Friday, October 14, 2011
Processing Anger, Take 1
Friday, January 28, 2011
Obama State of the Union Adress: 2011
State of the Union Address 2011
Before even getting into the actual content of this year's State of the Union Address, delivered by President Obama, it is interesting to me how easily I found the video recording of the speech the morning after it was delivered. The White House apparently uploaded it to YouTube the night of the speech. They even published an “enhanced version”, which is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2g40GoRxg&feature=channel
The enhanced version starts out with trivia questions and answers regarding the history of The State of the Union Address. Then, as President Obama invokes the recent shooting attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the “ enhancement panel” displays a picture of the Congresswoman from Arizona's 8 th District.
When a President has as much charisma as President Obama does, and when that president delivers a good performance in the form of a speech, it may go against the grain to criticize the content of that speech. This speech was really about the American Dream, in my humble opinion. The speech was geared toward restoring confidence, rather than “telling it like it is”.
Something that can be difficult to know, while merely listening to a speech, is where the facts come from. One can shake their head and say “ that's not right” - if one has different figures in mind. Or one can burst out with a comment like, “You Lie!”, as happened in the previous State of the Union given by President Obama. This difficulty was taken away by this “enhanced version” of the speech. I'm glad I just could not stay awake for the speech as it was given live. Had I forced myself to stay awake, I would never had to search for the video on the Internet.
One of the most telling bits of information was a chart showing that the President was using GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to compare the United States with other nations including China. The interesting thing is that his figures showed separate entries for Germany and France, while most comparative sources, including the CIA World Factbook, report a single entry for the European Union when comparing GDP. The CIA World Factbook uses estimates which show the European Union exceeding the US GDP in 2010. Also, some people feel that the GNP (Gross National Product) is a better measure of the wealth of a nation since it takes into account the net income from assets abroad.
One of the largest problems we face, in terms of power consumption and our dependency on oil, is that other governments may decide to put their oil up for sale using a currency other than the US Dollar, which has been a de-facto standard that has increased our “ world-wide credit score”. This sort of information was absent from the speech.
I suppose this speech could be seen as a continuation of Obama's message of hope. He started with rhetoric about the American Dream, and how we all share a common creed. It was all very vague, as if from a dream. He emphasized with precision-vagueness that we are “ set apart as a nation” by our common creed and dream, and also apparently by our contentious debates. It wasn't clear who we are set apart from, but the message was clear: We are better than whomever they may be, and we are unified. Who would argue with something that makes them feel good?
Well... I guess maybe I will. Quite frankly, I'm not sure which creed he was talking about. Everyone at the event must have know though, because it received healthy applause. Since we have freedom of religion, he certainly can't mean that we share a common religious creed; because, that simply isn't the case. Since there is debate over whether or not health care should be a universal “right”, it would seem we have to rule out a common creed that would include Socialist ideals.
Perhaps, the President was speaking of our country's Constitution as our common creed. That certainly could be seen as a set of fundamental beliefs, or creed. Or, perhaps, President Obama was just stating that we share a common creed in the hopes that we will all buy into his dream.
The President invoked a metaphor of the “American Family”. This is interesting, because it seems to me to be a subconscious call to authority that hasn't been granted to Obama. If we are an American Family – then what role does he play in this metaphor?
In his speech, the president outlined a five step outline for “ Winning the Future”. I don't think many would argue with the president's 5-step tango; but, the means which we achieve those goals will truly set us apart from the “other guys”.
I think his comments were mainly designed to try and gather support for the budget he is going to propose to Congress. The word “ stimulus” has been replaced by “investment”, but the overall message is a consistent Democrat strategy: Spend your money to regulate your life
Step 1: Innovation
Obama suggests that this is our “Sputnik moment”. I don't know how much JFK spent to form NASA and send a man to the moon; but, I'm pretty sure we can't afford to have that level of government sponsored innovation take place at this time. I think most people would agree that we need more innovation; but, shouldn't that be a private industry affair? What place does this have in informing Congress what the State of the Union is? This was clearly a call to “invest” tax dollars in government sponsored projects.
Step 2: Education
The president showed that the US has fallen to 9 th place in terms of the number of individuals with college degrees. How can the government fix this? Should the government be in the business of fixing this? This will no doubt be a call to more spending by the National Government, as well as regulations forced upon the several States.
