A Faux Democracy

Those in the know have well been aware of the fact that though America is a purported representative democracy, in truth it is neither representative, nor is it a democracy. Though allegedly the will of the people is what governs our land, there is no longer even a pretense of such a structure. The governmental system of checks and balances that was instituted by our Founding Fathers has completely broken down. The system is running amok, and has effectively negated the checks and balances that were emplaced to prevent tyranny.

As today's news heralds the overturning of the California ban on gay marriage, so the power structure is again revealed for what it truly is. Twice, the people of California voted that only marriage between one man and one woman should be recognized by the state of California. Proposition 22, enacted in 2000, was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 2008. For that reason, Proposition 8 was proposed for the November 2008 election, giving the voters another opportunity to express themselves. The voters again chose to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Yet, today our government has yet again declared that they do not serve the will of the people. The legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government have again demonstrated that their agendas are more important than the will of the people. Each branch continues to overstep their legally-appointed bounds, as we see the judicial branch effectively working to create their own laws, through striking down or reinterpretting those laws they deem unfit. The legislative branch is more than happy to spend taxpayer dollars and pass oppressive laws in spite of public opposition to various acts and pieces of legislation. The executive branch readily oversteps their boundaries by involving us in unapproved wars, violating clear rules of procedure in enforcing the law and engaging in scare tactics as a means of extorting citizens.

The writing is on the wall. Anyone who misses the clear revelation of the power structure in America is either ignorant or living in denial. The American government is not concerned with the well-being of its citizens. Presently, government qua government functions only to further its own agendas and perpetuate an increase in governmental power. Today marks another victory for tyranny and oppression. For those of us who love freedom and who believe that the only legitimate role of the government is to serve the interests of its constituents, this new ruling is yet another harbinger that America is no longer a nation that believes in either of those key principles. We are living in a faux democracy. Even those things that we directly vote for are not given serious consideration by our overlords.

The Double-Edged Sword of Social Influence

For all the talk about individuality, individual freedom, and individual capacity, the inescapable conclusion that the observant mind reaches is that individuals are not nearly so independent as they like to believe they are. Humans are, unarguably, social creatures who are profoundly impacted by the people they associate with. While some people are more malleable than others, and one gender is more prone to be adaptable than the other, the simple truth remains, that all of us are both profoundly and directly impacted by the people that we associate with, whose ideas we, to some extent, internalize.

On the micro level, this is why there is much wisdom in choosing who one associates with. Often you will find yourself adopting similar mannerisms, verbal expressions, and interests as those you spend much time with. The morality and behaviors of those in your social groups affect your own personal values. You become more like those that you spend time with. This is true not only of those that you spend time with in person, but also of those people that you indirectly associate with by reading their writings and contemplating their opinions. In the Scripture it is written that, "He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm." (Prov. 13:20) Similarly it is written, "Do not be deceived: "Bad company corrupts good morals." (1 Cor. 15:33) For this reason, it is important to be vigilant and highly-aware of how the people in your life are impacting you. Apart from having positive peer pressure and people who are good role models to follow, it is extremely challenging to cultivate and maintain Godly morals and a healthy view on life. With a positive social circle, it becomes easy and natural to improve and whole-heartedly pursue personal growth. With a negative social circle, it becomes quite easy to fall into similar ways of acting and poor ways of perceiving life.

On the macro level, when considering a society as a whole, individuals do not have as much impact over their destinies as they wish. Societal values and paradigms, to a certain extent, directly impact one's own way of thinking. The views and values of a society, as conveyed through media, and perpetuated by those who buy into the prevailing paradigms, affect everyone in a society. Not only is the moral and cultural baseline established as the societal mean, but even the outliers are affected by aggregate social values. Churches are not isolated from the cultural forces at work within a society. Academic institutions are not free from the philosophical presuppositions of its faculty and students. Political institutions are not untainted by the private morality of politicians. Large corporate entities are not unaffected by the vices of those who work for them and direct their corporate actions. And so, due to the fundamentally interconnected nature of a society, the direction a nation is headed is, for the most part, a completely self-reinforcing one. Positive values and paradigms result in the continual betterment of both a society as a whole, and the many parts of a society, including individuals. Harmful values and paradigms that are broadly held set in motion a downward spiral that cannot be held back by a few lone outliers. A society stands or falls together. Individuals stand or fall based on the society that they are part of.

The power of social influence, both on the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels, is something that should never be underestimated or neglected. The interconnectedness and self-reinforcing nature of social relationships yields a powerful force that can be used for much good or can cause great evil. It is for this reason that God primarily deals with groups of people corporately, rather than with people as individuals. His covenant with the nation of Israel is one that was with the entire nation of Israel, and not simply with the individuals who comprise the nation of Israel. They stood or fell together. God either blessed the whole nation, or cursed and brought destruction upon the whole nation. In the same way, as America has rejected God, Christian morality, and righteous living, so our nation is in a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Unless there is a societal repentence and return to the foundational principles upon which America was founded, there is no hope for our nation. Where once the power of social influence was used for good, and established a nation that was obedient to God, now the power of social influence hastens our ruin.

If, as individuals, we wish to have any impact on those in our social circles and our society as a whole, we must recognize the power of social influence. We must be shrewd and circumspect in recognizing how social influence impacts us. We must establish small groups and communities that value the right things and live righteously. There must be firm consequences for those who hold wrong views or engage in wrong behaviors. Men, especially, must seek to be godly and reponsible leaders within their families and social circles. Tolerance and easy forgiveness must be eschewed, and virtue firmly pursued, else there is no hope. As philosopher Edmund Burke insightfully stated, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The beautiful counterpoint to that statement is, when good men boldly take action to pursue righteousness and exhort others to do the same, social change becomes possible. Yet, it is a task requiring much strength and perseverence. To reverse the tide requires no less than a miracle. The momentum presently carries our society at a breakneck pace towards the brink of destruction.

A Time For Everything

The Scripture is full of profound perspective-changing wisdom. This morning, as I was reading through Ecclesiastes, I was struck by how strongly our culture wants to live and view the world in an unrealistically positive light. The realist recognizes and accepts life exactly as it is. He does not rail against the inevitable. He does not deny the need, during different times and in different circumstances, to respond to life in very different ways. As you read this, see if you can grasp what perspective is being offered by Solomon, and what perspective our smiley-face modern culture adopts:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:

A time to be born,
And a time to die;

A time to plant,
And a time to pluck what is planted;

A time to kill,
And a time to heal;

A time to break down,
And a time to build up;

A time to weep,
And a time to laugh;

A time to mourn,
And a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones,
And a time to gather stones;

A time to embrace,
And a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to gain,
And a time to lose;

A time to keep,
And a time to throw away;

A time to tear,
And a time to sew;

A time to keep silence,
And a time to speak;

A time to love,
And a time to hate;

A time of war,
And a time of peace.

While the author of these words is seeking to remind his readers that a holistic perspective of life recognizes the necessity and value of each half of the pairings, our culture would prefer to exalt and emphasize only one half of each couplet. We love to dance, but don't take time to mourn. We love to love, but forget that there are appropriate times and places for hate. We love to heal, but harbor an unhealthy aversion to killing. We like to speak, but we aren't very familiar with the discipline of silence. We're big on peace, but are unwilling to fight for what should not be ceded. We like to gain, but not to lose. We love to get paid, but we're not quite as excited about working hard. We build up that which should not be built up and tear down that which should not be torn down. We're quick to hoard and slow to give. In this cruel time, we not only despise death, we also despise birth, hence the modern prevalence of abortion. How unbalanced we have become, in our thinking and views!

Yet, if we wish to live life God's way, in accordance with life as it actually is, we must have our eyes opened to see the value of those things of which our culture bears an irrational aversion towards. Death is not something to be feared, but instead should serve as a reminder that our lives are evanescent and fleeting. We must embrace birth as a joyous occasion to celebrate new life, and we must be grateful that God, in his mercy, allows physical death to serve as a reminder that we are both flawed and eternal beings, and that our existence is not merely physical. We must be brave enough to hate what should be hated, and insightful enough to love what is lovely. We must be courageous enough to kill, when it is called for, as well as to heal, at the right times. War is something that, though terrible, is sometimes necessary, hence we must know when, how and why to fight.

