It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like the 1850s, or 1920s

Once every 70 or 80 years, there comes a time such as today is. The mood of crisis is everywhere--as everything portends evil. There are demonstrates over immigration (as there were today all over the US), there is a growing sense of polorization between two antithetical views about society that degenerates into culture war, or occasionally a real civil conflict (see the American Revolution or the Civil War). In America, those Presidents who are interventionists find themselves losing popularity as the general mood of the US becomes more insular and more isolationist.

At this stage economic progress continues until it is stopped by a serious downturn (the Panic of 1857, the crash of 1929), which causes whichever political party is in power to lose respect in the eyes of an impovershed and upset populace. Worsening economic conditions, a political climate poisoned by irrepresible conflict between two warring groups of the most self-righteous generation type, as well as the general discontent among the younger generation for either side (as that younger generation has been declared war on since before birth--see Roe vs. Wade). When the sense of malaise has deepened and the crisis become intolerable, then a cleansing conflict (like WWII) serves to unify people and harden people into serious and very dangerous conflict with an opposite enemy.

Of course, a lot of suffering happens when the crisis finally comes to fruition. In America's history, the crisis has been the crisis of tyranny with regards to a colonial power (the American Revolution), a crisis over tyranny with regards to slavery (the Civil War), and the crisis of totalitarian dictators (World War II). Who knows what the next crisis will be, but it will be what in other circumstances would be a small event (an attack on a small fortress, a couple of minor skirmishes) that becomes a huge conflict. Timing is everything.

It is at that point that the true moral fiber of a society is revealed. Is the society able to endure the tremendous suffering and create a new, and more just, social order? Does the society implode because of its moral corruption and its basic and fundamental disagreements? Is the conflict against an external foe or against an internal one? Or both? These things cannot be known ahead of time, though the conflict itself that is brewing often gives hints. For example, in the time before the American Revolution, the conflict between conservatives (who were pro-English) and radicals (who were pro-Indepdence) as well as the conflicts between settlers and American Indian tribes, set up the conflict that resulted. Also, the prelude to the Civil War was marked by increasing sectionalism between North and South that spilled into war when the Southerners behaved foolishly after the 1860 election. Likewise, the left-leaning FDR and the anti-fascist Churchill proved to be key figures in the world conflict that eventually followed, as the US was able to, temporarily, ally with the USSR in an alliance of convenience against the fascist Axis powers. In hindsight, the evidence is there, but it is difficult to see ahead of time how it will turn out.

So, what are the irrepressible conflicts of our time? That is a hard one, because there are a few to choose from, and it is difficult to see which ones are important. For one, the US is becoming rapidly more unpopular in its own backyard, always a bad sign, as nations are defecting from the US hegenomy (particularly Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, at the present time). Also, the US is heavily involved in foreign wars with an increasingly stern Muslim fundamentalism (witness also the growing regional domination of Iran in southern Iraq and western Afghanistan). The clash between Western and Muslim standards appears rather important. There are other important global considerations, such as a growing isolation between the US and other nations about such issues as the environment and the military. Exactly what series of events, and what confluence of factors, leads to the deciding crisis, is as of yet unclear. Nonetheless, the mood of people is on edge, and there is a weariness and a dissatisfaction all around. Who will be able to take advantageo f that? The answer to that question is the difference between noble history and terrible tragedy. And that answer is not yet clear, and may not be for some time. But when it is clear, the dominoes will fall into place and fall on their appointed schedule.

A Brief Examination of The Different Types of Morality

The question of morality is one that has long interested me, and in trying to do my best to provide short answers to the questions of Dr. Ward (at long last), I recently wrote the following as part of my analysis of the definition of good and evil. As such, it would be helpful to look at it, because the definition of good and evil is a more complicated question than most people are willing to admit. After all, what looks good to us may not be, in fact, good. This is more true of those in power than regular people, as the corrupting influence of power is well noted and present in all levels of our society at present, but it is true to some extent for all of us.

Using a rubric which is a common one in the construction of moralty in role playing games, we can separate the question of authority from that of good and evil itself, something that many people out of intellectual laziness or obstinancy refuse to do. There are nine different viewpoints represented by this rubric. Each of these represents the confluence of one’s attitudes towards authority and towards God’s law. Before we can discuss the nature of the true authority of good and evil, and the definition of good and evil, we should discuss these nine viewpoints. Good represents those who have chosen the Lord's side. Evil represents those who wish to oppress and rule over others (i.e. those who have chosen Satan's side). Lawful represents those who are favorable to the existing social order. Chaotic represents those who are hostile to the existing social order. Neutral represents those who are indifferent or ambivalent about God's law and/or the existing social order.

Lawful Good: The Paladin

Lawful good represents the viewpoint of those who have cast their lot with God rather than with Satan, do not view themselves as the arbiters of good and evil, and who are friendly towards authority. The paladin is a soldier enfused with organizational fervor (or zeal), usually for a particular religious order or organization, and is very strong in confidence both about his defintion of goodness and wickedness, as well as the legitimacy of the social order he represents. This type of person is especially prized by societies, as they represent energy, loyalty, and dedication to the existing social structure. They are, in other words, forces of energetic conservatism.

Neutral Good: The Decent Citizen

Those filled with less fervor for the social order but still of soundness with regards to right and wrong belong to this category. People who are neutral good are either indifferent or ambivalent towards the social order—either they do not see the issue as important, or they see problems, but either no workable solution or no true alternative to the way things currently are. As they are good, they believe in what is right, and strongly, but they wish to avoid, whenever possible, issues of administration. While such people are not as highly treasured in societies and organizations as those who are lawful good, they are still valued and hardworking members of society. Upon such decent, moderate, citizenry, all good societies and organizations depend.

Chatoic Good: The Prophet/Reformer

The concept of loyal opposition was made for these unusual and rather iconoclastic figures. The chaotic good is perhaps the most rare of moral types: someone who is enfused with holy fire and passion for what is right, but is present in a highly corrupt and wicked society or organization in need of serious reformation. Organizations and societies do not like this moral type, as they present a dual problem—their goodness and passion are obvious and easily recognizable, and their hostility or suspicion of the existing social order makes them a danger to the existing structure of society, which has been measured and found lacking. Such figures are prophets of doom for societies who have strayed from moral principles and love for fellow man and whose social structures have become rigid and oppressive. As such, they are often persecuted both by the wicked and by the powerful because they strenuously oppose both.

