Lord could. And I was there to work. It was my choice, my money, my time. I chose to seek the approval of the President. Immediately, I saw the zone divide, along party lines as it were. My fellow missionaries had also made their own decisions. It was about fifty-fifty. Half of the zone hated me, the other half liked me. The half that hated me, when I tried to be their leader, would tell me things like "I'm not a numbers missionary", or "I just do my work, leave me alone about it", or my personal favorite, "You're just aspiring". I had never had a word which meant so many good things to me before my mission, be used against me to describe something that I was doing apparently wrong. The cognitive dissonance was infuriating.
The feelings of the MTC came rushing back to me. How dare they, I thought, accuse me of wrongdoing, when all I AM doing is trying to help them make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?! I never got used to people intentionally not liking me. In trying to reason it out, I figured, everyone aspires to something. I'm just aspiring to be a good missionary. But no one believes that, when you are on a mission. There is always talk of position, status, titles, etc. The worst was the title and position of Assistant to the President. Funny, because you would think that is what all the missionaries are, but this was different. No sound-thinking missionary would dare want to be an Assistant, because of the immediate isolation from the rest of the group. That is basically what any position of leadership in the mission feels like. You become isolated by your title from the other missionaries, and if you are not viewed as one of them, then you certainly are not treated as one of them. Many leaders in the mission did not want to be called as leaders, and therefore tried with all their energy to remain part of the group. They achieved what they aspired to: sameness. Unity with the group at the expense of personal standards. I feel achieved what I aspired to: doing what I was told, and trying to help others do the same.
The pain of being rejected by the group that was supposed to be my family for two years never went away, but I had made my decision, and was not about to turn back. I gave up caring about what the group thought, and soon found that there were indeed missionaries like me out there. This was the greatest help to me. I could tell within seconds of meeting a missionary in my zone which half he was part of. The ones who liked me did not care that I was the zone leader any more than the ones who hated me, they just wanted to hear what I had to tell them. They responded quickly to any call, and with enthusiasm. They reported to me before I had to call them and ask them to. They looked for solutions to problems, and answers to questions. The fact that I was their zone leader had no effect on them, nor did it need to. In their minds, I was just like them, only with more work to do, and part of that work was to help them. I was not a bad guy, who was always chasing them about numbers, I was their best friend, because I had answers, and suggestions, and experience that could really improve their work.
No missionary is perfect, both sides of the aisle made mistakes. The difference between the two kinds of missionary was that the one made the mistake because he did not care and was not trying, whereas the other made the mistake because he did care and was trying. It was much easier to work with that kind of missionary, and although it was never my place to forgive, it was so much easier to forgive them when they did make mistakes. This taught me about how it must be with our Heavenly Father. He knows perfectly well that we will all make mistakes. That is why He provided for the Savior to perform the Atonement, and then goes on to COMMAND us to repent. It must be so easy for Him to forgive us when we are sincerely trying to do what is right, and come to Him for help.
After my time in the Cocoa zone, I was transferred to the Stuart zone, which ended up being my favorite zone and my favorite transfer of my entire mission. The zone was full of the kind of missionaries that wanted to work. We became a family instantly, and saw miracle after miracle after miracle, which is what I believe every missionary wants to see happen on their mission. I think the Lord placed me in that situation so that I could see how missionary work could be done, and so that I could then take what I had learned to my next area, which was, I think the worst area of my mission, and also happened to be my last. It was not the worst area because of the members, or anything like that. It was that I went from a zone of complete unity, where every interaction between the missionaries felt familial, to one where over half of the missionaries, I believe, wanted to have me shot. After everything I had seen and experienced, you would think that I would have been able to handle that, but I am ashamed to say that it took me down. I was discouraged, and for the first time in my mission, I wanted to come home. I slowed down, and did not try as hard. I lost the fire. It was like finding out what I had in the first four days at the MTC all over again, and it was just too much for me. I did find happiness in the few friends I had in the zone, and in the work I was doing with the Spanish-speaking people in that area, but I was exhausted.
I look back on my mission and the decision I made to stay on the side of the Mission President and the Lord, and I see now that it has defined my leadership roles ever since. I have no regrets regarding that decision, nor any other that was made based upon it. I do not envision myself ever choosing otherwise for the rest of my life. That determination in itself is one of the greatest rewards I have received from serving my mission.