Wisdom recognizes that silence is sometimes the best thing to say, and the best state of the heart. Speaking should come in turn, but we must not always be hasty to speak our minds. We must be industrious in our labors and diligent in our work, so that we may be fully pleased with receiving compensation for our duties. We must learn not just to be consumers, but also to be charitable givers, seeking the good of others. We must recognize that both in our own lives and in the lives of others, there are times for encouragement and times for reproof. We must not be afraid to call others to repentance and offer much-needed correction when appropriate. We must not solely concern ourselves with the pursuit of pleasure, but must also take time to weep and mourn. Those times are necessary and good for the soul.

Where there exists within us a tendency to polarize towards either end of the spectrum, we must seek balance and be in a place where we recognize the value and import of those things that are labeled by our culture as "desirable" as well as those that our culture views as evils to be avoided. Both within ourselves and as members of our society, we must pursue balanced thinking and balanced living. For some, their individual calling may lean towards one side of the spectrum. Yet, such individuals must be cautious they they do not despise or oppose those with an opposite calling. Some people are more skilled at tearing down and some at building up. So long as they both do it in the right way, we must not despise either. Maybe you have a tendency to be strongly vocal about your views. That is a good thing, as long as you properly value the silence of others and take time to be silent, yourself. The pages of Scripture, and the wisdom of the ages teach that there must exist balance. Let us not adopt the unbalanced stances of our present culture.

Revolutions Start Small

Today, Joseph Stack's actions have been plastered all over the news. His anger and indignation at the corruption of the present American political system, the freedom that has been lost, and the injustices perpetuated by our government led him to crash his little airplane into an IRS building in Texas. Fifteen years ago, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building to decry the wrongful tyranny of the Federal Government and the injustice tax system, most people viewed him simply as a radical. He was merely a political outlier with some crazy ideas. Today, however, there is a much different attitude towards the American system of government. The sentiments expressed by Joseph Stack in his final letter are not merely the rantings of a radical. People are awakening to the truth. Many of the sentiments he expressed today are ones that increasing numbers of people are coming to agree with wholeheartedly.

Here are some excerpts from his letter:

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

This is a pivotal truth. While our government is supposed to truly provide liberty and justice for all, it certainly doesn't provide that. It provides a "more equal" justice for some people than for others. Joseph insightfully raises the point that representation isn't the same as merely being able to cast a vote every year or two. Properly understood, representation means that someone in a place of political power is actually acting on behalf of its constituents. One isn't being represented unless their best interests are being acted upon and protected by the governing body. When legislative politicians pass laws that actively harm a large percentage of the people they supposedly represent, this is not "representation," it is tyrannical oppression.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

Not only is the current tax code utterly indecipherable by even the brightest of the master scholars, but every taxpayer is required to contractually bind themselves to validity of their tax returns. Even minor tax issues can cause major complications, which are extremely difficult to rectify, even when the mistake is made by the IRS and not by the taxpayer. Last year my dad had some major difficulties with the IRS because of the mangled ways they handle personal and business income. Every time they called him, some new person, unfamiliar with his case, would follow up to try to amend his tax return properly. My dad spent countless needless hours justifying his return and re-explaining the situation, simply because of the ridiculously complex tax laws, the ineffectivity of the IRS, and the clerical errors made on their end.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Often, when a person voices a complaint about the way the government is handling things, well-meaning people reply, "If you really care about the issue, then you should get involved." As Joseph Stack quickly discovered, even getting involved and being vocal about an important issue rarely yields any real results. While I certainly haven't invested as much of my time and money as he did, I certainly have written quite a number of letters to my Senators and Representatives. Every single time I have done so, I have always received a short, generic response, before my politicians quickly go and vote in opposition to my will. I have send letters protesting the economic bailout programs, protesting hate crimes legislation, protesting the Healthcare Reform bill, as well as other various pieces of tyrannical legislation. The government is primarily concerned with gaining more power and stealing more money from its citizens. The Federal Government continues to take more from its citizens while giving less and less in return. This directly affects us.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

Presently, the system serves to redistribute wealth in an injust and unequal manner. Unlike Robin Hood, who at least had the decency to steal for a somewhat reasonable cause, the Federal Government steals from the middle class to give to the rich (and to throw a few rotting remnants to the poor to keep them dependent) and to fund their own problematic plethora of programs. When ordinary people are financially irresponsible, they must reap what they sow, but when large corporations and banks are fiscally irresponsible, the government is quick to step in and give them free money... our money. Irresponsibility and greed are encouraged and incentivized. Stealing is actively encouraged, so long as you are a government official, a government agency or a large corporation. Justice? I think not!

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Here's a man who is willing to take a stand for what he believes in. Here is someone who values liberty and justice, and was willing to sacrifice his life for his ideal. Regardless of your position on his actions, it is clear that his courage and resolve are admirable. Perhaps he was misguided, and perhaps his actions were foolish, but he truly took a stand for what he believed in. No one can rightfully call him ignorant, and no one can rightfully call him cowardly. When systemic solutions and political involvement ceases to make a difference, people's anger provokes them to violence.

Today's events are but a harbinger of what lies ahead. Having forsaken that end and those principles which were original set forth as the aims of the American experiment, there is a spirit of unrest in the air that is palpable. Revolution is not yet upon us, but perhaps it is not nearly as distant as some might think. Already I know of many who discuss their desire for anarchy rather than the present form of government. Some friends of mine are beginning to purchase weapons and train themselves in the use thereof. Another friend of mine, a philosopher, often asks how different people in our social circle would respond to revolution. As Thomas Jefferson prophetically declared: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." On this day we see that one man has spilt his blood for the sake of liberty. The yearning for freedom is something that is reawakening in the hearts of many, and there is little doubt that unless the government lessens its tyrannical grip on its citizens, there will be blood. We have nearly completed a full circuit in returning to many of the opinions and ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers at the birth of our nation. Either America must be politically cleansed and reborn, or it shall fall and be replaced. There is no other alternative.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

A revolution of government is the strongest proof that can be given by a people of their virtue and good sense.
John Adams (1735 – 1826)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. - Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison (1751 - 1836)

Vision is Vital

In talking with a friend last week, in thinking about the difference in various peoples' approaches to the cultural degradation of the day, in reading some comments that various people have made recently, and in writing my previous blog, I have been struck with the necessity of having a vision. Holding up an ideal, both as an individual and as a society, is a necessary prerequisite to effecting positive change. In many ways, a visionary is an artist whose medium is the world. Rather than expressing himself through music, painting, drawing, or writing, the visionary seeks to use the world as his medium and to shape it to match his artistic vision. Such a man has a clear model for how the world should be, and sets himself upon the task of changing the world to match his vision. The flipside of such a truth is that the man or society without a vision is powerless to make substantial positive change of any sort. Instead, without vision, entropy prevails.

This is a theme has been presented in various ways throughout time. One of my favorite illustrations of the necessity of direction is concisely conveyed in the brilliant writings of Lewis Carroll. From Alice in Wonderland:

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"--so long as I get SOMEWHERE," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

From the pages of Scripture:

Where there is no vision, the people perish. - Proverbs 29:18

From a recent post by Talleyrand:

Want to know the single. easiest way to figure out if a culture is dying?

Answer this question: Does the culture as a whole have a united vision of the future?

If the answer is no, the culture is doomed.

I could cite numerous other examples of this theme from various pages of ancient tomes and literary masterpieces. The point is quite simple. Given that we live an entropic world, where things naturally trend towards worse states of being, and where decay and degradation is the natural direction of things, intervention is necessary either for the betterment of things or even to maintain the status quo. If you wish to keep your lawn looking nice, you must be sure to water it regularly and cut it habitually. If you wish your house to be clean, you must put effort into it by occasionally tidying up, vacuuming, scrubbing, and dusting. To simply leave things alone is the ensure atrophy. Maintenance requires effort.