Lawful Neutral: The Organization Man

Those who define good and evil based on their group identity or organization or nation belong in this category. Such people are not actively evil, but rather let their group identity overwelm their commitment to morality. For them, good and evil are abstract principles, and what matters to them is their position within their society or group. It is their country, or family, or organization, right or wrong. Such people are not morally reflective, but are loyal and devoted to their group no matter what. If their group is moral, they may look like decent citizens, but they offer no resistance if their group becomes more and more wicked, such as Germany in the 1930’s.

True Neutral: The Opportunist

The true neutral is looking out for one thing and one thing only—number one. Such people have no firm moral convictions, viewing their own personal opinions as the basis of their morality. They are neither hostile nor friendly to structure, as they are indifferent to the forms of society except insofar as those forms serve to benefit them. They are chameleons, blending in easily wherever they go, always looking for their own success and their own fortune, oblivious to anything except seeking pleasure and/or avoiding pain and suffering. They stand for nothing, but can get along with anything as long as it is friendly or at least neutral, to their own desires and interests.

Chaotic Neutral: The Expatriate

The Chaotic Neutral is someone who is indifferent to good and evil (we may consider such people to be selfish) but who is hostile to their society. In other words, they have left their society because of its wrong, but do not wish to reform society. Rather, they wish to be left alone, even if it means being a person without a society or group to belong to. They may be outsiders wherever they go, but it does not bother them, as they have enough money to suit their own pleasures without the benefit of group identity. They are not willing to suffer for their hostility to the existing social structure, unlike the reformer or prophet, but neither do they wish to destroy their society either, like the terrorist, either.

Lawful Evil: The Nazi/Inquisition

Those who are lawful evil are the most wicked of personality types. That is, they are firm believers in order and structure, but turn that order and structure to wicked ends in order to torment and torture other people. These people are loyally devoted to their particular group, but are firm believers in the usefulness and necessity of barbaric activities to further their group identity. Such people are represented by Hitler, Stalin, Torquemada, and others who have used positions of authority in order to pursue their own dark and wicked desires to oppress others. Socities that fall prey to these figures have a dark destiny: whether those leaders be southern slaveowners as in the period before the Civil War in the US, or in the Catholic hierarchy throughout the Counter Reformation (and with the priestly sex scandals today). Such people as the lawful evil destroy what is good in society, by preserving its structure while killing its spirit and decency.

Neutral Evil: The Sadist/Exploiter

The neutral evil person is not interested in questions about who should rule society. All they are interested is exploiting other people. Thoroughly devoted to swindling and abusing other people, it does not matter to them whether their society is a dictatorship, a democracy, or anything else. All that matters is that they can harm and dominate other people. Such people are an active threat to the members of soceity, as they wish to create empires on the back of the poor and weak and foolish, even if they are no threat to the external structure of the society themselves. They are selfish, but wickedly and aggressively so, not wishing merely that they should be successful, but that others should slave away for their success, even as they care nothing for how that society is organized.

Chaotic Evil: The Terrorist

The chaotic evil personality represents someone who wishes to destroy all so that everything turns to a state of hostile chaos. The Terrorist, like the prophet, is filled with great zeal and indignation about the wickedness of society. However, unlike the prophet, they do not wish to reform society. Rather, they wish to destroy it, by bombing at will, destroying all social order, paralyzing government and filling everyone around them with fear. Such people turn their prodigious energy and talent towards the destruction of a society that has become so hostile as to become intolerable.

There are some important points to remember here. One is that if society is good, then almost everyone would be lawful good, because there would be little just reason to be hostile or ambivalent towards the existing social order. When society is good, there is little need for prophets to protest wrongs in society. It is when societies become evil that the moral gradations become more severe. In fact, the more wicked the society, the more obvious the true moral stance of its citizens. It is wickedness around us that forces us to set our priorities--do we side with law and order or do we side with righteousness, even if that is against the law (and it often is, because leaders are often wicked). In a society that is corrupt those who are lawful good are generally ignorant (whether deliberately or not) of the true state of affairs in that society, because if they were they would either side with the organization (and become lawful neutral or evil) or they would begin to question the existing social structure (and move towards Neutral Good or Chaotic good). Some people do not wish to make that choice. Others of us have it forced upon us.

The Persistence of Memory

Georges Santayana, on the short list of best philosophers of the 20th Century, made the famous quote that "those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." The past is a rich place for lessons about how we live our lives, but we must be very careful, because learning from the past is not as simple as merely doing what we have always done, or in celebrating our past and trying to ignore or minimize our mistakes. The past is not dead, because the reprocussions of it live on long after the original actors are dead and done. Generations may go by, centuries even, but the past still lives because it still has something to say.

Even in our personal lives memory is a powerful and sometimes dangerous quality. What we remember, and how we remember it, says a lot about ourselves. What others forget and remember says a lot about them as well. We can choose to write false histories based only on the positive or only on the negative--both are lies, and both are worthy of condemnation. Rather, if we are to be honest and truthful, the truth is always nuanced, and always more complicated than we would like it. Most people (that is, non-intellectuals) like simple and easy answers, but such easy statements are almost invariably gross oversimplifications and distortions of the truth. They may be (at times) reasonably close approximations, but to treat them as exact representations of the truth is to be in error. Why is it that we do not wish to face the complexities of life? Why do we so easily lapse into simplistic lies about ourselves, our friends, our enemies, our past, and our future? Why is it so difficult for us to face the truth of the matter, the ambiguity, the admission of assumptions where it is necessary (and it is often necessary to come to any coherent thoughts about anything to assume a lot).

Whose memory is most important? This is most important in those occasions where offense is caused, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I am someone who is quite prickly when it comes to personal comments. This should be relatively obvious to all who know me (and anyone even knows me from my writings alone). Among the many exmaples I could choose from, here is one story of how I was offended by something that probably was not meant as offensive. In 1996, the President of UCG (at the time), a man by the name of David Hulme, came to Tampa and spoke at church. After church came the inevitable reception line where people waited to come and give some brief comments to the head honcho, who would usually give some kind of chummy reply. Well, his message was on ethnic origin (one of those Twelve Tribes in modern history kind of messages) and I made a rather humorous comment to him about my rather complicated ethnic origin (much more complicated than my freckled, rather Scot-Irish appearance would suggest). When I came through the line a second time, he commented to my mother and stepfather "So you're responsible for this?" when referring to me. He must have thought himself rather clever. I thought it rather rude.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this quality. I mean, I have an unusually good memory when it comes to offenses received, but it's always interesting to recall memories of situations where others received offense where no remote offense was meant. Another example on this is rather fruitful. One holy day when I was in Los Angeles for college, a friend of mine (who was also a close friend of my father's, and whose daughter was the first girl I ever kissed, and who is an Emmy award winning television film editor) drove me to services down in Orange County. Also a passenger in this vehicle was a middle aged and rather cranky person. During the somewhat lengthy drive, I was asked about my trip to Ghana. I replied in my usual upbeat and enthusiastic way, and made a comment that if any of them ever went to Ghana it would be good to know a few words, so I taught them the words for white man (o-bruni), welcome (akwaaba), and so forth, in Twi, the language of the Ashanti people of Kumasi. I thought it all rather innocent and light, but later on I ran into the cranky person and he lambasted me for speaking in tongues, thinking my Ashanti vocabulary as evidence of demon possession. If that doesn't make one feel uncomfortable, I don't know what would. Needless to say, we were not fast friends. He was of that narrow-minded, world stopped in 1986, anti-intellectual mindset anyway, but that certainly did not help matters.