In his talk about the future of Education, the president entered our homes and schooled us all in some values we should hold regarding the Super Bowl and the local science fair. While I don't disagree with his notion, I am very opposed to the fact that he took it upon himself to comment on things that are beyond the scope of his authority. He isn't speaking as our father, as a relative, or even a concerned friend. He is speaking as the President of these United States. As such, he was out of line.
If we allow him to go beyond his boundaries when we agree with him, it sets a precedent for some time in the future, when we may not.
Step 3: Rebuilding
Infrastructure “investments” will be the outcome of this. Of all the things the government is spending our money on – this is actually the best thing they could legitimately be spending it on. But rather than looking at building high speed rails, perhaps we should be fixing the bridges that are falling apart all over the country. Unless someone is going to throw the towel in on the automobile, our highways and bridges are in dire need. Many of these highways are truly relevant to interstate commerce, and actually do fall within the purview of the national government, as defined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Step 4: Responsibility
Obama's idea of responsibility is short sited, in my humble opinion. He comments that deficit spending began “almost a decade ago”. This sort of statement would seem to be the antithesis of taking responsibility. His plan is to put a freeze on domestic spending for the next five years. Again – is this responsible of him to suggest? After all, he won't be in the office of the president in five years (God willing). So, he is imposing limits on the future as a way of fixing the problems he should be dealing with today. I think President Obama should sit down with Representative Ron Paul, and have a long talk about responsibility, and our Constitution. As a matter of responsibility, how about holding the FED in the harsh light of accountability?
It is peculiar that he also spoke of restructuring the tax code here, while talking about responsibility, rather than putting it into the “reform” step which follows. Perhaps this is a Freudian slip that tells us it isn't going to happen.
Step 5: Reform
The president's comments here were downright scary. He said, in the coming months his administration will “develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America”. I shudder to think of what he might do. Will we be merging the FBI with Homeland Security and the NSA? Without doubt, this is something we are all going to have to keep our eyes on. There have been rules put in place to protect our privacy, and our freedom, as well as to protect against future abuses. Many of these rules have already been thrown the way-side by the PATRIOT act and the creation of the department of Homeland Security. This is a shell game I'm not looking forward to play.
It was important for the President to tell Congress and the Nation that “American Muslims are a part of our American Family”. I'm not sure why that was so important as to make it into the State of the Union Address – but it made it.
The notion of reform is a great one. Few would argue we need reform in Washington D.C. But, what needs to be changed is always a matter of contentious debate. Which, from what I hear, sets us apart as a nation. ;)
God bless us – everyone.
Metajunkie
notes:
contentious: exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes
The 112 th Congress' makeup:
House of Representatives
193 Democrats
242 Republicans
Senate
51 Democrats
47 Republicans
2 Independents
2010 Gross Domestic Product
A sidebar chart in the “enhanced version” illustrated that America still has the largest, most profitable economy in the world when you compare GDP.
US $14.6 Trillion
China $5.7 Trillion
Japan $5.3 Trillion
Germany $3.3 Trillion
France $2.5 Trillion
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Power of God Is Our Strength
In the separation from God, fear manifests. That fear may not be apparent. We may only notice it in a lack of strength within our actions. That lack of strength may not be apparent. We may only notice it through an analysis of the path we are on in life.
When we fear, our enemies appear to grow in strength, in size, and in number. This is evident when we connect with God. The connection is apparent; for, when our inner focus shifts toward that which we know through personal experience to be God, the path we are on becomes clear, the previous lack of strength, and perhaps unnoticed fear becomes apparent. Such a revelation may be conveyed through analogy: God is to sight as darkness is to fear. When the light is turned on, and we can see clearly what before was hidden, or in shadow, we come to understand what before was incomprehensible. Through the experience of connection with the divine, or communion with God, we become aware of the previous state of fear and lack brought on by separation.
When we reach out to shake the hand of our enemy while we are connected to God, there is no fear. In the moment our hands meet, we recognize the fear in the other. We immediately understand the weakness and frailty of their state. We must have compassion in that instance; for, through the revelation of our own previously weakened and fearful state, through the revelation of our connection to the divine, through the very apparent power that lives within us as long as we maintain focus, we are now aware of the state of our enemy. For, if they were connected to that intelligent energy which is most often experienced as unconditional love, that energy we call God, they would cease to be our enemy.