It is unfortunate that not all missionaries who are called choose to be their best. It is sad to see a missionary choose to go home before his time is finished. It is painful to be despised for doing what you have always been taught was right and by those who have been taught the same. But the stability, security, and dedication that come from the voluntary and willful choice to continue despite the fact is worth all the negativity associated with the process of discovering it. For this and many other reasons, my mission was the most important thing I have ever done. It has already completely influenced the course of my life for the better.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
To Bear Arms, or Not to Bear Arms...
Now that I've gotten everyone's attention with my first blog entry, it's time to share my thoughts and beliefs in a more casual, personal format. In order to gain a little credibility with my readers, (all five of them) I felt I had to begin my blog with "Obama is No King". The article is current, provocative, and informative, hopefully. In that spirit, I should like to share some thoughts I have about an equally provocative issue: gun control. This entry will serve, in part, to respond to one posted by my younger brother, Michael. Secondly, it will reveal why for someone who really doesn't do a lot of hunting or shooting, I side emphatically against the registration and restriction of both the ownership, and carry of firearms, whether in Canada, the United States, or any other country in the world.
Allow me to open by referring back to Michael's post, entitled, "Thoughts from American Heritage: The Problem of Evil in Government". In it, he discusses two differing views on how people are to best govern, or be governed, and uses an analogy of two children fighting over the last piece of cake. The mother of the two boys, wanting to teach them to get along, struggles to determine the best way to help. Referring to the views held respectively by Plato, and Aristotle, Michael reckons that Plato would have allowed the children to portion the cake themselves, relying on their innately virtuous inclinations to conduct themselves fairly. Aristotle on the other hand, would have organized a system of checks and balances, wherein one child would be given the opportunity to divide the cake, but the other would be allowed to choose which piece he wanted, thereby utilizing the former child's own self-interest to force a fair outcome. Michael then makes an accurately clever statement about the dangers of giving a knife to one of two angry quarreling children. I will carry this statement forward shortly. Michael gives his belief (which I share) that, according to what was taught by Jesus, Plato's method of solving the problem is best, for according to the teachings of Jesus, people are to be virtuous, charitable, and always do good to others, while ignoring, or at least repressing selfish desires. While I agree with what should be, I cannot ignore what is. People do not act without respect to their own self-interest.
Going back to the notion of giving one of the two children a knife, as any parent, or sensible person would feel, such an idea is dangerous at best. Likening this analogy to the issue of gun control, it is my belief that such a level of danger exists in society when the attempt is made to control the ownership of firearms.
When any law is made, there are always some who break it. When the law applies to control of firearms, some will still break it. This means that while ordinary law-abiding citizens are abiding the law, not owning guns, there are others breaking the law and owning them, and they're not using them to go pheasant hunting. Those who are in favor of gun control believe in, like Plato, and rely upon the innate virtue of human beings to govern whether or not they will obey the law. These same people in 1974, after passing legislation banning guns in Washington D.C. saw that in no year after the ban, did gun-related crimes ever drop below the level it was at before the ban. On the contrary, the gun-related murder rate continued to rise above the average of other U.S. cities, spiking after the cocaine epidemic in the 1980s. The story is similar in cities all over the United States.
I would like to believe that people are capable of behaving rationally, and in the best interest of others all the time. Assuredly, that is what the Savior taught that people should be. Unfortunately, there cannot be any idea of what "should" be, if there is not already existing a condition that "should not" be. In my mind, the specific issue of gun control would be solved if there were no more guns, period. If there were some way to locate, and destroy every gun that exists everywhere, that would solve the problem. Aside from the infinitesimally minute chance of ever locating and destroying the estimated 420 million guns in the United States alone, once all the guns were destroyed, the issue would be transferred to some other type of small, concealable weapon. Then, those would all have to be destroyed. Eventually there would be nothing left with which to work, since practically any tool of use can perform as a weapon. If the scenario were possible, I would vote for it. As this is not the case, I must insist that under our current circumstances, the continued efforts of governments to ban guns is wrong, and will lead to more, not less, gun-related crime.