These are all rather frivolous example, compared to the rather series sorts of issues I could easily say where differing memories, based largely on where we stand and our own personal history, shape our perception of occurrences in ways that may not be particularly friendly. I happen to have a rather unusual personal history, and one that is particularly hostile, and I write from that perspective. As a private citizen, my viewpoints are basically harmless, as I have only my power of persuasion (which I do not consider all that great) and my force of intellect to influence others. There are others whose viewpoints are of much greater importance, due to the power they possess, and whose memories are particularly faulty in rather important areas.

We all have somewhat faulty memories, so the lack of remembering specific details would not itself be important, except that it is an alarming tendancy of those with power and influence (and a natural, if unwise, interest in maintaining that position at all costs) to selectively forget what might be unfriendly to them. My memory, flawed or not, is rather evenhanded. I remember mistakes I have made (it's not like there is a shortage of those to choose from) as well as mistakes others have made towards me (ditto). For our memories to help us instead of hurt us, our memories have to be balanced.

What this means is that we have to remember that we are neither divine, accountable to no one, or beast. We are all sinners, and we are all sinned against. We should feel righteous indignation about those who abuse and offend others, but we must be careful to notice that we may do the same ourselves, even without realizing or intending it. We cannot construct victim ideologies for ourselves that whitewash our hands of any wrongdoing and claim that everything wrong in our lives is because of our enemies, be they human or spiritual. We are our own worst enemies--though we are not to blame for everything that goes wrong in our lives either.

So what does this mean? We must use our memories to help us see shortcomings in ourselves (and in those of other Christians--not for fault finding, though this is quite tempting sometimes, but for their own improvement as brethren in a spirit of mutual edifying). We must also use our memories to remember what God has done for us (this is especially important in times of great suffering, when blessings are hard to come by). We must also remember, honestly, who we are without God in our lives, as this can be rather instructive. If we do so, there will be no place for anyone, low or high, to boast about themselves, nor for anyone to feel too down on themselves, for we are all of great importance to God. So we should use our memories as a force for good, for improvement, for greater understanding and wisdom. Otherwise, as Mr. Santayana said, we will merely have more bad experiences repeating, with little point or purpose. Let not our past experiences occur in vain.

...And The Truth Shall Set You Free

"Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," reads John 8:32. That this statement is the gospel truth is quite obvious. What is less obvious though, is what is meant by the truth, and what is meant by free. What exactly does the truth set us free from? Why is it that some would not wish to be free? As Christians, do we have the obligation to be free of pleasant illusions? And if so, what responsibility do we have for the pleasant illusions of others? Do we honor truth tellers, or reward hypocrites and liars who paint false, but pretty, pictures? Is it necessary to embrace unpleasant truth? I do not pretend to know the answers to all of these questions, but I do think about them, and my own life reflects my own provisional answers to these questions based on careful research and my own rather prickly personal experience (which is different from that of others--a fact I respect even if they do not respect it in return).

Before I get too far into the thorny issue of what the truth sets us free from, and why we may not always be enthusiastic to be free, it is important to look at the truth. What is true, and what therefore is of vital importance that we know. We can know many things, should we have the inclination, though not all of those things are worth knowing. For example, we can know all about how to make an atomic bomb, but such knowledge is not likely to be very worthwhile. The same would be true, for example, of the knowledge of how to commit sin in the most picturesque manner. It is relatively obvious that some knowledge is proper and some is improper, even if defining the precise barrier is difficult. It is that thorny task I would like to deal with at this point, because it is the subject of much disagreement and controversey.

Ephesians 4:29 states: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that may minister grace to the hearers." This verse is certainly an important verse, but first it must be made clear what is corrupt, what is meant by communication, and what is good to the use of edifying and grace. It is only after we answer these three questions that we can determine what sort of communication this entails, and if this has any bearing on the sort of truth that sets us free. Is there any kind of truth that is corrupt communication or not?

The word used for communication in this verse is logos, the Greek word translated elsewhere as a title of Jesus Christ (as the Word). It refers to any words, thoughts, or writings that we may have. The word is of rather expansive meaning, and includes all forms of communication. Therefore, communication is a fitting word to use for this. So whatever this verse refers to, it can refer to any way we have of thinking and expressing those thoughts to others, which is quite serious.

The word used here for corrupt is sapros, which means rotten, worthless, bad, or evil. This word is used both for the literal sense of rotten fruit or meat, for example, as well as moral rottenness. Judging by the context of the word in the verse and passage, it is rather clear that the word is referring in this case to the moral rather than to the literal sense.

The word used here for edifying is oikodome, which refers to structure and architecture, and means building (as a verb here, not as a noun). The question, therefore, is what sort of building up is meant here. The verse itself refers to grace, and therefore suggests that the building up is not merely that of flattery, which builds us up, but is meant in the spiritual sense. As is true with physical construction, however, sometimes it is necessary to tear down an existing structure in order to build up a better one. Therefore, it would appear that this verse does not denigrate unpleasant truthtelling at all, but rather harshly condemns communication which entices others to sin. This is of some importance.

Several of my favorite stories in the Bible invovle the prophet Nathan. I was named after him and given, by some perverse sense of humor, a similar sort of attitude when it came to telling the truth. All of the characters in the Bible named Nathan or derivatives of Nathan (like the apostle Nathanael Bartholomew) are known for their rather blunt truth-telling, which is respected by godly characters. This will be more important later on, but suffice it to say for now that our attitude towards truth telling determines whether we are godly or not. The classic story of Nathan the prophet involves the sin of David and Bathsheba. David committed the sin of adultery, in private, and then covered up this sin by murder, behaving in both instances as a tyrant, by abusing his power as king for his own personal pleasure. Though his sin was private, though, his position in authority meant he had to be condemned in public, and that his sin and the price of his sin would be open to all as a demonstration of divine justice. And so it was.