This is my want for the world. Praise be to God.
When we fear, our enemies appear to grow in strength, in size, and in number. This is evident when we connect with God. The connection is apparent; for, when our inner focus shifts toward that which we know through personal experience to be God, the path we are on becomes clear, the previous lack of strength, and perhaps unnoticed fear becomes apparent. Such a revelation may be conveyed through analogy: God is to sight as darkness is to fear. When the light is turned on, and we can see clearly what before was hidden, or in shadow, we come to understand what before was incomprehensible. Through the experience of connection with the divine, or communion with God, we become aware of the previous state of fear and lack brought on by separation.
When we reach out to shake the hand of our enemy while we are connected to God, there is no fear. In the moment our hands meet, we recognize the fear in the other. We immediately understand the weakness and frailty of their state. We must have compassion in that instance; for, through the revelation of our own previously weakened and fearful state, through the revelation of our connection to the divine, through the very apparent power that lives within us as long as we maintain focus, we are now aware of the state of our enemy. For, if they were connected to that intelligent energy which is most often experienced as unconditional love, that energy we call God, they would cease to be our enemy.
This is my want for the world. Praise be to God.
Friday, December 3, 2010
WikiLeaks - December 3, 2010
I just wanted to drop a few ideas down into written form about WikiLeaks today. I would post a link to the site - but it keeps changing. Why? Because the site has come under cyber-attack from those who would seek to impede free speech.
Here are just a few ideas about secrets in general.
If you want to keep a secret - that is your right. But it is also your responsibility and the responsibility of everyone in the know to protect that secret. If your secret gets out - you cannot impede the god given right to communicate. You cannot beat to death those who would practice free speech.
Here is another thought. Why is the information that WikiLeaks is publishing of interest to the world, and the American people? Because it is proof that we are being lied to by the government and military of the United States of America.
You must keep secrets to win a war. But, we are not at war. No declaration of war has proceeded from the U.S. Congress - the sole body that has Constitutional Authority to declare war. You might think this is a trivial notion, because we have troops on the ground, who may be put in harms way by what is being released. First - there is no evidence that what is released is of a nature that would bring immediate harm to our troops. Second - the notion that we are conducting an illegal war is not trivial in the least. It is, in fact, the core of the matter.
If Americans came together, and agreed, through our representatives in the House and the Senate that we needed to go to war, a declaration of War would have been issued. But it was not.
Think about our history, and the sentiments surrounding World War I and World War II; and, how there are very different sentiments surrounding the Viet Nam "War". The nation came together and declared war in the first two instances - but did not in the case of Viet Nam. Subsequently - popular opinion was against the war. It was a dark time in our nation's history. While there are many factors that lead to the overall popularity of war and peace, I submit that the core issue is that we were divided before we even began. If we were not divided - the Executive branch would have sought a declaration of war.
I urge all of my friends to ask their representatives in the House and the Senate, how they feel about their Enumerated Powers, as detailed within our Constitution. If they are not willing to fight to restore them - they should not hold office.
No one act is going to fix our current situation. However, we can only do one thing at a time. Multi-tasking is a myth. We need to find the common ground, and move to restore what can be restored. I would rather see 50,000 acts of congress that are short and to the point, than a far fewer number that are large, convoluted, difficult to read due to length and compromise-induced complexity.
If we allow ourselves to be blinded by emotion and tricked into following the finger that always points to the next enemy - we will end up becoming the tyranny our founding fathers so desperately tried to avoid.
Ken Walling
AKA - Metajunkie
@kewal on twitter
for the latest on the "infowar" - search for #SaveWikiLeaks
Here are just a few ideas about secrets in general.
If you want to keep a secret - that is your right. But it is also your responsibility and the responsibility of everyone in the know to protect that secret. If your secret gets out - you cannot impede the god given right to communicate. You cannot beat to death those who would practice free speech.
Here is another thought. Why is the information that WikiLeaks is publishing of interest to the world, and the American people? Because it is proof that we are being lied to by the government and military of the United States of America.