Improvement requires even more effort. In order to better anything, one must not only be willing to put effort into its betterment, but must also have a clear and fixed vision of what sort of betterment ought to be pursued. If I say that I wish to improve society, my statement is quite vacuous unless I can explain how I wish to improve society. Any vision that is worth its salt must be fixed, attainable, desirable, conceivable and actionable. I must be able to conceptualize the desired end of my aims. I must be able to take practical steps towards the realization of my vision. I must desire the attainment of my vision enough to put my heart into my efforts. If a vision is desirable but not practical it is mere idealism. If a vision is attainable but not desirable, it is too weak. If a vision is desirable but not conceivable or attainable, then it is impractical. If a vision is not fixed, then it will be as elusive as the horizon. All five element are necessary in a vision.

Yet our society has no such vision. We are a divided nation with various goals, none of which hold enough sway to inspire or unite our generation. We have a national leader who, despite his use of mimetic language, is much like Alice; though he knows what programs he wishes to support, he has no true conception of where America should go and no comprehension of how to lead us there. Our lack of societal vision stems from the lack of vision at the familial and personal levels. Individually, we have embraced resignation and apathy. As a majority of people no longer hold a vision for how the world should be, they no longer seek to mold it to fit their image. We lack strong leaders. We lack inspirational visionaries. The individualism and relativism of today leave us all wandering aimlessly in various directions, rather than united in pursuit of a common goal. For many, they have accepted the decline of Western civilization as inevitable and seek to take advantage of the moral and societal collaspe ensuing all around us. For others, they lack the self-efficacy or motivation to strive for change, even though they desire it.

If there is to be societal redemption, it will come through individuals and communities that hold a strong vision and are firmly committed to making their vision a reality. Neither individuals nor societies are beyond redemption. Cynics, skeptics and passive pessimists, for all their ranting, do not lift a finger to solve the problems of the day. Indeed, the social inertia they add compounds the problem. Contrarily, men and women who tirelessly work to remake the world according to their vision are the ones who write history and leave their mark on the canvas of time. In fact, many of those who have made a difference in the world testify to the very necessity of a visionary mindset.

To accomplish great things, we must dream as well as act.
Anatole France (1844 - 1924)

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919)

There is nothing like dream to create the future. Utopia to-day, flesh and blood tomorrow.
Victor Hugo (1802 - 1885)

The person who makes a success of living is the one who see his goal steadily and aims for it unswervingly. That is dedication.
Cecil B. DeMille (1881 - 1959)

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

One person with a belief is equal to a force of 99 who have only interests.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.
Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924)

The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.
Thucydides (471 BC - 400 BC)

The future belongs to those who seize it. They seize it who want it the most and who pursue their vision most passionately. If there is any desire in the citizens of a nation to reach for utopia or to make a nation a more perfect place, they must have vision, both as individuals and collectively. When our nation was birthed, it had precisely such a vision, which is what inspired the preamble of our United States Constitution. Additionally, if there is any desire in the members of a society to attain betterment, they must expend their efforts to make it so. We truly must dream, as well as act, if we wish to make a difference.

Modern Civilization Suffocates Masculinity

While watching Defiance a couple of weeks ago, I was struck by the manliness of the two main characters. The Bielski brothers were both amazing men who exuded courage, confidence, resolve, assertiveness and unequivocal psychosocial dominance. They were both alpha males in every sense of the word. Both were leaders of men, resourceful, appropriately violent, and skilled with women. As I was contemplating the many things I admired about them, one aspect of the whole thing really struck me. Adversity. These were both men whose masculinity was best developed in adversity and best revealed by adversity. While facing constant danger of death from the German soldiers, the natural elements of the wilderness and even from dissent within their group of Jewish refugees, they were strengthened, and their strength was clearly manifested for all to see.

As a man who strives to further develop my own masculinity, and embrace everything it means to be a man, my thoughts turned to the sorts of adversity that we face, living in modern civilization. While considering this, I realized that ironically, modern civilization stands opposed to nearly everything masculine. While masculinity thrives in situations of danger, is stengthened by using one's strength, and needs a healthy amount of true challenge, modern civilization seeks to minimize all three of those. While basic civilzation increases people's survival, tames the land, provides sufficient food and makes life managable, modern civilization has gone far beyond the basic requirements, such that we have gone far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Modern civilization seeks to provide perfect protection from the elements, reduce the amount of manual labor needed to almost none, decrease physical danger of all sorts, and provide maximum comfort.

Think for example, about all the changes our world has undergone in the past few centuries. Just a hundred years ago, horses and carriages were still widely used. The automobile had only just started to become a popular consumer item. Owning a car lessens the need for walking, biking, horse riding or even keeping animals. Less physical effort is required to go anywhere. Similarly, while hunting was a staple of American living for years, now modern grocery stores provide us with foods from all over the world, and requires minimal effort--you simply have to put your items in a basket and carry them to the checkout counter. Not only is hunting no longer necessary for food, but there are presently numerous restrictions and laws governing when, where, and what you can hunt--and that's not even considering the weapon licensure laws! Even cooking is no longer a necessity, since we have microwaves and fast food restaurants. While having a yard requires a certain amount of labor just to maintain one's property, urban living almost completely dispense with yards, trees, gardens and lawns. Living in apartment means that you only have to vacuum occasionally, and perhaps clean your bathtub every so often. No serious yardwork is needed. With mass-produced, lightweight furniture, even the heavy lifting that we do requires less effort than a short workout at the gym. Our air-tight windows and doors, along with air conditioners and heaters allow us to nearly completely avoid the elements both when we travel and in our homes. Not only is our life devoid of natural danger and the need for strength in ordinary everyday life, but there is very little of the synthetic sort of danger.

While in times past, a man needed to be ready and able to fight for his country, or protect his home from bestial or human violence, in modern civilization the place for violence is highly segregated and optional. Unless you go and join the armed forces or become a police officer, nearly all violence is either unnecessary or positively forbidden. Just about the most violent things a man can legally do are play tackle football, take a martial arts class, or take up boxing, wrestling or MMA fighting. Though those are all forms of struggle, none of them offer any serious danger. While you might get injured, the odds of losing life or limb are quite remote. It's safe danger. Living in one of the most powerful countries in the world (though that is quickly changing exactly because America is increasingly filled with feminized weaklings) means that there is very little real threat of war breaking out in the continental US. In the ordinary course of events in modern civilization, we really couldn't be much safer. Any real danger that city dwellers face is incidental and exceptional.

Because of this, there is very little room for the masculine soul to grow and find satisfaction. Life for a man is much more enjoyable and challenging when his strength is needed, when life itself requires a certain amount of struggle, and where there is true danger. Since modern civilization seeks to decreases all of these things, as much as possible, by ensuring safety, making tasks easier and more effortless, and freeing us up to sit on plush couches watching our big-screen TVs while sipping beer, it deprives a man of what he really wants and needs. Modern civilization effectively suffocates masculinity. In Defiance, the two lead characters became the strong men that they did because they lived in the midst of adversity and allowed the adversity to strengthen them. Masculinity needs a healthy amount of adversity to develop and thrive. Modern civilization offers no true adversity of any sort. Only where there is dysfunction does any true adversity rise to the surface. I think that such a lack of adversity is actively harmful to men all over our country. These are the times that try men's souls, precisely because these are times that do not try men's souls.

Female-Instigated Divorce

In some of the discussion generated by this post, I stated that I am "extremely radically opposed to vacuous female-instigated breakups and divorces." My sister then wrote:

I notice that you are "Extremely" opposed to the ones instigated by girls. I don't think that's right. Guys are JUST as depraved as girls. I am extremely opposed to girls not instigating break-ups for the right reasons. You should (in my view) be radically opposed to MALE-instigated divorce. Why are you putting down the girls here?