Therefore, it is clear that Nathan's actions in publicizing the sin of David, which had hitherto been private, was not corrupt communication, even though it dealt with the sins of a powerful leader. The exposing of sin of leaders is a sacred duty of believers, and public confession of sin is the first step to restoration (as we saw in my previous post). Those leaders who deny the existence of their sin (all of us have sin, and thus have no room to be self-righteous or judgmental when it comes to dealing with the sins of others) and who punish those who expose the truth about them are not godly leaders. They are unrepentant and presumptuous sinners in danger of the gehenna judgment. Those who God places in positions of responsibility have very high standards to maintain, and their sins set the example for everyone else (without, of course, absolving people of their own personal responsibility). Therefore, the sins of leaders are taken very seriously by God. Both David and Paul (another example of a notorious sinner who became a leader in God's church, and who always remembered, and admitted, his previous conduct before conversion, as an example of the grace and mercy of God towards all of us sinners).

The consistent attitude of righteous individuals when confronted with sin is the acceptance of righteous judgment, no matter who that judgment came from. Truth is truth, whether it said by a small child, an old man, a parent, a child, a servant, or anyone else. Whether it was the righteous rebuke of Judah by Tamar or the repentant attitude of David when faced with the stern rebuke of the prophet Nathan, unplesanat truthtelling is edifying (as Psalm 141:5 makes plain). Therefore, no matter how unpleasant the truth, it builds us up by removing from us the pleasant fiction of illusion that surrounds us. The Bible does not whitewash its characters, but presents them in a balanced view, with both their virtues and vices in full view. Our lives as Christians should be without hypocrisy and without secrecy. We should be open to the view of all, and sometimes that view is not going to be very pleasant. We are all capable of grave sin (I speak of myself personally at least as much as about anyone else in this regard), and we all need mercy from God, for justice would be the death of us all.

What, then, do we need to be free of? It is clear that we need to be free of illusion. Illusion is all around us, and those societies that are more corrupt have more illusions than other societies. During the Middle Ages, for example, knowledge of the Bible was considered threatening to the preorogatives of the Catholic hierarchy, and therefore the faithful illiterate peasants of Europe had to content themselves with pretty pictures in stained glass windows in massive cathedrals, rather than having access to the true words of God, which spoke differently than the wicked leaders of the Catholic church. Our society is becoming less of a reading society, and more visual, and this is dangerous, as pictures lie and smooth over the complexities of life, but the truth lies with words, and the truth is always complicated and generally unpleasant. If we reject the truth, God rejects us. This is true of the dark truths about ourselves that lead us to repent of our sins and be baptized, realizing that on our own we are without hope of salvation. This is true of the dark truths about how we can become twisted by power, fame, and fortune, and how we can abuse our gifts and responsibilities for personal gain and for sinful pleasure. Truth is truth, regardless of the power and authority of the truthteller, and those who are godly will recognize truth and not judge merely by appearances.

Know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Are you willing to be free of the illusions that constantly surround us or not?

The Importance of Choosing The Correct Call Girl...

A man named John Perfumo died today at the age of 91, according to the Associated Press. If he is remembered at all, it is for his role in an affair that threatened international security during the 1960's and that nearly brought down the Conservative government of Harold MacMillan in England, and led in part to its defeat in 1964 at the polls. Now, he would certainly not be the first person whose political position was threatened by an extramarital affair, indeed, I could mention that of quite a few people much better known by my blog reading audience. Nonetheless, this example is notable for its sensationalism as well as the aftermath of the case, which demonstrates that for all the severity of John Perfumo's sin/error, he was a more decent man than many I know of who have also been caught, figuratively or literally, with their pants down. This example, despite unpleasant, can be useful to us here and now.

John Perfumo was Secretary of State in England in 1963, a 48 year old with a promising political future in the Conservative Party, when allegations came out that he was having an affair with Christine Keeler, a call girl who was apparently also having an affair with a Soviet naval attache and military officer named Yevgeny Ivanov. When a letter he wrote to her was published though (writings are always getting people into trouble), he resigned from the cabinet and immediately became the center of a major national security storm in Great Britain.

It is here where the situation becomes somewhat complicated. It turns out that Perfumo met Keeler through a man named Stephen Ward, an osteopath who apparently profited from the prostitution of Keeler and another call girl, named Mandy Rice-Davies and whose apartment became an adulterous love nest for Perfumo, Ivanov, and (presumably) others. When the case went to trial Ward committed suicide via a drug overdose, despite vehemently denying that he tried to pressure Perfumo to give national security secrets to Ivanov (it was later determined that Perfumo gave away no state secrets, and thus he was not guilty of any security breaches, despite his appalling errors of judgment).

Perfumo was a wealthy man and had been an Oxford educated descendent of an Italian aristocrat who served in North Africa in World War II and who was elected to Parliament first in 1940. His war service was sufficiently exemplary to earn him the award of Officer of the Order of the British Empire. He also had a loyal and devoted wife, an actress named Valerie Hobson, who died in 1998. His wife stood by him during the trial and afterwards, but unlike most wayward husbands with loyal wives, he managed (somehow) to regain trust and reputation through a lifetime of service to the unfortunate, which merits our attention.

For though the Keeler scandal ended his promising political career, Perfumo had not finished his acts of service to the world. Though the scandal unsurprisingly forced him to withdraw from public attention, he still had something to do with his life. After a year out of work, he found unpaid work at Toynbee House as a helper at the noted charity for the poor in London's East End. Beginning as a dishwasher, he moved up to fundraiser, chairman, and president of the charity. He also served in a social club for recovering alcoholics, besides this.

For his charity work he was awarded in 1975 by the Queen the position of Commander of the Order of the British Empire. However, the shame of his scandal never departed from him. In 1989 a film named "Scandal" was made about the Keeler affair, despite the appeals from prominent friends (notably the late Bishop Jim Thompson) for filmakers to cease their labors.

What is most important for us, though, is the difference between Perfumo's reaction to scandal and that of those of us we are more familiar with. Though he, like others in his position, denied the truth when it first came out, he admitted his fault quickly and took personal responsibility for it. He was a man of honor who had blundered seriously, and he did not blame anyone else for his own mistakes. This is a rare quality in leaders, who are constantly trying to shift blame for their mistakes onto others, whether it is those who make the truth known or those who share in their errors. Not only this, though, but he sought to recover his reputation through acts of loyal and devoted service to the less fortunate of society, and continued in this labor for many years, despite having no apparent chance of regaining positions of power and influence. Ironically enough, by doing so he managed to demonstrate his own character and his own basic worthiness of respect and gratitude. In doing so, he managed to recover his reputation in large extent. Here is a truer analogue to the case of David and Bathsheba than most I am forced to hear from others concerning scandal-ridden leaders.