You must keep secrets to win a war. But, we are not at war. No declaration of war has proceeded from the U.S. Congress - the sole body that has Constitutional Authority to declare war. You might think this is a trivial notion, because we have troops on the ground, who may be put in harms way by what is being released. First - there is no evidence that what is released is of a nature that would bring immediate harm to our troops. Second - the notion that we are conducting an illegal war is not trivial in the least. It is, in fact, the core of the matter.
If Americans came together, and agreed, through our representatives in the House and the Senate that we needed to go to war, a declaration of War would have been issued. But it was not.
Think about our history, and the sentiments surrounding World War I and World War II; and, how there are very different sentiments surrounding the Viet Nam "War". The nation came together and declared war in the first two instances - but did not in the case of Viet Nam. Subsequently - popular opinion was against the war. It was a dark time in our nation's history. While there are many factors that lead to the overall popularity of war and peace, I submit that the core issue is that we were divided before we even began. If we were not divided - the Executive branch would have sought a declaration of war.
I urge all of my friends to ask their representatives in the House and the Senate, how they feel about their Enumerated Powers, as detailed within our Constitution. If they are not willing to fight to restore them - they should not hold office.
No one act is going to fix our current situation. However, we can only do one thing at a time. Multi-tasking is a myth. We need to find the common ground, and move to restore what can be restored. I would rather see 50,000 acts of congress that are short and to the point, than a far fewer number that are large, convoluted, difficult to read due to length and compromise-induced complexity.
If we allow ourselves to be blinded by emotion and tricked into following the finger that always points to the next enemy - we will end up becoming the tyranny our founding fathers so desperately tried to avoid.
Ken Walling
AKA - Metajunkie
@kewal on twitter
for the latest on the "infowar" - search for #SaveWikiLeaks
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wikileaks - November 2010
Dear Friends,
When my fellow Americans get upset about Wikileaks publishing U.S. government/military secrets on their website, I have to remind them that we do not have a declaration of war on any foreign state at this time. Now there are voices demanding the creators and maintainers of the Wikileaks website be labeled as terrorists. Such a move would endanger the Liberty of every American. You must take the time to learn about our Constitution, or we are doomed to lose those things that define American Freedom.
Some will argue that these are "new times", and that the old rules of the United States Constitution no longer apply. I beg to differ. Our Constitution is just as valid and necessary as it ever was - if not more so. Being a former member of the Unites States Air Force, I still remember the oath I swore to protect our government and our Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Today, I see domestic enemies seeking to dismantle our sovereignty, and extinguish Lady Liberty's Torch.
What we have here is a run of madness within our government. Wikileaks has not stolen the information they are posting - much of it was given to them by men, who just like me, swore to protect our nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic. These men (and/or women) see first hand that all is not what it should be. They have risked their own liberty in a hope that enough people will see the truth, and react soon enough to avoid what is otherwise the quickening march toward tyranny.
Each administration has been emboldened by those who came before and spurned the rules, ignored the rules, or made up their own rules. The policies of "printing money as we need it", ignoring the Bill of Rights and spying on Americans have become a "necessary evil" in the eyes of many. Unreasonable searches and seizures are fast becoming the accepted norm to "help fight terrorism"; and driving our economy into the ground while amassing debt to a Communist Nation (China) has become a problem of emergency proportions. All the while we continue to go to war without declarations of war.
Why are we allowing all of this to happen on our watch? Do we feel disempowered by the precedents of wrong-doing that we grew up with? Do we feel powerless to question the actions of our leaders? Are we completely ignorant of the agreement we are all working under, namely, The Constitution of The United States? Whatever the reason, we have moved into dangerous waters. Our course will not "auto-correct". Something must be done, or our nation is doomed.
We have taken to a policy of re-defining words, or coming up with new terms to define age old things. Even though we live in a digital age, and we are surrounded by seemingly new products and services and ideas every day - it can still be said that "there is nothing new under the sun".
You cannot have a "War on Terror", anymore than you can have a "War on Drugs". These notions should be left for Poets, not Politicians. If we are going to kill, we had better have a good reason we can all get behind. This is why only Congress (the representatives of the people and the States) MUST decide if war should be declared. This is not some fanciful idea I came up with on my own. Our Constitution clearly states, in black and white terms, that ONLY Congress shall have the power to declare war. So, what does Congress do when the Executive Branch decides to go to war and call it something else? Nothing. Since before I was born those rules were blurred. We have come up with exceptions that have been used without proper cause.