While I quite agree with her point that men are certainly as intrinsically sinful as women and are not morally superior to them, the radical relational disintegration that we see in modern America is not as much of a balanced issue as one might expect. It is true, that I am quite opposed to male-instigated breakups and divorces. However, these are far less common than female-instigated ones. According to Alfred Cohen's Statistical Analysis of American Divorce, originally published in 1929,

Women's freedom or the modern emancipation of the wife from dependence on the husband is asserted to be a leading cause of divorce by most judges. Their opinions are supported by evidence that 71 percent of all divorces at the present time are granted to wives. That the wife instigates the suit in divorce court has been preeminent in American family history. In 1867, when the divorce rate in the United States was only one-fifth its present size, wives were then granted 64 percent of the total divorces.

And, in the past century, little has changed regarding the instigation of divorce. Stephen Baskerville writes:

In the largest federally funded study ever undertaken on the subject, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver demonstrated that few married fathers voluntarily leave their children. Braver found that overwhelmingly it is mothers, not fathers, who are walking away from marriages. Moreover, most of these women do so not with legal grounds such as abuse or adultery but for reasons such as “not feeling loved or appreciated.” The forcibly divorced fathers were also found to pay virtually all child support when they are employed and when they are permitted to see the children they have allegedly abandoned (1998, chap. 7).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in some 70 percent of cases. “Not only do they file more often, but . . . they are more likely to instigate separation.” Most significantly, the principal incentive is not grounds such as desertion, adultery, or violence, but control of the children. “We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce” (2000, 126–27, 129, 158, emphasis in original). One might interpret this statistic to mean that what we call divorce has become in effect a kind of legalized parental kidnapping.

While I am opposed to male-instigated divorce, the simple fact of the matter is that American divorce is and has been an overwhelming female-instigated thing. In 1867, 1.78 times as many women instigated divorces compared to men. In 1929, 2.34 times as many women instigated divorces as men. Presently, 2.45 times as many women instigate divorces as men. That seems a bit lopsided to me. While, this overwhelming sea of female divorce might possibly be ameliorated if there were reasonable grounds for divorce, such as infidelity or abuse, the statistics clearly show that this is not the case. Most divorces are instigated by women and most of the divorces instigated by women are instigated for unreasonable and/or vacuous reasons such as "not feeling loved or appreciated" or wanting control of the children. This means that most female-instigated divorce is either based simply on emotion or is initiated out of a desire for control. Getting divorced is bad enough. Getting divorced for the wrong reasons is even worse. Given that women are instigating divorces overwhelmingly more often than men and mostly for unreasonable reasons, I am radically opposed to such destructive irresponsibility.

And destructive it is! Divorce is not simply the termination of a single romantic relationship. It's effects are far-reaching and horribly destructive. In his book, Fatherless America, David Blankerhorn calls the modern American crisis of fatherless children, "the most destructive trend of our generation." In his study, Is There a Fatherhood Crisis?, Stephen Baskerville writes,

Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders--all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and poverty. The majority of prisoners, juvenile delinquent inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from fatherless homes. (Daniels 1998, passim)

Not only does is divorce a rejection of God's plan, an affront to one's partner and a sacred violation of one's vows, but it is horribly destructive for one's children, who must go on living life as fatherless. It is horribly destructive for society who not only has to deal with the initial fallout from a destroyed marriage, but also is directly harmed by the actions of fatherless children who go wrong because of growing up fatherless.

This is a subject that I am passionate about because it is destroying our society, wounding countless people, affecting many people I know and even affecting me personally. My grandparents, after being married for over 35 are in the process of getting divorced. My grandmother instigated the divorce out of a malignant desire for control. Since the whole fiasco began, she has been adamantly avoiding our family and won't even see us on holidays. Also, the toll it has taken on grandpa's health has been immeasurable. The past two years have physically aged him more than past fifteen years before that. It deeply pains me to see his suffering because of her wrong actions.

While it would be unreasonable to unfairly unilaterally blame either sex for the problem, there is clear evidence that the chronic American divorce epidemic is primarily female-instigated, and is typically instigated for vacuous or power-hungry reasons. There is clear evidence of the horrifying impact it has had on the personal, social and national health of Americans. So, while it is true that I am opposed to male-instigated divorce, that is not the bulk of the issue we face today. Female-instigated divorce is a major issue in our country, and it is clear that the blame for so many divorces primarily lies with women. I blame Germany for instigating World War 2, because they are responsible for their evil attempts to dominate Europe. Similarly, I blame American women for instigating the divorces that they do, because they are clearly responsible for a vast majority of the divorces in America, and consequently, they are responsible for the social fallout of such divorces. That is why I am extremely, radically opposed to female-instigated divorce.

Violence and Christianity

The Bible is not opposed to violence. Christianity is not opposed to killing. Nowhere in the Scriptures will you find a place where all killing is considered immoral. Instead, Christianity is opposed to certain kinds of violence and killing. This is a vital distinction that our generation has conveniently forgotten. Our modern American moral stance on violence, which used to be based on Christian morality, has strayed vastly from the actual teachings of the Bible. Where the Bible is quite clear about what sorts of violence are reasonable and righteous and which sorts are wicked and cruel, modern squeamishness has taken those biblical moral rules and twisted them into something very different. Allow me to illuminate this point with some illustrations.

"Thou shalt not murder," taken directly from the 10 commandments is indeed a valid precept that serves as a pivotal part of Christian morality. When understood in context of the rest of the Judaic code, it's importance and applicability makes sense. However, when it is stripped from its original context, that simple phrase morphs into a new moral standard. Modern people have taken the mandate not to murder and altered it to the point that the modern commandment is: "Killing is inherently wrong." For this reason many Americans strongly oppose the death penalty.

In fact, we have gone far beyond that as we expanded and added our own contemporary interpretations to that law. As America has grown into an increasingly feminized nation, we have become increasingly opposed to violence of all sorts. Not only is killing wrong and immoral, but now even spanking your own child is considered child abuse and is punishable by incarceration and state-sanctioned removal of your parental rights. Yelling or giving your spouse an angry look is now considered domestic violence. There are increasingly strong supporters of weapon control laws, which reflects the modern sentiment of many that even carrying an instrument of violence is nearly immoral. This excessive opposition to violence is quite opposed to Christian morality.

Most generic opposition to violence reflects a very effeminate view of the world. Though women are born with a natural distaste for violence and a predisposition against it, men do not naturally have a distaste for violence. In the masculine view of the world, violence is either considered simply a fact of life, glorified as an exhibition of manly prowess, or even enjoyed for it's own sake. Men are born with a fighting instinct. Boys need almost no external impetus to play games and use their imaginations in various violent fashions. From the time they are 2 or 3 years old, boys are already picking up sticks and pretending that they are guns or swords. Nor it is just an adolescent phase that men eventually grow out of. At 22 years old, I quite enjoy violence, for it's own sake. It's enjoyable to watch, which is why all of my favorite movies have pivotal, climactic fights and battles. Men love movies like The Matrix, Equilibrium, Fight Club, Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator and Braveheart. All of those movies would be quite dry and dull without the raw masculinity that they exhibit through the brutality of the fight scenes. Likewise, all of my favorite board games, card games and video games have copious amounts of violence. Given the choice between playing Pandemic, a board game where you must cure diseases that threaten the world's population, and Risk, a game of world domination where the only way to win is by exterminating the other players, nine times out of ten my brothers and I will choose to play Risk.

In fact, many of my close friends and male acquaintances have a similar disposition towards violence. My roommate loves excessive brutality. He has a collection of various medieval swords and typically carries around one or two dangerous pocket knives. Another friend of mine bought a .45-magnum handgun just a couple of months ago. An acquaintance of mine who lives in Seattle is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter who competes in public tournaments. Two guys I grew up with have served in the Marines for several years, one of whom just returned from active duty in Iraq two weeks ago. Yet another friend of mine has been taking jujitsu classes at a local community college. Two brothers I know from my church have a collection of guns and savage, improvised melee weapons. Men naturally accept violence.