So, today died an old man, and a good man, who made a mistake and never ceased to pay for it. His actions, though, after the fact, demonstrate his basic decency of character. After all, such a sin as his is one that many can fall into. We may all fall into various sorts of temptations, and this is especially the case when someone has wealth, power, and influence. We may compare, however, the responsible actions of John Perfumo with the dishonorable actions of other leaders who have shared his flaw without sharing his nobility of character, and we may see that here was a man who received blame but suffered beyond what he deserved. There are others, however, who largely escaped the blame they were due (and today escape the blame they are due). However, if we do not pay for our sins now, we will do so later. It is better, like Mr. Perfumo, to repent, pay the price, and look forward to a more merciful judgment hereafter.

Mango Diplomacy

Today I am going to talk about mangoes. But first, a quote from Winston Churchill, one of my favorite politicians of all time, and a man after my own heart: "What is the use of living," he asked, "if it be not to strive for nobler causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?" Those are very wise words from a pugnacious and perceptive leader.

“The United States is looking forward to eating Indian mangoes as part of liberalising trades and opening markets.”
– President Bush, in India, last Thursday.

Yes, this is a real quote. Apparently, the US imports 29% of the world's entire mango crop. I, for one, will not be eating mangoes, or any other kind of mangoes either, but not because I have anything against the people of India. Rather I have something against mangoes. That, however, is only because mangoes have something against me. That is a subject for later, though.

A lot of people like mangoes. The neareast Wally World (aka Wal-Mart) to my home is in a (formerly) rural area of Hillsborough County known as Mango. One of my friends had a (now deceased) lovebird named Mango. I am sure that many of my readers enjoy mango sherbert or mangoes in fruit salad and so forth. However, I can have no part in any sort of mango diplomacy.

The reason for this is that I (like one of my aunts) am seriously allergic to mango. My first experience with mangoes came when I visited Trinidad during the fall of 1990, when I was 9. During my time there for the Feast of Tabernacles, my family got the chance to visit a research farm in the mountains near the northern coast of the island of Trinidad. Included in this research farm was, lamentably, a mango grove. Needless to say, I was not particularly amused by the allergic reaction I received (hives, in this case) upon entering grove, without even touching any of the trees or fruit. Needless to say, I am one to remember when I have serious reactions to something.

It was to be quite a few years before I had any more run ins with that foul fruit. When visiting Pennsylvania during the Spring of 2004 (one of the last times, actually, that I saw my father alive) during a break in my religious studies (at Ambassador Bible Center) in the town of Milford, Ohio, my grandmother made a fruit salad that included mango. Needless to say, I was somewhat less than pleased with the outcome, which included an elevated heart rate, a migraine headache, skin crawling, numbness in the limbs, nausea, and other unpleasant reactions. After the incident I determined to do some research about the problem.

The reasearch I found was rather interesting. It turns out that my allergies to poison ivy and mango are related, because the same antigen is present in each. From all appearances, my first exposure to mango was through pollen, rather than through fruit, and this prevented tolerance from occurring. Before ever tasting mango, though, I had a very severe (nearly fatal) reaction to poison ivy, which made my face swell to such an extent that my eyes were nearly swollen shut. Needless to say, I try to avoid any further contact with poison ivy. Apparently, mango allergies are most common in those individuals who have atopic syndromes, most notably hay fever (yup, got that) and eczema. It is apparently related to an autoimmune problem where the body is hypersensitive to certain chemicals. Go figure.

It turns out that these conditions are often aggrevated by allergens and irritants, including perfume (check), laundry detergent (check), cigarette smoke (check), besides the allergies listed. Apparently, the allergic state is also increased by depression and high amounts of stress. At any rate, it is clear that I will be participating in any sort of mango diplomacy anytime soon. It remains to be seen whether the lifting of the embargo on Indian mangoes (apparently, India grows 41% of the world's mango crop, and there is some rivalry between India and Pakistan as to whose mangoes are better) will be noticed by those among my reading audience who enjoy the fruit. As for me, though, give me my strawberries and oranges, and leave me be. You can have the mangoes all for yourselves.

Father and Son Debates

My father always loved to talk about government. It is unsurprising, therefore, that I do as well. However, it was one subject my father and I seriously disagreed about. Being somewhat patient (perhaps a bit too patient) about letting people prattle on about that which they know little or nothing about out of politness (my life would be nothing but a series of arguments if I had to harhsly correct someone every time they said something wrong--few people speak rightly much at all), it was a long time before I responded to the incipient debate. However, being somewhat irritable at times, eventually I replied. His beliefs and my beliefs, which are wildly different (and to which we both have held to dispite the difficulties they have caused) did not tear us apart, but the origins of those beliefs and the wide gulf between us, and the reasons for those differences, is emblematic of the distance that sometimes takes place between fathers and sons, even fathers and sons who care deeply about each other.

The Debate

My father (and no doubt much of my blog readership, to judge from the kvetching) was a firm believer in one-man, top-down government. People who wished to belittle my father often called him a "good German soldier" because he was someone who was a loyal follower. He was a hard worker in everything he did--whether that was driving 4 hours to church to and from church (yes, for those of you who were not so good at mathematics in school, that is 8 hours total) every week because of his firm devotion to one-man government in the church to his long years of bus driving, to his persistence as a farmer despite the fact that farms feature some of the hardest work for the least material reward possible in the entire world (something I know, amazingly enough, from personal experience). Except of course for school bus driving. Despite intimate and frequent experience with the arbitrary and capricious nature of tyrannical government in the religious, civil, and corporate world (more on that later), the lessons he took and the lessons I took from those experiences and stories are wildly different. To the day he died my father was a firm believer in "episcopal" government. Pity. The same was obviously not the case with me, as I have made abundantly clear on several occasions. The debate basically revolved around the biblical case for leadership, a subject far too large to get into here in sufficient detail, but which is necessary to look at at least briefly.

The Case For and Against Hierarchial Government:

While the case for Hierarchial government revolves around poor interpretation, ignorance of historical and biblical context, and the selection of too limited a sample of proof texts, it is worth examining that case in some detail, because it is a frequently posited claim and many people mistakenly hold to it. At first, it must be candidly admitted that the Bible does not sanction anarchy or people choosing what is right and wrong for themselves. The Bible is severe against the abuses of the powerful against those with less power, but it is equally clear that respect for human authority (within certain bounds) is vital as it teaches us how to respect God. At this point, the debate should merely be about what are the bounds where respect is owed to authority before rebellion (i.e. disobedience) is justified. That is not the case, however. Going further than this, the case often becomes an attempt to justify authority that is unaccountable and hierarchial, and where there is a clear distance between servants and served that approaches the distance between lords and peasants, or masters and servants, which is clearly unacceptable.