It is incumbent upon me to make mention that not all gun-related incidents are a result of crime, and many advocates of gun control cite the instances when a child has inappropriately used a firearm and harmed him or herself or another. With great respect to those affected by these terrible occurrences, I must admit that I have never been the victim of such an incident, and therefore cannot understand the sentiments of those who have. However, in the same attitude as those who are concerned with the safety of children, allow me to make clear that this aspect of the issue has been duly considered. At this point, I shall make an analogy of my own. Suppose a man, his wife, and their small children moved to a small town in another area of the country. They are unfamiliar not only with the environment, and the people, but with the wildlife. Specifically, there are certain dangerous species to be aware of, such as poisonous snakes and spiders. This man, more than anything wants to keep his family safe from harm, and therefore decides to not even tell his children about the existence of snakes or spiders. He does not even want to expose them to the idea, for fear that they might one day out of curiosity, endanger themselves when they do come across one of these dangerous species. The hard reality is that snakes and spiders exist, whether we know about them or not, and they present a very real danger. Similarly, guns exist, whether we know how to use them responsibly or not. Choosing to ignore them can be as dangerous as not teaching children to look both ways before crossing a street, or not to talk to strangers.
As long as the technology of firearms exists, it must be available to all people in order to defend themselves. Guns are the best deterrent to guns. The instinct of self-preservation is one of the strongest in human beings. Imagine the intimidation that comes to a criminal contemplating committing a violent crime when he realizes that his intended victim might be carrying a gun, and might know how to use it. This sort of deterrent is equaled only by the actual presence of an armed police officer. In this way, Aristotle's point of view regarding the system of checks and balances works. In a criminal's own self-interest, (in this case, self-preservation) he will likely choose not to commit the crime. That being said, it cannot be inferred that the possibility that a person may be carrying a gun will always stop crimes. This is unfortunately a reality. As long as guns exist, they will be used to do bad things. Therefore the choice for governments is not how to completely eliminate the illegal use of firearms, because that can never happen, but rather how to reduce the amount of gun-related crime as much as possible. The answer is to let people defend themselves with the same implements that would be used against them.
There are a lot of people who, when confronted with the idea of having to defend themselves, react as if they had dialed a wrong number, and want to hang up as soon as possible. They don't feel comfortable with the idea, and usually have never had to deal with it before. 'This is the year 2010, we don't have to worry about that kind of thing,' they will say, 'the government protects us from danger'. It is true that the institutions of local and federal law enforcement agencies greatly decrease the frequency with which ordinary people are confronted by a situation that requires self-defense. However, these institutions will never be able to eliminate such situations from our lives, and therefore, these situations will always be faced by some. It is for the sake of those, that I hope for the increased education and awareness of responsible gun ownership and use.
As a final note, and specifically to those readers who are familiar with my religion, let me acknowledge that I am fully aware that what Jesus taught was called the "gospel of peace" (italics added). There will likely be many who will say that I cannot be a true Christian if I believe in the use of weapons and other implements that seem to take away peace. I will cite only two stories from the books of scripture I believe in to respond to this position.
First, in the Book of Mormon, there are entire chapters which involve warfare between the two prominent groups of people, the Nephites and the Lamanites. The fact that they fought is not so interesting to me as the individuals who chose to fight, and their reasons. Many prophets, such as King Benjamin, Alma the Elder, Alma the Younger, and Helaman all fought with the sword. The reason is always the same: freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of government, freedom of land, etc. Alma 43:47 reads, "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."
Second, a story most members of the Church are familiar with, that of Zion's Camp. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded to organize an armed militia of men to march to the relief of the Saints who had been expelled from Jackson County, Missouri. They conducted military drills, and were taught to soldier. It should also be noted here that Joseph was the Commander of the Nauvoo Legion, a municipal military force legislated in 1839, and which had at it's peak a minimum of approximately two-thousand, five-hundred armed troops. It would seem that the right to at least own and carry firearms is approved of by the Lord.
The analogy of the children and the cutting of the cake which Michael used in his post is useful to relate to the issue of gun control. The idea of giving a knife to one of two quarreling children is a bad one. So would giving either of them a knife. In our minds we formulate the ideal solution to the problem: get rid of all the knives. That way there is no chance that either of them will be harmed by any knife. This does not, however, depict our present condition. Sadly, the truth is that instead of the children living in a knife-free house, a more accurate description of our society would be a house full of knives of all shapes and sizes, on the floor, in the cupboards, on top of the fridge, and everywhere else imaginable. The efforts to ban guns is like a parent telling only one of the angry fighting children that he can't touch any of the knives. The outcome is certain.