If there is a masculine objection to violence it is generally either a moral objection to specific uses of violent force, or else simply an opposition to the harmful consequences of violence. In the latter case, it is not that men are opposed to violence itself, but only to the natural consequences and effects of such violence. Death or injury to oneself or a loved one is something quite undesirable. Robert E. Lee, general of the Confederate army during the American Civil War said, “It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.”

Contrarily, violence is seen as naturally repulsive from a feminine perspective. When I was growing up, my mother always told me, "Don't practice what you wouldn't do in real life." The context of this typically was in regards to some boyish play-violence that I was involved in. As I reached adolescence, frequently various computer games were banned from our house simply because they were violent in nature. Command & Conquer was banned because mom didn't like the screams of the dying soldiers. Descent, which didn't even have living creatures, was banned simply because the game involved weapons and destruction. Eventually, all first-person shooter video games were banned in our household until the age of 18. My dad never had a strong stance towards violence, and wasn't the primary rulemaker in the family. All of the anti-violence rules in our household were enacted and enforced by my mother.

Therefore, though it is reasonable for women to be opposed to all sorts of violence, it is not reasonable or natural for men to have a blanket opposition to violence, nor for a society to be completely opposed to all sorts of violence. As our nation has become increasingly feminized, and as men are systematically emasculated either through subversive cultural indoctrination or by forced subjection, America's opposition to violence increases. This is not a reasoned, rational, philosophical objection to violence, but instead is simply a gut-level reaction to violence that has no grounding in reality, and certainly no foundation in Christian morality. Those who suggest that violence itself is universally wrong or immoral are making a faulty appeal to emotion, rather than any sort of rational, logical claim.

Now that is it seen that the general modern American stance on violence is nothing more than a vague and baseless appeal to emotion, I would like to examine the Biblical stance on morality, so that we can reach a reasonable, rational stance on morality and come to a fuller understanding of the nature of God. In such a critical examination, I would first like to point out that the Christian moral stance on violence is not a simple and easy-to-understand one, but instead is highly nuanced. The same God who declares, "You shall not murder," (Ex. 20:13) also says, "The avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death" (Num 35:19). God commands the Israelites not to murder, but He also commands them to put certain people to death. The biblical stance on violence is that some sorts of killing and violence are just and righteous, while other kinds of violence are unjust and wicked.

Not only does God command certain instances of violence while forbidding certain kinds of violence, but also, God Himself is a violent God. Throughout the pages of Scripture there are countless references to God directly killing people. Genesis 6:17 is quite a brutal passage where God says, "And behold, I myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die." Yet, never is the violence of God purposeless and random. His violence is very intentionally, very specifically based on one condition. In the above passage, why did God send floodwaters to kill 99.99% of the earth's population? Genesis 6:5 yields the answer, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." God's violence is always done in response to the evil actions of a person or group of people.

Likewise, when God commands killing, it also follows the same criteria. Evildoers who violate God's clear moral code are to be put to death, so that the community will be purged of evil. For example, "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God... You must purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 13:5) Concerning a rebellious son who will not obey but instead is living wickedly, "Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear." (Deut. 21:21) There are countless more lists of moral offenses for which the Jews were commanded to put violators to death. Similarly, when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate the inhabits of the promised land, He was quite clear that the Israelites were both not to emulate the deeds of the nations and also that all the false gods of the nations should be destroyed. Exodus 23:24 is a prime example of this mandate, "You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars." The inhabitants of Canaan were not just killed so that the Israelites could have their land--they were slaughtered because of their wickedness and idolatry. Those whom God kills and who God commands His people to kill are those who act wickedly and transgress against the God's clear moral decrees.

Similarly, non-lethal violence that the Bible advocates is always directed in response to evil behavior and is used for the sake of correction and instruction in righteousness. Proverbs 19:18 says, "Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction." Proverbs 20:30 says, "Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, as do stripes the inner depths of the heart." Hebrews 12:11 attests to the goal of chastening, "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Jesus Himself, in one of my favorite scenes in the gospels, fashions a whip for Himself and violently drives merchants and lenders out of the temple, overthrowing the tables and pouring money all over the ground (John 2:13-17). Jesus' violence wasn't just a symptom of an anger control problem. He intentionally threw people out of the temple to remind them that God's house is holy and must be treated with reverence and to shame them for their disrepect.

Of course, this is not the whole story of Christianity's stance on violence. While the Bible is extremely pro-violence when it comes to violence used for justice, correction and slaying evildoers, it is also adamantly against many kinds of violence. At some point in the future, I will write another article considering nonviolence and Christianity and looking at what sorts of violence God opposes. As Ecclesiastes insightfully states, "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven... a time to kill and a time to heal... a time of war and a time of peace." (Ecc. 3:1, 3:3, 3:8) While many people either strongly oppose or strongly support violence, Christian beautifully unites opposites by expressing strong support for some kinds of violence and strong opposition to other types of violence. For this reason there are numerous examples of both stoical nonviolence and fierce bloodshed in Christianity. Medieval monks and priests would never lift a finger to physically harm another soul, while the crusaders soaked the earth with the blood of the Saracens. As G.K. Chesteron memorably writes, "It is true that the church told some men to fight and others not to fight; and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not fight were like statues." Similarly, God Himself is both the glorious giver of life, and a fearsome, unrelenting bringer of death. Christianity has a stance on violence that is comprehensive and consistent, yet highly nuanced.

Sadly, in modern society's twisting of Christian morality and our wholesale rejection of masculinity we have become a nation that allows our consciences to be driven not by a godly desire for righteousness, but by the capricious whims of our emotions. Not only have we sought to label all violence as intrinsically evil, we have also rejected the fiercely masculine God of the Bible, simply because He doesn't line up with our distorted view of morality. Nor is the modern church exempt from this charge of distorted thinking. John Eldredge, in The Way of the Wild Heart, alludes to this fact, "I don't fully understand the modern church's amnesia-plus-aversion regarding one of the most central qualities of God understood for centuries before us... Our God is a warrior, mighty and terrible in battle, and He leads armies." Exodus 15:3 declares, "The Lord is a warrior." It is time to return to a proper understanding of the appropriate place and purpose for violence, rather than using emotion as a basis for a wholesale rejection of all violence.

In summary, we see that the God of the Bible is a fiercely violent God. His killing is not whimsical and random; it is always directed towards evildoers. God has no qualms about brutally exterminating those whose hearts and deeds are characterized by wickedness. Likewise, the violence that God commands is always directed towards the elimination of evil, for the sake of preserving and encouraging righteousness. Our modern moral indignation is quite misplaced, for we oppose violence more than we oppose evil. We take violence too seriously, while taking justice too lightly, evil too lightly and righteousness too lightly. We are a nation that has begun to believe that nothing is worth fighting for, that nothing is worth killing for. Christianity stands firmly opposed to those stance. John Eldredge attests on this fact, "Our God is a Warrior because there are certain things in life worth fighting for, must be fought for. He makes man a Warrior in his own image, because he intends for man to join him in that battle." In the same vein, British philosopher Edmund Burke says, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Christianity is a violent religion that adamantly believes that righteousness is worth fighting for and that evildoers are worthy of death. The God of the Bible is a fierce and vicious God--and there's nothing wrong with that!

Discrimination Is Necessary For Social Reform

Today I just read an interesting and controversial article by Laura Wood, entitled Why We Must Discriminate. In it, she argues that for gender roles to be restored, for families to begin heading towards healing rather than towards the increasing dysfunction that is rampant in America, and for the resultant good of our nation, the legal environment must be changed in order to allow businesses to utilize customary discrimination and favor hiring men. In her own words:

First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.

Customary discrimination, in relation to the sexes, is the voluntary and informal practice of favoring men over women in hiring. It is not encoded in law or enforced by regulation. It exists as a result of a common understanding that men must support families and cannot adequately do so if they compete with large numbers of women, a form of competition that lowers their wages and reduces their marketability. The relative stagnation of men’s wages in the last 50 years proves the point.