There are basically three areas of proof texts for this opinion. The first is the example of Moses, an often cited series of stories involving the penalty and heinousness of rebellion (a point that merits discussion). The second is the example of the monarchy of Israel and Judah. Third is the selective use of certain NT passages (1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13, and Romans 13 spring to mind most readily). Upon these three pillars the case for absolutism rests, and it is fortunate for us that these are very shaky pillars indeed. First of all, let us examine the case of Moses. Moses wished for his people to have the Holy Spirit working with him, was happy to delegate power to others (as Jethro advised and God mandated, whether that was Aaron, Joshua, or someone else fit), and did not wish the great power and responsibilty he had. This is in stark contrast to those who claim to follow his example in these times. There are times, regrettably, when it is necessary to govern societies under absolutism, but only until citizens are capable of rational thought and independent thinking, a task that requires education and should be diligently sought in all organizations and societies in order to remove all justification for tyranny. After all, we govern children differently from adults (thankfully), recognizing that with the age of reason comes certain freedom and personal responsibility. During the Wilderness travels, Israel had not reached that age of maturity. Both God and Moses wished for them to do so, but since they willfully refused to, the next best thing was to have a leader, as Moses was, who sacrificed himself for their best interests, as leaders are called to do in general. The next pillar is the monarchy. It should be noted that God was against the monarchy even starting, only accepting it as the (democratic) decision of the people of Israel. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 17 there are clear restrictions on the power and prestige of the monarchy. Included rather prominently in these restrictions is a prohibition on monarchs (and hence all other leaders) from viewing themselves as higher than their brethren. In short, leadership position does not grant one a superiority of position over equals (which is not merely other leaders, but everyone else in the entire community). Furthermore, God, though the prophets of this period, continually preached and acted against the wicked behavior of kings, sanctioning revolts (Jehu and Jeroboam spring to mind, as does Joash), defending the rights of citizens against the power of their leaders (as in the case of Naboth), and in pronouncing that tyrannical rule would lead to divine punishment. The third pillar involves certain passages in the NT. Three will be representative, as these are the most important. First, some misconstrue 1 Peter 5 (one of several "submit" passages in the NT) to mean that people have to submit to their leaders no matter what. Instead, the command to submit yourself to each other directly speaks of a mutual reciprocal obligation between human beings for mutual respect and responsibility. Far from advocating any sort of absolutism, it precludes it. Hebrews 13 is used in a similarly wrong fashion to attempt to show that the questioning of authority is akin to desiring that position of authority improperly. This is a common smear tactic. In reality, the chapter comments that those leaders who lead well are worthy of respect. When that is at question, though, to demand evidence of claims is not improper at all. Finally, Romans 13 (a chapter I have written a 40 page analysis of, much more detailed than I can be here) is often used improperly to justify an "obey leaders no matter what" mentality. After all, leaders punish evildoers and good people have nothing to fear at all, ever, from government, right? If you believe that I have some swampland in Florida to sell you, and I might be able to come up with some tundra in Alaska if you ask really nicely. Seriously, the chapter is an example of an implied social contract about 1600 years before they became popular, and goes like this: for a leader to have divine sanction for their position, they must punish evil and protect good people. Or, it may be phrased more negatively to say: those leaders who abuse their power of the sword to punish those who do nothing wrong have no divine sanction for their position. Think about that for a while.

Origin of Difference of Opinion:

It was not as if my father did not experience first hand tyrannical behavior from leadership. On the contrary, it appears to have occurred often (although, my father not being the philsophical sort of person, may not have added it up the way I do). He experienced abuse of power from government on two notable occasions. First, his college education at AC in Big Sandy was cut short during the late 1960's due to the Vietnam War. He was drafted, and since AC was not accredited he was not able to receive any academic deferrment. Instead, he had to serve four years of service at the AC farm and was unable to afford to finish his college education, a major regret of his. I should note here that he behaved honorably in this situation, as he did in general, as he did not burn his draft card or flee to Canada like many cowards did. He opposed war on principle, and suffered for his principles without complaint. If I view his restraint as somewhat inexplicable, it was certainly noble. The second occasion relates to the separation of my mother and father. After my mother and father separated, my mother for two years received welfare (technically, AFDC, with food stamps if I remember correctly). After my parents divorced some time later (a few years), my father (who was, as I have implied earlier, not a wealthy or even middle class man) had to pay not only child support but repay the government for the aid which my mother received. All of this on the salary of a bus driver. Shameful.

My father was not exempt from suffering rather serious abuse at the hands of the church as well. The way in which the church dealt with my parents' divorce was (as I have mentioned before in another entry) in all areas irregular and beyond excuse. My father, for his part, always considered himself "bound" (as in, he never saw sufficent reasons for the divorce to be legitimate, though he would have had a good case for "fraud" as my mother had a claim for "abuse" as well as "fraud"). When my mother left my father (in rather abrupt circumstances) my father was disfellowshipped for, I believe, not being able to keep control of his household. In addition, the yo-yo nature of the church's decision-making concerning the "bound-unbound" status of my parents after divorce made closure somewhat difficult, as church administration flip-flopped worse than a certain 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate. The collapse of Worldide(and my father's inability to deal with a type of government that was not rigidly top-down) also added a significant amount of stress to my father's life, though he bore it silently and (as usual) without complaint.

Finally, my father had to deal with some rather heinous examples of corruption and abuse of power in the business world. Despite (or maybe because of) being a loyal and dedicated worker, my father basically got the short end of the stick. For many years while being a bus driver, he was a member of the local AFL-CIO chapter. The bus driver's union worked hard and had a contract to drive the buses for the local school board. Then, due to some false promises by a large-scale company in the mid 1990's, the bus driver's union was crushed, pay dropped dramatically (about a third), and the company was still unable to (in the end) meet the contract for the same price that the school bus drivers had. In addition, now instead of a gradually increasing salary, my father's salary dropped precipitously every five years when a new contract was negotiated because a new company would come in and make the same false promises about keeping prices (read, wages) down and in the end would (out of political pique with the corrupt school board or out of inability to earn sufficient profits with high management costs) fail to win a bid on the contract after the five years were up.

Reasons For Difference

It should be clear by this point why my father and I had such seriously different opinions about government. My father suffered much without complaint, but because he was unable (or unwilling) to piece together the corruption on all levels of leadership together (which demonstrate a marked wickedness as a direct result of carnal human beings having power for which they do not have responsibility to the people they lead) he held to a false view of government, which he learned from people who were at best equally misguided, and at worse downright and deliberately wicked. I will leave God to judge that, though I have my own opinions on the matter. By the time my father had to deal with this, though, he was an adult and had made the decision (no matter how difficult it was) to endure all things as a good soldier. He was a good soldier, though not a German sense (in the sense his enemies claimed).