Allow me to open by referring back to Michael's post, entitled, "Thoughts from American Heritage: The Problem of Evil in Government". In it, he discusses two differing views on how people are to best govern, or be governed, and uses an analogy of two children fighting over the last piece of cake. The mother of the two boys, wanting to teach them to get along, struggles to determine the best way to help. Referring to the views held respectively by Plato, and Aristotle, Michael reckons that Plato would have allowed the children to portion the cake themselves, relying on their innately virtuous inclinations to conduct themselves fairly. Aristotle on the other hand, would have organized a system of checks and balances, wherein one child would be given the opportunity to divide the cake, but the other would be allowed to choose which piece he wanted, thereby utilizing the former child's own self-interest to force a fair outcome. Michael then makes an accurately clever statement about the dangers of giving a knife to one of two angry quarreling children. I will carry this statement forward shortly. Michael gives his belief (which I share) that, according to what was taught by Jesus, Plato's method of solving the problem is best, for according to the teachings of Jesus, people are to be virtuous, charitable, and always do good to others, while ignoring, or at least repressing selfish desires. While I agree with what should be, I cannot ignore what is. People do not act without respect to their own self-interest.
Going back to the notion of giving one of the two children a knife, as any parent, or sensible person would feel, such an idea is dangerous at best. Likening this analogy to the issue of gun control, it is my belief that such a level of danger exists in society when the attempt is made to control the ownership of firearms.
When any law is made, there are always some who break it. When the law applies to control of firearms, some will still break it. This means that while ordinary law-abiding citizens are abiding the law, not owning guns, there are others breaking the law and owning them, and they're not using them to go pheasant hunting. Those who are in favor of gun control believe in, like Plato, and rely upon the innate virtue of human beings to govern whether or not they will obey the law. These same people in 1974, after passing legislation banning guns in Washington D.C. saw that in no year after the ban, did gun-related crimes ever drop below the level it was at before the ban. On the contrary, the gun-related murder rate continued to rise above the average of other U.S. cities, spiking after the cocaine epidemic in the 1980s. The story is similar in cities all over the United States.
I would like to believe that people are capable of behaving rationally, and in the best interest of others all the time. Assuredly, that is what the Savior taught that people should be. Unfortunately, there cannot be any idea of what "should" be, if there is not already existing a condition that "should not" be. In my mind, the specific issue of gun control would be solved if there were no more guns, period. If there were some way to locate, and destroy every gun that exists everywhere, that would solve the problem. Aside from the infinitesimally minute chance of ever locating and destroying the estimated 420 million guns in the United States alone, once all the guns were destroyed, the issue would be transferred to some other type of small, concealable weapon. Then, those would all have to be destroyed. Eventually there would be nothing left with which to work, since practically any tool of use can perform as a weapon. If the scenario were possible, I would vote for it. As this is not the case, I must insist that under our current circumstances, the continued efforts of governments to ban guns is wrong, and will lead to more, not less, gun-related crime.
It is incumbent upon me to make mention that not all gun-related incidents are a result of crime, and many advocates of gun control cite the instances when a child has inappropriately used a firearm and harmed him or herself or another. With great respect to those affected by these terrible occurrences, I must admit that I have never been the victim of such an incident, and therefore cannot understand the sentiments of those who have. However, in the same attitude as those who are concerned with the safety of children, allow me to make clear that this aspect of the issue has been duly considered. At this point, I shall make an analogy of my own. Suppose a man, his wife, and their small children moved to a small town in another area of the country. They are unfamiliar not only with the environment, and the people, but with the wildlife. Specifically, there are certain dangerous species to be aware of, such as poisonous snakes and spiders. This man, more than anything wants to keep his family safe from harm, and therefore decides to not even tell his children about the existence of snakes or spiders. He does not even want to expose them to the idea, for fear that they might one day out of curiosity, endanger themselves when they do come across one of these dangerous species. The hard reality is that snakes and spiders exist, whether we know about them or not, and they present a very real danger. Similarly, guns exist, whether we know how to use them responsibly or not. Choosing to ignore them can be as dangerous as not teaching children to look both ways before crossing a street, or not to talk to strangers.