I haven't read many articles specifically advocating discrimination, and I happen to agree with her argument. The truth is, feminism has been economically and socially detrimental to individuals, families and communities. Having gender-focused anti-discrimination laws does benefit businesses, but at the expense of everyone else. Personally, I believe that anti-discrimination laws of all sorts distort incentives, reduce liberty and encourage a flawed understanding of the concept of legal equality.

Specifically regarding women in the workforce, feminism may have initially appeared to be liberating. By allowing women to choose whether they pursue a family or choose a career, the apparent effect is that women have more freedom. When women first began entering the work force, it was economically advantageous for a family to earn a second income. The male provider already earned enough money to provide for his family and so adding a secondary income substantially boosted discretionary income. However, by nearly doubling the supply of labor, the equilibrium price of labor dropped dramatically. Because of the artificially low market value of labor, men and women both earn less money than if the labor market were limited to just men or just women. This decline in real income almost necessitates two incomes. Since men earn substantially less than they did before women entered the market, the amount of money needed to adequately provide for a family living in modern America is nearly equal to two full-time incomes. This means that with the rare exception of men who are wealthy, for most families, neither parent can afford to be jobless. While previously women had the option of having a job or staying at home and raising a family, now they are required to work, just to make ends meet. The resultant effect of feminism is that while previously most women didn't work, now most don't have the option of not working. Nearly twice as much work is required to earn the same amount of real income.

As bad as the economic aspect of women working is, the social effects of this are where the real harm lies. Since most women must work, they have significantly less time to spend raising children, making a difference in the world, and savoring life. There is less time for familial relationships, less time for being involved in the local community, less time to spend teaching children how to life virtuous lives, and less time for relaxation and personal hobbies. The lack of all these things serves to increase stress, decrease family unity, decrease enjoyment of life, decrease non-business related social development, and decrease the quality of childrens' education. Women's loss of social freedom and social influence is a major loss for them, directly, and for men and children, indirectly. Presently, there is a culture bias against women remaining at home and raising their families full-time. Educational instutitions and businesses profit from women in the workforce.

Why would women ever accept a return to discrimination?

The end of customary discrimination was never in the interests of women. It has forced the majority to help support their families while raising their children and managing a home. The experiment was tried. The apple was eaten. Women now see that careers come with personal costs and that many jobs are not as thrilling as feminists claim. They are ready to embrace discrimination again.

I think Laura is absolutely right. Right now, for the sake of individuals and families, America desperately needs to revoke anti-discrimination hiring laws and businesses need to intentionally choose to hire men over women. Gender discrimination is 100% necessary for America to begin true social reform. The health of our nation, the happiness of our people, the morality of our citizens, and the cohesion of our families depend on it. Let us discriminate intentionally and assertively, without apology!

Happy Endings

Why is it that most literature and most of the films of the past century embrace some sort of happy ending? Whether you are reading a typical modern fiction bestseller, watching a romantic comedy, reading an epic children's series or watching an action movie, happy endings are inescapable! Not only are cheerful endings pervasive and abundant, but there is something about a positive ending that resonates with the soul of a person (this is primarily true in the Western hemisphere). Does everything always end happily? Is this a realistic expectation to hold in our modern world? Are happy endings simply a form of escape from reality, or do they symbolize a deeper cosmic truth?

You've seen it more times that you can count. The story centers around a major conflict. Some evildoer is trying to inflict his maniacal schemes upon the helpless masses. A badass fellow with bulging muscles and a lot of weapons comes in to try and thwart the evil scheme. Eventually things go badly for him, as one of his trusted comrades betrays him for the promise of power, or maybe a sack of money. Whatever. Yet, even when everything seems to be at its bleakest, when the villain's plan is finally succeeding, when life is about to change for a lot of people, somehow, a miracle happens. Our bloodied hero concocts a reckless scheme that has little chance of success. With loads of special effects and countless clips of ammunition, the villain and his gang of cronies are laid to rest in some dramatic fashion, the hero goes home with the pretty lady, and the masses live happily ever after. The end.

Or, perhaps the setting is a little bit different. A young, single woman is on the prowl for some guy to date or marry. After a long series of unsuccessful dates, eventually she meets a smart, fun and sexy guy. They go out a few times, but then things don't work out because he's not looking for a serious relationship. Then she talks to all her girlfriends, and cries over the fact that things never seem to work out the way she wants. Her life goes on in the ordinary sort of way, all of it seeming to have lost its luster. Suddenly, out of the blue, he calls her up and tells her that he can't stop thinking about her. A few weeks later he plans some over-the-top hijinks that culminate in a short and cheesy proclamation of how he wants to be with her forever followed by presenting her with an engagement ring. A few choice clips from the wedding are shown and then the credits roll. They all live happily ever after. The end.

Why is that we so desperately crave a happy ending, no matter how implausible? Is it simply a marketing gimmick? All these happy endings lead us to believe that no matter how bad life gets and no matter how bleak our present situations are, everything is going to end well. It's all going to be okay, in the end. More hope and perseverance are justified, since eventually we're going to make it through to the other side and then we'll be fine. We're going to make it. It's going to be okay. Yet, one single glance around at the world should be enough to suggest that this sort of thinking is anything but realistic. In America, there are about half as many divorces every year as there are marriages. Those who try to be action heroes and stand up to evildoers don't often succeed. Last week I read the story of a fellow who tried to fight three crooks who were attempting to rob him. Here's how it ended:

I wake up and I can see my own reflection. I look bloodied and beat up and think I’m dreaming. I don’t know who I am, or where or what I’m doing. I quickly realize I’m awake and in a pizza restaurant and I’m looking in a mirror. There’s two nice people talking to me.

...the doctor tells me they fractured my eye socket and I will need plastic surgery and titanium plates implanted into my head.

...I just finished my operation and can now say I am MORE MACHINE THAN MAN since I now have a titanium plate in my skull.

Reality seems to often end with things turning out badly. Perhaps more often than not. My grandparents, who were married for over 35 years and are now in their late 70's are getting divorced. In the world of politics it seems that corruption, greed and a lust for power are prevailing over freedom, liberty, wisdom and common sense. Economically, our nation is setting records for new low points as unemployment skyrockets and bank failures become common occurences. Is it philosophically rational to hold out hope, when the world around us seems to be in destructive downward spiral?

If we look at films from other cultures, such as a pre-Westernized Japan, we see that most of their best movies end with the death of the hero. Rather than running from reality, Eastern thought seems to have reached a very different philosophy than Western thought. Instead of the notion that everything is going to be okay in the end, the Japanese aesthetic philosophy (wabi-sabi) could be expressed as, "It nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect." In Nogaku, a major form of classical Japanese musical drama, there are several different sorts of plays. One of the sorts of plays, Shura Mono, features the protagonist as a ghost in the afterlife. Eventually, the play builds to its climax where the warrior's death is shown. While it wouldn't be quite right to consider it a celebration of death, it is clear that one of the pivotal truths expressed is simply that everything ends. Whether for right reasons or wrong, whether in honor or ignominy, life ends for all.

Greek Theater presents yet a another perspective on endings. In their tragedies, often Greek plays would center around a prominent man who is neither especially virtuous nor excessively wicked. At some point, due to some mistake or moral blindness, the hero would experience a reversal of fortune. Sometimes death would be involved. Occasionally, the hero may gain a new insight about human fate, destiny or the will of the gods. The central theme of such tragedies is the idea that humans are flawed, either in their character or simply in their actions. William Shakespeare took a similar approach to writing his tragedies, perhaps being influenced by Aristotle, and most of his tradegies end in the deaths of all the major characters. These sorts of tragedies force the audience to take a reflective look at their own lives and consider the moral paths of their actions. If moral flaws can have such a profoundly disastrous effect upon one's own life and the lives of others, then it is critical to examine life and to temper weaknesses of character. Perhaps one way to express this aesthetic philosophy is that even seemingly minor shortcomings can have calamitous effects.