If you told your child that you were going out for the evening, and that you decided that they could not have any friends over while you were away; but, you came home to find their company in the kitchen drinking beer and playing cards, what would you do? You might say, "Wasn't I clear? I said, no friends in the house while we were away." And then, your son or daughter might turn to you and say, "You said no friends. These aren't my friends. They are my gambling associates. Believe me, with all of your money I lost tonight - these are not my friends". What would you do? You would do something. Congress has done nothing, if not encourage such behavior by refusing to stand up for one of their enumerated powers.
Terrorism is the act of an individual, or a group of individuals. Terrorism is a crime - not an act of war. We should work with the nations that harbor terrorists to bring them to justice. If these nations fail to comply - either through a lack of will or incompetence - then perhaps a declaration of War is in order. That is a decision for Congress - because Congress is a representation of "we the people". It is a hard call to make - but it has to be made. If we decide no war - then we don't get to bomb a countryside back into the stone age. If we decide War - then we go to war with one voice. We are divided now, because the tail is wagging the dog.
If there is a Clear and Present Danger - then - of course we must act. But when that happens - everything else should stop - and the question should be put to Congress: War or immediate withdrawal? In the cases of immediate withdrawal, it would seem that the next order of business should be impeachment proceedings.
Congress is and should be as powerful as the Executive Branch. It does not appear to be the case today.
So, my friends, before you get in an uproar about an organization (wikileaks.org) that is publishing facts provided to it by US Patriots, I beg you take a hard look at what we are doing to our nation by our lack of integrity with the US Constitution. For the love of Liberty and the only nation under God to declare that Liberty as an inalienable right, please educate yourself about our Constitution before it is too late.
Yours in Liberty,
Kenneth R. Walling Jr.
aka - Metajunkie
When my fellow Americans get upset about Wikileaks publishing U.S. government/military secrets on their website, I have to remind them that we do not have a declaration of war on any foreign state at this time. Now there are voices demanding the creators and maintainers of the Wikileaks website be labeled as terrorists. Such a move would endanger the Liberty of every American. You must take the time to learn about our Constitution, or we are doomed to lose those things that define American Freedom.
Some will argue that these are "new times", and that the old rules of the United States Constitution no longer apply. I beg to differ. Our Constitution is just as valid and necessary as it ever was - if not more so. Being a former member of the Unites States Air Force, I still remember the oath I swore to protect our government and our Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Today, I see domestic enemies seeking to dismantle our sovereignty, and extinguish Lady Liberty's Torch.
What we have here is a run of madness within our government. Wikileaks has not stolen the information they are posting - much of it was given to them by men, who just like me, swore to protect our nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic. These men (and/or women) see first hand that all is not what it should be. They have risked their own liberty in a hope that enough people will see the truth, and react soon enough to avoid what is otherwise the quickening march toward tyranny.
Each administration has been emboldened by those who came before and spurned the rules, ignored the rules, or made up their own rules. The policies of "printing money as we need it", ignoring the Bill of Rights and spying on Americans have become a "necessary evil" in the eyes of many. Unreasonable searches and seizures are fast becoming the accepted norm to "help fight terrorism"; and driving our economy into the ground while amassing debt to a Communist Nation (China) has become a problem of emergency proportions. All the while we continue to go to war without declarations of war.
Why are we allowing all of this to happen on our watch? Do we feel disempowered by the precedents of wrong-doing that we grew up with? Do we feel powerless to question the actions of our leaders? Are we completely ignorant of the agreement we are all working under, namely, The Constitution of The United States? Whatever the reason, we have moved into dangerous waters. Our course will not "auto-correct". Something must be done, or our nation is doomed.
We have taken to a policy of re-defining words, or coming up with new terms to define age old things. Even though we live in a digital age, and we are surrounded by seemingly new products and services and ideas every day - it can still be said that "there is nothing new under the sun".
You cannot have a "War on Terror", anymore than you can have a "War on Drugs". These notions should be left for Poets, not Politicians. If we are going to kill, we had better have a good reason we can all get behind. This is why only Congress (the representatives of the people and the States) MUST decide if war should be declared. This is not some fanciful idea I came up with on my own. Our Constitution clearly states, in black and white terms, that ONLY Congress shall have the power to declare war. So, what does Congress do when the Executive Branch decides to go to war and call it something else? Nothing. Since before I was born those rules were blurred. We have come up with exceptions that have been used without proper cause.