As long as the technology of firearms exists, it must be available to all people in order to defend themselves. Guns are the best deterrent to guns. The instinct of self-preservation is one of the strongest in human beings. Imagine the intimidation that comes to a criminal contemplating committing a violent crime when he realizes that his intended victim might be carrying a gun, and might know how to use it. This sort of deterrent is equaled only by the actual presence of an armed police officer. In this way, Aristotle's point of view regarding the system of checks and balances works. In a criminal's own self-interest, (in this case, self-preservation) he will likely choose not to commit the crime. That being said, it cannot be inferred that the possibility that a person may be carrying a gun will always stop crimes. This is unfortunately a reality. As long as guns exist, they will be used to do bad things. Therefore the choice for governments is not how to completely eliminate the illegal use of firearms, because that can never happen, but rather how to reduce the amount of gun-related crime as much as possible. The answer is to let people defend themselves with the same implements that would be used against them.
There are a lot of people who, when confronted with the idea of having to defend themselves, react as if they had dialed a wrong number, and want to hang up as soon as possible. They don't feel comfortable with the idea, and usually have never had to deal with it before. 'This is the year 2010, we don't have to worry about that kind of thing,' they will say, 'the government protects us from danger'. It is true that the institutions of local and federal law enforcement agencies greatly decrease the frequency with which ordinary people are confronted by a situation that requires self-defense. However, these institutions will never be able to eliminate such situations from our lives, and therefore, these situations will always be faced by some. It is for the sake of those, that I hope for the increased education and awareness of responsible gun ownership and use.
As a final note, and specifically to those readers who are familiar with my religion, let me acknowledge that I am fully aware that what Jesus taught was called the "gospel of peace" (italics added). There will likely be many who will say that I cannot be a true Christian if I believe in the use of weapons and other implements that seem to take away peace. I will cite only two stories from the books of scripture I believe in to respond to this position.
First, in the Book of Mormon, there are entire chapters which involve warfare between the two prominent groups of people, the Nephites and the Lamanites. The fact that they fought is not so interesting to me as the individuals who chose to fight, and their reasons. Many prophets, such as King Benjamin, Alma the Elder, Alma the Younger, and Helaman all fought with the sword. The reason is always the same: freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of government, freedom of land, etc. Alma 43:47 reads, "And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed."
Second, a story most members of the Church are familiar with, that of Zion's Camp. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded to organize an armed militia of men to march to the relief of the Saints who had been expelled from Jackson County, Missouri. They conducted military drills, and were taught to soldier. It should also be noted here that Joseph was the Commander of the Nauvoo Legion, a municipal military force legislated in 1839, and which had at it's peak a minimum of approximately two-thousand, five-hundred armed troops. It would seem that the right to at least own and carry firearms is approved of by the Lord.
The analogy of the children and the cutting of the cake which Michael used in his post is useful to relate to the issue of gun control. The idea of giving a knife to one of two quarreling children is a bad one. So would giving either of them a knife. In our minds we formulate the ideal solution to the problem: get rid of all the knives. That way there is no chance that either of them will be harmed by any knife. This does not, however, depict our present condition. Sadly, the truth is that instead of the children living in a knife-free house, a more accurate description of our society would be a house full of knives of all shapes and sizes, on the floor, in the cupboards, on top of the fridge, and everywhere else imaginable. The efforts to ban guns is like a parent telling only one of the angry fighting children that he can't touch any of the knives. The outcome is certain.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Obama is No King
President Obama's approval rating according to the Gallup poll this week was 46% overall, with support from liberals dropping to an all-time low of 70%. These figures contrast significantly with April 2009, when his approval rating soared among Democrats to an unprecedented 92%, with an overall rating of 69%. Historically, the news media has attributed much of the source of his disapproval to, among other things, racism. One might be surprised at this, considering all of the advances of the late 20th and now the 21st century. But what they don't realize, is that not much has really changed since the 60's.
Most people my age don't know much about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, aside from his name, and perhaps that he was assassinated. Once in a while I will come across a person who has heard of, and might even be able to rehearse a line or two from one of his many public speeches. Two years ago, one could hardly watch the news without hearing something about Dr. King and how his vision had been realized, as evidenced by the historical election of President Barack Obama, the first African-American president in the history of the United States. Amid all the buzz over the event, a hype which was unprecedented in the history of elections in the country, I couldn't help thinking that had Dr. King been alive for the 2008 election, there is a good chance he would have voted for McCain. But Dr. King fought for civil rights, specifically on the part of African-Americans. Why on earth wouldn't he vote for Obama? Why wouldn't he want to contribute to a landmark advance (or some might claim, a victory) in civil rights?