However, that was not the case with me. I grew up, from my earliest days, as a witness (and sometimes as an unwilling participant) in these examples of flagrant corruption and abuse by government. I learned from youth (both from these stories involving my family and from my own childhood experiences, recollection of which pains me to this day) that leaders in religious organizations, schools, governments, and so forth, care more about image and holding on to their own power than they do about serving the people. This is unacceptable. Since leaders cannot be trusted, and since they behave, on the whole, so wickedly, people must be able (and willing) to defend themselves. From youth I have had to stand up for myself, and could not expect help from any other (human) quarter. That sort of life does something to someone--not least of which it reduces the ability I have to trust others, especially others in power. Since authorities stand by without concern or participate in abuse, they cannot be exempt from accountability. Or else the suffering of my father and myself, and many others, would be in vain.

On Tyranny

Tyranny is a very unfriendly word, even though it was originally not invested with the same connotations it does today. In this particular blog (consider it an education entry, with some major detours into political theory) I will look at the meaning of tyranny, the origin of tyranny in Greek and Roman society, the moral questions invovled in tyranny and accountability (briefly), and close with a look at the moral obligations of common people with regards to tyranny. It is sad and unacceptable that in this age of such knowledge that many people are woefully unaware of the issues at stake when it comes to governance.

Definitions

According to www.dictionary.com, there are several definitions of tyranny. They are as follows (combining the definitions from The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary and Wordnet):

1)A government in which a single ruler has absolute power and is not limited by constitution, law, or a legitimate forum of opposition.
2)The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an aboslute ruler.
3)Absolute power, especially when exercized unjustly or cruelly.
4)Use of absolute power or a tyrannical act
5)Extreme harshness or severity, rigor.

Synonyms for tyranny include one-man rule, dictatorship, and absolutism, among others. The origin of the word is Greek, where its history properly begins.

It should be noted, however, before going into the early origin of tyranny, that any form of government which does not allow official opposition, is not ruled by a constitution (some comment on this will follow), and is not "legal" is tyrannical, even if that leadership behaves kindly towards those it leads. The lack of accountability to the people is sufficient to judge a particular leader or leadership as tyrannical. This is especially true if those leaders (as is common in modern times) write constitutions and bylaws but do not live by the restrictions on their power within them and where the common people have no ability to enforce the constitution and bylaws against those entrenched in power. Such behavior is ipso facto tyranny. It is also the case that any form of government where people are subject to authority without reciprocal accountability of that leader to them is despotic and tyrannical. Those who have power in any domain cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with God's law and the natural rights of man; there must be enforceable procedures to prevent abuse, and the general trend of society is to increase the prerogatives of governments and administrations to improper levels without sufficent oversight. In any just government, the people are the masters and the leadership serve the best interests of the common people. It is only in wicked governments and administrations where leaders lord it over people and exercise authority over them, as the Bible clearly states (in Matthew 20:25-27, Deuteronomy 17:7-20, etc.).

Origin of Tyranny in Greece and Rome

Originally, the tyrants in Greece and Rome were viewed favorably, especially because of the difficulties the common people had with the proud aristocrats who ruled over them. It is the traditional (and pernicious) longing of an oppressed population of people to seek a strong arm to defend their interests against an entrenched aristocratic elite (which is itself behaving tyrannically by avoiding accountability to the people and attempting to create and defend artificial distinctions between equals--for properly speaking, all people are equals or at least potential equals). In such societies, as were present in both Greece and Rome at pivotal moments in their history, the common people supported leaders against the constututions at the time to put into practice laws to defend the common people against their wicked aristocratic opponents.

At first, all went well. These leaders (whether a Solon or a Lycurgus in Greece or a Cincinnatus in Rome) led temporarily, did not seek power in a dynastic or permanent way, and stepped down at the first opportune moment. Though these people would technically be considered dictators and tyrants (dictator being the official term in Latin for tyrant), they deserve little moral censure for their behavior, though much for their precedent. In all of their cases, their refusal to continue power after the crisis passed which pushed them into leadership demonstrates their good faith that they were acting on behalf of the people rather than seeking to rule unjustly over them. Those who consider, for example, Abraham Lincoln to be a tyrannical leader would do well to look at the historical example and find that he too would fit into this category (as against, say, an FDR). George Washington likewise would fit into this category of leaders who may have exceeded their technical authority but did so only for the duration of a specific crisis. (I should add, in passing, though, that I do not believe Abraham Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority, but merely offer a defense for him against those who would disagree with me on the finer points of constitutional law.)

That said, once the example of despotic rule had been set to deal with social crises, it became increasingly tempting for leaders on any side of a difficult dispute to set up dictators in ever more frequent crises, for ever longer periods. Both in Greece and in Rome republican systems of government eventually crumbled because societies ceased to defend their own liberties and instead relied upon leaders who at length took away their freedoms and became tyrannical kings and emperors. In Greece, the rise of the Macedonian dynasty destroyed the decaying democracies of Thebes and Athens. In Rome, Julius Ceasar the catamite (if the historical record can be believed) in life and death destroyed what remained of a long weakened Roman Republic. For much of human history, except for a few bright spots government has been marked by alternating tyranny and anarchy, both of which are equally wicked.

Moral Questions of Tyranny

There are essentially two moral questions involved in tyranny upon which all others decide. These two questions are, incidentally enough, vital for any serious and honset discussion about government. The first question relates to the abstract question about whether tyrannies are morally wrong by definition. That is, is there a moral dimension to government type (is there a form of government, in other words, that receives greater moral sanction than any other type). This question merits discussion on both a biblical and a philosophical level, because there is much confusion and deception involving this point. The second question is more practical, and follows from the first--namely, how is it that society can be organized so that anarchy is avoided without creating the monster of one-man rule or aristocratic privileges a la the ancien regime. We will examine those two questions briefly in turn.

The natural rights and natural equality of mankind have long spoken against tyranny. Throghout history, those of superior mental ability and education have either been members of the aristocratic elite or have sought to destroy the aristocratic elite. Regardless of which one is the case, if human beings are conceeded to be from one flesh and blood (i.e. we have a common origin), there is no just inequality of position and status that can be defended on logical and moral grounds. While the case would be too lengthy to make in detail, character does not correspond with race, social class, gender, age, etc. so it follows that these superficial distinctions are unjust if they are used to build up unaccountable positions of power in a given organization or society.