If you told your child that you were going out for the evening, and that you decided that they could not have any friends over while you were away; but, you came home to find their company in the kitchen drinking beer and playing cards, what would you do? You might say, "Wasn't I clear? I said, no friends in the house while we were away." And then, your son or daughter might turn to you and say, "You said no friends. These aren't my friends. They are my gambling associates. Believe me, with all of your money I lost tonight - these are not my friends". What would you do? You would do something. Congress has done nothing, if not encourage such behavior by refusing to stand up for one of their enumerated powers.
Terrorism is the act of an individual, or a group of individuals. Terrorism is a crime - not an act of war. We should work with the nations that harbor terrorists to bring them to justice. If these nations fail to comply - either through a lack of will or incompetence - then perhaps a declaration of War is in order. That is a decision for Congress - because Congress is a representation of "we the people". It is a hard call to make - but it has to be made. If we decide no war - then we don't get to bomb a countryside back into the stone age. If we decide War - then we go to war with one voice. We are divided now, because the tail is wagging the dog.
If there is a Clear and Present Danger - then - of course we must act. But when that happens - everything else should stop - and the question should be put to Congress: War or immediate withdrawal? In the cases of immediate withdrawal, it would seem that the next order of business should be impeachment proceedings.
Congress is and should be as powerful as the Executive Branch. It does not appear to be the case today.
So, my friends, before you get in an uproar about an organization (wikileaks.org) that is publishing facts provided to it by US Patriots, I beg you take a hard look at what we are doing to our nation by our lack of integrity with the US Constitution. For the love of Liberty and the only nation under God to declare that Liberty as an inalienable right, please educate yourself about our Constitution before it is too late.
Yours in Liberty,
Kenneth R. Walling Jr.
aka - Metajunkie
Friday, August 6, 2010
The Presentation of Ideas
One particular tactic for shaping opinions in our society has become very apparent to me. I don't think this is something that I've recently noticed. I know I have been aware of it for a very long time. But, I do wonder how many of my readers see things this way. At its root, the problem with this tactic is not a lack of sound logic, but a lack of sound premises. In fact, there is no mention of premises at all. So, I suppose, we can call this opinion shaping tactic "unspoken false premise tactic".
Allow me to illustrate this tactic with a recent Daily Show segment. I'll first say that I love the Daily Show with John Stewart. His show and the Cobert Report are the funniest politically oriented comedy shows available. However, I appreciate them for their comedy, and often not for the underlying message that could be inferred or deduced. In a recent segment, which I actually saw via a video clip posted on FaceBook, Mr. Stewart had some fun with a recent congressional bill aimed at providing medical assistance for first responders to the tragedy in NYC on September 11, 2001.
The joke here, was at the expense of the Republicans who were against the proposed bill - mainly, it seemed, on the grounds of a new tax that would be needed to pay for the bill. The reason it was funny, was that Mr. Stewart made the entire situation appear to be so simple that there should be no argument. In the first case, who wouldn't want to help the heros of 9/11? Who would want to deny them medical treatment, especially required medical treatment that was directly related to their service in the days that followed the collapse of the twin towers? No one. No one in their right mind would suggest that these heros not receive every opportunity to be healed by modern medicine. There is no error in this logic, but there is a gross error in the unstated premise.
The unstated premise is that there needs to be a new law created to address this issue in the first place. While I agree, and everyone agrees, that the first responders to that national tragedy deserve medical coverage and medical treatment, don't most if not all of us also agree that all citizens of these United States should also receive medical coverage and treatment? Isn't that what the recent Healthcare Reform Law was supposed to address?
The unstated false premise is a danger to our country. As educated and informed citizens, we must all take a moment to identify what the premises of any argument are.
Here are a few things to consider:
Most of society agrees that child pornography should be illegal. So, many authorities are pushing for new ways to censor content on the Internet. Will laws that permit monitoring and censorship actually do anything to stop child pornography? Probably not. But, that won't stop those whose agenda is to be in a position to censor from trying to use that emotionally charged topic as a means to further their agenda. No doubt, at some point, those who oppose such a bill will be labeled as "pro child-porn". If we aren't paying attention to the unspoken false premise - we just might end up throwing stones at defenders of liberty.