Dr. King dreamed that his children would "...one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement has been replayed and quoted more times than one would sufficiently be capable of enumerating, and the spirit of it's message has permeated social movements against racism for the past forty years. When I witnessed the fervor around Obama's election, and furthermore when I examined the administration since his inauguration, I clearly understood that just the opposite of what Dr. King envisioned had taken place. Barack Obama was judged (and elected) not by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. When I came to this realization, I knew two things: 1. Dr. King, if he was as principled as he is believed to have been, would have turned in his grave, and 2. No one who voted for Obama would readily be conscious of, or acknowledge that they had let Dr. King down.
The harsh reality is that most of the high-profile voters who supported Obama made it publicly known that their support was motivated by the desire to see a black president. This is not surprising, given the nation's history regarding African-Americans. What was disturbing to me, was that President Bush, commenting just after the election results were in, made no mention of Obama's character, or what good things he would do for the country, or even any prior achievements he had made, but rather focused on the aspect of race, and what he called, "...the American story." He said it was an "....inspiring moment that so many have waited for for so long." When the hype faded however, and it was back to business, Bush was reported in September of 2009 to have said of Obama, "This is a dangerous world, and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you." Comical to us as his choice of words are, they carry significance. Whatever one might think of George W. Bush, and his administration, and furthermore whatever his views were of the new administration's policies and values, he certainly was in a position to know whether or not President-elect Obama was qualified to sit in the oval office.
Barack Obama was Illinois senator from 1997 to 2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In Illinois, no legislative accomplishments can be attributed to him, and nothing remarkable was achieved during his short four years as a U.S. Senator. Nothing with which to make a name for himself. Then suddenly, he was projected to win the Democratic Primary. That being said, I had to consider that perhaps he was elected based on the promises he made on the campaign trail, which seemed appealing. Looking into the facts however, the dissonance continued. I began with the practice of signing statements, a presidential act which essentially allows the commander-in-chief to choose which parts of Congress legislation to follow and abide by. Obama promised to abolish this practice. He said it was unconstitutional, and affirmed that he was in a position to know. Speaking in Montana in May 2008, he said, "I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress, all right?" Since his inauguration, Obama has issued twelve signing statements, with no explanation as to why he acted contrary to his campaign commitment. Another promise broken was concerning the time given to the public to read bills before they were to be voted on by Congress. Candidate Obama promised to give a full five days to review non-emergency bills before signing. To date, he has made public six out of eleven bills, and only one of those six remained available for the full five days. Unless all eleven bills were "emergency bills", this constitutes another unfulfilled commitment, a major commitment which, when made, helped him gain support. The most famous incident of this was the $787 Billion economic stimulus bill. This 1071 page document (eight inches thick) was given to representatives in the middle of the night to read for a few hours before debate resumed on it in Congress and the voting started.
I mention these specific points not to highlight the individual issues in and of themselves, but because they demonstrate an overarching theme which is dangerously present in the Obama administration. President Bush was right; President-elect Obama wasn't qualified to be President of the United States. Perhaps he was elected because the voters saw a chance to validate their own triumph over the issue of civil rights and equality, or maybe they figured that if they didn't vote for him, they would feel as if they were perpetuating racism. The fact is the people of the United States betrayed the very cause they thought they were championing by electing Barack Obama, and the scary part is that they don't even realize that they did it.
Politicians are elected by the people, and we call them public servants. When they no longer serve the public, they are unqualified to hold the position entrusted to them. In 2012, Americans will have another chance to appoint someone to the office of President. I can only hope for a fundamental shift in the public's criteria regarding their commander-in-chief. I'm a historian, and if I've learned nothing else from history, it's that if we don't learn about it, we are bound to repeat it. The citizens of the United States of America have such potential, but I agree with what Dr. King said in Memphis, during his final speech in 1968, "We've got some difficult days ahead."