As you see, modern theater and literary works seem to bear a very different message than works from past times or from Eastern cultures. Although it would be easy to dismiss the modern attitude that everything is going to end well as simply irrational optimism, I don't think that is the whole story. Christianity may be the reason that the Western world holds such a hopeful outlook on life. Apart from a belief in heaven, it is hard to escape the philosophies of the East which cling to the transcience and ultimately illusory nature of reality. If there is no God, there can be no real hope for cosmic justice. If life ends at the grave then the nihilists are quite right to declare that life lacks any ultimate meaning and that all is futility. But the ancient Greeks didn't have Jesus. Christianity was completely foreign to pre-westernized Japan. Maybe that is the answer. Jesus saw the condition of the world, the state of the human heart and brought a message of hope and redemption. He taught us that there is a way to overcome the sin nature and to live in newness of life. Yet, his preaching went much further than that. Jesus boldly preached the reality of heaven and taught that how we live in this life has eternal consequences. Christianity alone offers the answer that through Jesus Christ's triumph over death and sin on the cross, death is ultimately powerless. Christianity alone offers the answer that reward and punishment in the afterlife is directly determine by works in this life. No good deed will go unnoticed and no evil action will be left unpunished. These are central messages of Christianity.

If modern happy endings are based on the philosophical truths that stem from Christianity, then they certainly aren't appropriately qualified. Christianity doesn't promise that things will end well for everyone. Jesus doesn't say that things are going to work out great in this life at all. The message of Christianity is that those who are righteous followers of Jesus Christ will endure certain suffering and pain in this life, but that in eternity every tear will be wiped away. The message of Christianity is that those who are not followers of Jesus Christ, and those who prefer living in carnal hedonism or wickedness, are guaranteed an eternity of suffering. However, when you strip away all the controversial elements of those truths (such as condemnation, justice and punishment), the message of Christianity sounds an awful lot like, "Since God is loving and merciful, everyone will live happily ever after." To me that sounds similar to some of our contemporary televangelists and best-seller authors. But it's not the truth. Just because we want everything to end well and for everyone to live happily ever after doesn't mean that reality will match our expectations.

The truth is, Jesus teaches that suffering, pain, turmoil and sacrifice are facts of life in this world. To those who live righteously, those are promised in greater degrees. Happy endings won't come soon and they won't come easily, but they are promised to those who persevere in their devotion to Jesus Christ and their love of righteousness. For everyone else, they are an empty delusion. The Christian view of the ultimate triumph of good over evil, of cosmic justice and of righteous living is not swift and painless. Virtuous living is a daily battle requiring courage, dedication, moral fortitude and commitment. The Greeks were closer to the truth than they realized. Happy endings only come to those who are vigilant, watchful and wise. Don't be deceived by the baseless, but well-meaning optimism of American culture. Not everyone lives happily ever after.

America's Justice System: Discouraging Courage

Today in the news, a bank teller was fired for chasing a would-be robber.

Bank tellers are trained to get robbers out the door quickly and are advised against possibly escalating a situation over money that's federally insured.

Seattle police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said the best course for citizens is to be good witnesses to crimes.

"When confronted by a violent criminal, it is best to comply unless they feel their personal safety is in jeopardy. It is possible that taking action and confronting the criminal may lead to the injury of the victim or other bystanders."

"You want tellers to be proactive, but you want them to do it safely," said FBI Special Agent Fred Gutt.

Wow! What amazing advice! Apparently our contemporary company policies and our modern political climate is actively encouraging people to be pansies. Personally, I admire the bank teller who refused to kowtow to the demands of a burglar. I admire a man who is assertive enough to stand his ground against evil-doers and who has courage enough to take action against them. Those are increasingly rare traits. In the case of this particular teller, he got flawless results. No money was stolen, nobody was hurt, and the bank robber was successfully apprehended. You can't possibly have a more successful outcome. All this because of the actions of one unarmed teller!

But, apparently our government says that we should just be good little citizens, give in to the demands of criminals and leave the administration of justice to trained professionals. They tell us to be proactive in a safe way--by doing absolutely nothing! I'm not sure how they define proactive, but I consider doing nothing to be the very least proactive response possible. What expectation of safety can there possibly be in the case of violent or potentially violent criminals? The very presence of a violent criminal strips all potential safety from the situation. Again, I'm not sure what sort of world police live in, but I'm pretty certain that wherever lawlessness and weapons are simultaneously involved, there is no such thing as safety. Maybe in their world, violent crimes are always carried out in a safe and civilized manner.

If I ever decide to become a criminal mastermind, I'll be sure to only rob banks that have company policies requiring bank tellers to cooperate with robbers' demands.

The Universal Healthcare Myth: Will Result in Rising Costs

I'm happy that some people in Congress are standing up and pointing out the flaws in Obama's healthcare reform bill. This morning House Republican Leader John Boehner wrote a short column on how the Democrats' prospective health plan will result in higher costs for everyone.

Last week, Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) sent shockwaves through Washington when he told Congress that the Democrats’ plans would make health care more costly. Throughout this debate, President Obama has spoken of the need to “bend the cost curve” or drive health care costs down. During a congressional hearing, however, Mr. Elmendorf testified that the Democrats’ plans would have the opposite effect, saying that under their proposals, “The curve is being raised” and costs would “significantly expand.” That’s because the Democrats’ plan adds a new layer of taxes, mandates, and bureaucracy on top of the current system. If that’s not bad enough, the Democrats’ plan cuts Medicare and takes away choices for millions of seniors. What does all of this mean? Higher costs for the medicine and treatments you need.

I'll be honest, the objectives of the healthcare reform bill actually sound quite reasonable. Keeping costs low and having a broad array of affordable health care choices for consumers are definitely laudable goals. I also agree with the government's stance that healthcare costs are rising too rapidly and may cause major economic problems for our nation both now and in the future. However, the current ideas that are being discussed and analyzed are not a solution to any of these problems. Instead, the proposed bill will have the opposite of its desired effect.

There are several reasons that healthcare costs have risen so dramatically: the cost of cutting-edge technology used in American medical facilities, stringent government regulations reducing competition for medical supplies, and health insurance plans that encourage consumer irresponsibility. These are all very simple economic reasons for why the price of healthcare has risen. Let's look at these factors briefly.

Living in country that is as technologically advanced as ours has its advantages. Many diseases and conditions that would be fatal in other countries are treatable here in the United States. However, this benefit comes at a high cost. The medicines and machines that are used for advanced medical proceudres are not cheap at all. As a column from Business Week says:

Technological advances go hand in hand with productivity gains in most industries, but in medicine, better technology almost always means higher expenses.

Rising costs could be seen as a sign of progress: The cheapest medical outcome, after all, is death. Major advances in the treatment of heart disease, cancer, pulmonary disorders, and a broad range of once-fatal diseases have prolonged life, but the longer the life, the higher the medical costs. "We're not realizing cost reductions as a result of increased longevity," says Michael Thompson, principal with PriceWaterhouse Coopers. Survive a heart attack, for example, and you raise your chances of living long enough to die of cancer or Alzheimer's disease, two of the most expensive diseases. Not to mention the cost of the drugs and follow-up care you'll need to avoid another heart attack.

We have made a trade-off in America. Longevity and survival is something that we have determined is worth any cost. Therefore, when given an option between a less-expensive treatment and a more-expensive modern treatment, many patients are demanding the higher-cost option, even if it will not provide a significantly better treatment. The Pareto Principle states that 80% of the results are derived from 20% of the inputs. To improve something beyond a certain level of functionality requires a relatively large investment for a very small functional gain. In the case of medical procedures, many doctors and patients are choosing to use hugely expensive machines and medicines that are only slightly better than ordinary ones. You see a similar phenomenon with cars or computers, where a car lover would rather buy a Lamborghini, even though it is not much functionally better than less expensive car, or where a computer-lover will spend $4,000 for a computer than is only marginally better than one which only costs $1,000. A premium price is paid for something just because it is cutting edge, even though its actual function rarely merits such a price-tag. One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because many Americans have chosen to pursue premium healthcare, regardless of the cost.