History showed us that when alcohol was made illegal, that black-market booze became an underground success. The gangs that controlled that trade are not so different from the gangs that control the drug trade today. The emotionally charged reality is that no one in their right mind wants to see their loved ones strung out on drugs or booze. No one wants innocents killed at the hands of drug fiends! The unspoken premise, which is false, is that a law prohibiting the sale and/or possession of said drugs will actually remedy the situation. In fact, it has made things worse in many ways. Just to name two ways: It criminalizes people who might otherwise seek help to overcome an addiction, and it creates a black market where competition drives people to commit murder to defend turf.
In my humble opinion, we should be seeking to educate our masses, rather than polarize them into two parties destined to never see eye-to-eye. We should focus the power of law to enable education both intellectual and emotional, and to address issues that can have measured results. If a law does not have the intended impact, it should be removed.
Keep your thinking caps on, my friends. I think it may get worse before it gets better.
KRW
Allow me to illustrate this tactic with a recent Daily Show segment. I'll first say that I love the Daily Show with John Stewart. His show and the Cobert Report are the funniest politically oriented comedy shows available. However, I appreciate them for their comedy, and often not for the underlying message that could be inferred or deduced. In a recent segment, which I actually saw via a video clip posted on FaceBook, Mr. Stewart had some fun with a recent congressional bill aimed at providing medical assistance for first responders to the tragedy in NYC on September 11, 2001.
The joke here, was at the expense of the Republicans who were against the proposed bill - mainly, it seemed, on the grounds of a new tax that would be needed to pay for the bill. The reason it was funny, was that Mr. Stewart made the entire situation appear to be so simple that there should be no argument. In the first case, who wouldn't want to help the heros of 9/11? Who would want to deny them medical treatment, especially required medical treatment that was directly related to their service in the days that followed the collapse of the twin towers? No one. No one in their right mind would suggest that these heros not receive every opportunity to be healed by modern medicine. There is no error in this logic, but there is a gross error in the unstated premise.
The unstated premise is that there needs to be a new law created to address this issue in the first place. While I agree, and everyone agrees, that the first responders to that national tragedy deserve medical coverage and medical treatment, don't most if not all of us also agree that all citizens of these United States should also receive medical coverage and treatment? Isn't that what the recent Healthcare Reform Law was supposed to address?
The unstated false premise is a danger to our country. As educated and informed citizens, we must all take a moment to identify what the premises of any argument are.
Here are a few things to consider:
Most of society agrees that child pornography should be illegal. So, many authorities are pushing for new ways to censor content on the Internet. Will laws that permit monitoring and censorship actually do anything to stop child pornography? Probably not. But, that won't stop those whose agenda is to be in a position to censor from trying to use that emotionally charged topic as a means to further their agenda. No doubt, at some point, those who oppose such a bill will be labeled as "pro child-porn". If we aren't paying attention to the unspoken false premise - we just might end up throwing stones at defenders of liberty.
History showed us that when alcohol was made illegal, that black-market booze became an underground success. The gangs that controlled that trade are not so different from the gangs that control the drug trade today. The emotionally charged reality is that no one in their right mind wants to see their loved ones strung out on drugs or booze. No one wants innocents killed at the hands of drug fiends! The unspoken premise, which is false, is that a law prohibiting the sale and/or possession of said drugs will actually remedy the situation. In fact, it has made things worse in many ways. Just to name two ways: It criminalizes people who might otherwise seek help to overcome an addiction, and it creates a black market where competition drives people to commit murder to defend turf.
In my humble opinion, we should be seeking to educate our masses, rather than polarize them into two parties destined to never see eye-to-eye. We should focus the power of law to enable education both intellectual and emotional, and to address issues that can have measured results. If a law does not have the intended impact, it should be removed.
Keep your thinking caps on, my friends. I think it may get worse before it gets better.
KRW
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Integrity
The word, "integrity", is an important word to contemplate. In my work as an Information Security Professional, when I talk about integrity to my customers, we are talking about data integrity. For example: Can we trust the integrity of the information stored in the database after a malicious hacker has penetrated the perimeter defenses? If not, how do we validate integrity?