Most people my age don't know much about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, aside from his name, and perhaps that he was assassinated. Once in a while I will come across a person who has heard of, and might even be able to rehearse a line or two from one of his many public speeches. Two years ago, one could hardly watch the news without hearing something about Dr. King and how his vision had been realized, as evidenced by the historical election of President Barack Obama, the first African-American president in the history of the United States. Amid all the buzz over the event, a hype which was unprecedented in the history of elections in the country, I couldn't help thinking that had Dr. King been alive for the 2008 election, there is a good chance he would have voted for McCain. But Dr. King fought for civil rights, specifically on the part of African-Americans. Why on earth wouldn't he vote for Obama? Why wouldn't he want to contribute to a landmark advance (or some might claim, a victory) in civil rights?
Dr. King dreamed that his children would "...one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement has been replayed and quoted more times than one would sufficiently be capable of enumerating, and the spirit of it's message has permeated social movements against racism for the past forty years. When I witnessed the fervor around Obama's election, and furthermore when I examined the administration since his inauguration, I clearly understood that just the opposite of what Dr. King envisioned had taken place. Barack Obama was judged (and elected) not by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. When I came to this realization, I knew two things: 1. Dr. King, if he was as principled as he is believed to have been, would have turned in his grave, and 2. No one who voted for Obama would readily be conscious of, or acknowledge that they had let Dr. King down.
The harsh reality is that most of the high-profile voters who supported Obama made it publicly known that their support was motivated by the desire to see a black president. This is not surprising, given the nation's history regarding African-Americans. What was disturbing to me, was that President Bush, commenting just after the election results were in, made no mention of Obama's character, or what good things he would do for the country, or even any prior achievements he had made, but rather focused on the aspect of race, and what he called, "...the American story." He said it was an "....inspiring moment that so many have waited for for so long." When the hype faded however, and it was back to business, Bush was reported in September of 2009 to have said of Obama, "This is a dangerous world, and this cat [Obama] isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you." Comical to us as his choice of words are, they carry significance. Whatever one might think of George W. Bush, and his administration, and furthermore whatever his views were of the new administration's policies and values, he certainly was in a position to know whether or not President-elect Obama was qualified to sit in the oval office.
Barack Obama was Illinois senator from 1997 to 2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In Illinois, no legislative accomplishments can be attributed to him, and nothing remarkable was achieved during his short four years as a U.S. Senator. Nothing with which to make a name for himself. Then suddenly, he was projected to win the Democratic Primary. That being said, I had to consider that perhaps he was elected based on the promises he made on the campaign trail, which seemed appealing. Looking into the facts however, the dissonance continued. I began with the practice of signing statements, a presidential act which essentially allows the commander-in-chief to choose which parts of Congress legislation to follow and abide by. Obama promised to abolish this practice. He said it was unconstitutional, and affirmed that he was in a position to know. Speaking in Montana in May 2008, he said, "I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress, all right?" Since his inauguration, Obama has issued twelve signing statements, with no explanation as to why he acted contrary to his campaign commitment. Another promise broken was concerning the time given to the public to read bills before they were to be voted on by Congress. Candidate Obama promised to give a full five days to review non-emergency bills before signing. To date, he has made public six out of eleven bills, and only one of those six remained available for the full five days. Unless all eleven bills were "emergency bills", this constitutes another unfulfilled commitment, a major commitment which, when made, helped him gain support. The most famous incident of this was the $787 Billion economic stimulus bill. This 1071 page document (eight inches thick) was given to representatives in the middle of the night to read for a few hours before debate resumed on it in Congress and the voting started.
I mention these specific points not to highlight the individual issues in and of themselves, but because they demonstrate an overarching theme which is dangerously present in the Obama administration. President Bush was right; President-elect Obama wasn't qualified to be President of the United States. Perhaps he was elected because the voters saw a chance to validate their own triumph over the issue of civil rights and equality, or maybe they figured that if they didn't vote for him, they would feel as if they were perpetuating racism. The fact is the people of the United States betrayed the very cause they thought they were championing by electing Barack Obama, and the scary part is that they don't even realize that they did it.
Politicians are elected by the people, and we call them public servants. When they no longer serve the public, they are unqualified to hold the position entrusted to them. In 2012, Americans will have another chance to appoint someone to the office of President. I can only hope for a fundamental shift in the public's criteria regarding their commander-in-chief. I'm a historian, and if I've learned nothing else from history, it's that if we don't learn about it, we are bound to repeat it. The citizens of the United States of America have such potential, but I agree with what Dr. King said in Memphis, during his final speech in 1968, "We've got some difficult days ahead."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)