Another reason why healthcare is so expensive is because there are challenging barriers to market-entry, which results in fewer suppliers of medicines and medical technology. The high aggregate demand meets a lower than desirable aggregate supply, which sets the equilibrium prices higher than they should be. This is very similar to the problem of having a monopoly or oligopoly; prices are much higher than they would be if there was more competition. If this were a naturally-occuring phenomenon, it wouldn't be such a horrible thing; prices would be high simply because not many suppliers see a chance to make a profit. But, this is not a natural economic phenomenon. Instead, it is a case of market failure. The FDA is a branch of our Federal Government which oversees and regulates the medicines and medical products that can be legally sold. Before any drug or medical device is sold to the public or used in medical facilities, it must undergo a stringent period of testing and approval. The regulations governing health products are extremely restrictive, such that the sale of a product often entangles years of red tape and bureaucratic finagling. I currently work for a small company that manufactures cutting-edge blood testing devices that have dominated the veterinary market for years, but we're only just starting to be able to sell our machines to hospitals since it took us a long time to receive FDA approval. If we didn't already have a large client-base and ample cash-flow from our veterinary sales, our blood-testing machines, which are superior to all our competitors' blood-testing products, never would have reached the human medical market. The government's interference in the market, in the form of stringent regulations, sets a difficult hurdle for potential suppliers resulting in very little competition in the human medical market. To compete, you basically have to be a large, established company with lots of financial resources. Because of the lack of competition due to government intervention, healthcare costs are much higher than they would be in a free-market.

The third major factor contributing to high healthcare costs is the proliferation of health insurance. Health insurance is not an intrinsically harmful thing. However, the current health insurance system definitely enables consumers to make uninformed and costly decisions. Since most healthcare consumers pay only a small co-pay on most standard medical procedures, with the insurance company paying the remainder, it makes very little difference to consumers how expensive their medicines and treatments are. If you pay the same amount of out-of-pocket money for inexpensive, decent care or for expensive, cutting-edge care, you'll want the very best you can get. Since the insurance company eats most of the cost (at least initially), there is really little or no incentive for patients to find reasonably-priced treatments or perform significant research into the effectiveness of different methods of treatment. It's easier to go for the one that sounds the most modern and just pay the insurance policy's deductible than to put needless time and effort into making informed decisions. To be sure, an individual patient does economically benefit from getting expensive treatments at very low direct cost. What is not seen is the resulting effect of many patients using this sort of decision making. First of all, doctors are more likely to recommend expensive procedures rather than cheaper ones in order to maximize their profitability. Since consumers don't directly pay they cost, they are quick to consent. Then, the doctors send massive bills to the insurance companies who have to pay exorbitant piles of money for these expensive treatments. Having to pay so much for the various medical bills puts the insurance companies in a bind, and they quickly have to raise their premiums just to make ends meet. Consequently, because of the expensive treatments some patients elect to receive, the prices rise for everyone. Though individual consumers and doctors benefit in the short-term, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and soon the costs of health insurance skyrocket. The problem is that consumers do not have to directly pay for their own expenses, and so the consequences are artificially removed from their decisions. Separating the natural consequences of a choice from the choice itself always creates an environment that fosters irresponsibility or abuse. That's what our current proliferation of health insurance has done.

As you can see, all of these factors have contributed to the high costs of healthcare that we see today in America, which is why healthcase expenditures (as a percentage of GDP) have nearly doubled in the past thirty years. Based on these factors the solution that we need in order to achieve true healthcare reform and restore medical costs to reasonable levels must entail several factors. First of all, consumers need to take responsibility for their own healthcare and make informed, cost-effective decisions. Consumers will naturally do this as long as they face the consequences of their decisions and have to pay for their own costs rather than riding on a system where everyone contributes. Americans will be more likely to be proactive towards their own health if they don't have a safety net of insurance and government guarantees to pay for an infinite array of costly medical treatments. Secondly, the FDA needs to take a step back and reduce their smothering regulations on medical products, so that more suppliers will be able to compete in the medical market. Once more suppliers enter the medical market, all medical suppliers will be forced to be more efficient, eliminate waste and cut costs in order to sell high-quality products at reasonable prices. Those companies who don't find ways to lower their prices dramatically will quickly find their market share decreasing as new suppliers create superior products and sell them at better prices. No longer will a few companies have so much market dominance that they can engage in price-fixing. In short, what we need to ensure effective healthcare reform is a narrower form of health insurance that leaves more responsibility with the consumer and we need less government medical regulation.

Now, let us examine what the government is seeking to do with the currently proposed healthcare reform bill. They are seeking to increase government regulation over the medical industry and they are seeking to expand healthcare coverage to those who can't afford it. As regulation increases further, there will be even less competition in both the health insurance market and the medical products market. Because there will be even fewer medical suppliers, the current medical suppliers will solidify their iron grip on the market, allowing for more price-fixing and ultimately causing treatment costs to rise further. Additionally, since there will be more insured Americans, if the government's new insurance program is even remotely like the current HMOs, the government will be directly encouraging more consumer irresponsibility. Because more people will be electing to receive expensive treatments than before, premiums and healthcare expenditures will rise even further. The effect of the proposed healthcare bill will be exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Rather than bringing prices back down and ensuring that healthcare is affordable for everyone, this bill will cause the already out-of-control prices to leap for the sky and guarantee that only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare.

Therefore, we see that not only is the new healthcare bill founded on a lie, but it will only serve to exacerbate the conditions that currently haunt the American healthcare market, resulting in higher costs and lower-quality service than before. Do not be deceived by government propaganda about the alleged benefits of this brand of healthcare reform. America would be stupid to adopt any such legislation!

One Trillion Dollars Short

As of this week, our government now has accumulated a deficit of more than one trillion dollars from this year alone. Personally, I find this shocking and appalling and perhaps a little bit surprising. You would think that being elected to some sort of government position would require at least basic math skills and perhaps a touch of personal responsibility. I guess not!

Though economics can be complicated at some times, balancing the budget is definitely not. Any elementary school student capable of basic subtraction could figure out how to balance the budget. The equation is very simple: Income - Expenses = Remaining Money. If your remaining money is greater than zero, then you have have a surplus. If the remainder is zero, then you have a balanced budget. If you have less than zero dollars left, then you have a deficit. Therefore, if you wish to avoid a deficit, all you must do is ensure that you don't spend money that you do not have.

Just to put this year's deficit into perspective, let us see how much this deficit will cost us. Supposing the federal government chose to collect enough money to pay off our deficit, every single man, woman and child in America would have to pay $3,268 to cover the deficit of the last six months alone. Projections for this year suggest that by the end of 2009 the deficit will rise to $1.84 trillion, essentially costing each person $6,013. That is six thousand dollars more than we've already paid in taxes. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to give the government that much money!

In the case of our federal government, there are several possible reasons for why we have a deficit. The first option is that politicians simply can't do math. The second option is that politicians are simply irresponsible, evidenced by their unwillingness to trim unnecessary expenses from our budget and by their increasing government spending on numerous fronts. The third option is that perhaps politicians believe that everyone's money belongs to them and they are free to spend it how they see fit, without any accountability. Truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised if it is combination of all three.

If we actually wanted to cut our expenses it would be very simple to do. Ending the broken and out-of-control Social Security program ($617 billion a year), the poorly-managed Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP program ($599 billion a year) and withdrawing from all the pointless wars we're fighting ($625 billion a year) would save us $1.81 trillion per year. Even if we've already spent half of that on such programs this year, ending them now would save us $900 billion dollars. But, of course, the government views those all as good and necessary programs... in fact, maybe we need a few more such programs...

I'm sure that poking a few more holes in our fiscal boat will keep it from sinking!