In this sense, integrity is one of the three pillars of Information Security (Confidentiality, and Availability being the other two). But what I'd like to write about today does not concern data integrity. Rather, I am writing about Personal Integrity.
Personal integrity may be one of the most important concepts a man or woman can contemplate. Unfortunately, I often see, what I judge to be, a lack of integrity in our modern society. Our thoughts, words, and deeds do not always assist us in maintaining personal integrity. In deed, it seems at times that others do not even expect to find integrity with our statements. Perhaps even more grave is that the lack of awareness of an integrity deficit and the lack of a conscious intention of who we desire to be, leads to whimsical decisions, and destinations as random as the resting place for leaves blown in the wind.
In severe circumstances we may find the lack of integrity leading to broken hearts, broken dreams, or loved ones lost. I believe those dire circumstances can be avoided by taking charge of our thoughts, words, and deeds, on a much more casual level. I think that every little thing we think, say, or do, moves us, if even only slightly, in one direction or the other.
Immediate consequences may be deemed inconsequential. For example, consider the person who tells their friend that they will call them tomorrow, but no call is made. This seems to be a small oversight. I would argue that the person who committed to making the call, should take a look at their history of actions, to see if there is a pattern. How many times might person A say that they will call person B, and not follow through, before person B gets the message that person A is not dependable? Worse still, might person B not infer that they are not important to person A?
Some might argue that person B should just get over it. And no doubt they should. But, this isn't about person B. This is about person A. Perhaps person A is so used to their words having no integrity in the world, that impacts who they are.
If person A says one thing, and does another, when dealing with person B, and it isn't an isolated incident, how far might we have to go to find the roots of this issue?
Assume for a moment that person B isn't the only one who has been waiting for a phone call. Perhaps persons C through Z have similar tales to tell. Maybe person D can take this even farther. Perhaps there is a long list of little things that people could complain about - but they don't. To hell with the whole alphabet - this isn't about them. This is only about person A.
The real question for person A is this: Do you ever tell yourself things - and then not follow through? Have you ever said you wouldn't eat any desert, and then sit down on the couch to watch TV with a bowl of ice-cream? Have you ever told yourself that you were going to exercise at least three times per week, and then find "more important" things to do every day of the week? Are you out of integrity with yourself?
If you are out of integrity with yourself, the only easily noticeable symptoms may be that you are out of integrity with the friends and family around you. And, I might add - you just might be lucky to be able to see that. For some people, they show up for everyone in their lives, except themselves. They continually put others ahead of themselves to their own detriment. What is that about? Hey - if the airplane is crashing and you need to help someone sitting next to you... put your own oxygen mask on first!
I challenge my readers to find the little things that they say they are going to do and then don't. I challenge you to find them - and then make amends. No one wants to hear "I'm sorry". Some folks use those words so frequently, they should have them tattooed on their foreheads. If you are out of integrity with someone else - find out what you need to do to get back in integrity with them. If you are out of integrity with yourself. Figure out a way to get back in integrity with yourself.
Step by step, we walk the thousand mile road. You are either walking towards your destination, or not. If you are having an integrity deficit in your life, try this exercise:
1. Decide where you want to end up in your life (this is a big deal in and of itself).
2. Come up with something you will need to do to get there. (e.g. a short term goal)
3. Evaluate the short term goal, and break it into parts, if need be, that can be accomplished in one week.
4. Tell a close friend what your well defined goal is, and when you will have accomplished it. (hint: a well defined goal has something about it that makes it obvious whether it has been accomplished or not.)
5. Meet again with your friend, a week later, or group of friends if you made this even more public (which is a really good idea). Report on your success or failure.
6. Discuss the results, then set another goal for the following week. Invite your friend to set their own personal goal.
7. Invite more people into your "circle of success", and continue to live the life you intend.
Good luck - My own personal goal is to exercise at least three times per week - for at least one half hour per day. Ideally, I would like to exercise at least 30 minutes, every day. But, I don't want to set myself up for failure. It is important to set goals that you CAN reach. Otherwise, you end up beating yourself up every week. Knowing ones limitations is important too. I know there will be days when I will not be able to exercise - but there should be no week that I cannot exercise at least three days.
I'm off to the elliptical machine now. Feel free to chime in here and let me know how your personal goals are doing.
Yours in Integrity,
Ken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)