The biblical case is equally compelling, if somewhat more obscure. Again, time and space constraints forbid me from laying it out in full detail (I am at work on my own in doing that at length), but the brief result is that God's government is consultative government. The biblical evidence on that count is indisputable, but has been hidden a result of those who wickedly seek to deny God's word. Those who claim, falsely, that God's government is hierarchial and pyrimidal in nature are at best deceived, at worst deliberately and presumptuously sinning against the biblical record. The biblical case on the subject is present in both the OT and the NT. The desire for God to have equals to consult with and fellowship with is a powerful argument for the rationale for the ideal government among men. In the OT, the ideal government is demonstrated in Judges, with temporary leaders to deal with crises and with broad egalitarian government based upon villages and small towns (see Judges and Ruth). Monarchy, with its authoritarian prerogatives, is denigraded for its tyrannical tendances (see Deuteronomy 17 or 1 Samuel). The prophets continually comment against the tendancies of kings, priests, and aristocracies to take advantage of their positions of power (read Hosea, Amos, or even the condemnation of David by my namesake, to say the least of Elijah's prophecies or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel...you get the picture, right?). The NT is also clearly egalitarian in terms of its structure--regular members participated in the Jerusalem Conference (in Acts 15), no one (not even apostles) was exempt from moral censure in the case of sin, and 3 John (to give one example) speaks against the rise of church leaders who sought pre-eminance over congregations and sought to prohibit Christians from fellowshipping with others (to comment on this more would be impolitic).

Moral Obligations of the People

What then, are the obligations of the people with regards to the conduct of their leaders? In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the people to keep their leaders in line (the governors are those who are most difficult, and most necessary, to govern). Therefore, certain moral obligations follow for the people in order to fight and prevent (preventing can be prevented, and fighting what cannot) against the spread of tyranny. The people cannot rely on a strong arm to defend them, but must have a strong arm (and mind) themselves. Therefore, it is necessary for the common people to arm themselves with knowlege--both about their rights and responsibilities, and about the activity of those who perport to serve their best interests. These cannot be outsourced to others. Next, the people must fortify themselves with courage. It is far from an easy thing to speak out against the wicked, especially when those wicked are (as is often the case) in positions of authority. This is especially true because authority figures possess a great deal of resources for defamation and slander, and the "credibility" necessary to harm the reputations of the righteous in the eyes of others. God deals justly, but that justice often takes time, and being accountable only to God, in the practical sense, is not being accountable at all. It may become necessary, despite all the best interests and actions of the people, that serious resistance may be necessary to protect liberty (see Acts 5, 1 Kings 12, Exodus 1, etc.). When such occasions are regretfully necessary (and they should never be sought, only faced with the greatest reluctance) than it is important to remember that obedience to God sometimes demands rebellion against men (and women). Cowards do not deserve to be free, and tyrants (and in this sense I mean those who rule wickedly, not merely without constutionality) do not deserve to live. Sic semper tyrannis.

Turin Medal Count Recap

Okay, while other people (the fine folks at Yahoo Sports have done a good job of this) discuss the human interest stories of Turin, from Scandinavian National Pride in hockey to retiring speedskaters to drunk downhill skiiers to fussy ice skaters, I prefer to look at the cold hard results of the medal count. After all, the Olympics is a competition where there are winners, losers, and results, and I like analyzing results, so here goes.

In order to simplify the task, I will look at some nations that performed well in the Olympics and some nations that did not perform so well. I will also try to make some regional comparisons so that we can look at the Euro-American Winter games, I mean, the Winter Olympics.

Winners:

United States:

Okay, so many people are going to be disappointed with 25 medals, which is 9 fewer than we won in Salt Lake City 4 years ago. But it is good to remember that even without hosting the Olympics and having an unfriendly crowd, we still managed to get our second highest medal total ever, that is, in the entire 80 year history of the Winter Olympics. That is huge. It proves that the US can compete in winter sports (where we are not exactly a global power) against other nations. Hopefully we can build on this in the future. If our skiing team had met expectations we could have won the medal count race with Germany. As it is, we have done better than most would have expected. We dominated the snowboarding medals and even got a bronze in curling. Sweet.

Sweeden:

Sweeden's 14 medals give it a record high amount in its history, and included a gold medal in hockey as well as 7 gold medals over all. Sweeden managed to be successful in cross country, curling, and the biathalon as well. Sweeden managed to do itself proud, and had some head-to-head victories against Norway, a generally much more heralded neighbor.

Finland:

Finland's 9 medals are a huge haul for the small nation, which did not have any gold medals but managed strong performances in hockey and ski jumping (where it got 2 silver medals). To put it in persepctive, Finland got alomst as many medals as China, which is a lot bigger. That's something to be proud of, for the Finns.

Let's Hear It For The Small Nations of Eastern Europe:

Estonia got 3 golds medals (!) in this year's Olympics, all in Cross Country. The Czech Republic got four medals, including a gold and two silver. Croatia ended up with a gold and two silver for three total medals, all in alpine skiing. Poland ended up with a silver and a bronze. The Ukraine got two bronze medals. Belarus got a silver medal, as did Bulgaria and Slovakia. Even little Latvia ended up with a bronze medal. While these nations did not end up with a lot of medals, any medal in these nations is something to celebrate. These nations managed to upstage larger rivals in some events, and even with minimal funding ended up getting solid results. This will hopefully bolster their attempts to compete on a global stage in the future.

Losers:

Non-north American English Speaking Nations:

Other than the US (25 medals) and Canada (24 medals), English speaking nations did not fare well in this Olympics. Australia managed only two medals and Great Britain managed only 1, even losing in curling to the United States in the bronze medal men's game (ouch). While Australia picked up only its second Winter Olympics gold ever, Great Britain's pitiful performance was a major diappointment.

Italy:

Okay, the host nations are expected to threaten for the leadership of the medal count at the Olympics, and Italy only managed 11 medals. Obviously, the home team is disappointed with throwing away their best chance for Olympic dominance. People failed to show up for marquee events, there was a major doping scandal, and no one other than the Poles enjoyed the food. All in all, the Italians did a poor job all around. Shame.

Norway:

Okay, in most nations 19 medals would be a success, but the Norwegians are used to dominating these games, and that did not happen. Norway ended up with only 2 gold medals, fewer than Estonia (see above). That has to hurt. One wonders what Norway did wrong to even fail in those events, like cross country and the biathalon, where it traditionally excels. Something is rotten indeed in the state of Norway.

Regional Comparison in Medal Count:

Europe: 21 nations (Germany, Austria, Russia, Norway, Sweeden, Switzerland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Poland, the Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Slovakia, Latvia), 178 medals (60 gold, 58 silver, 60 bronze). Verdict: Very impressive.
North America: 2 nations (US, Canada), 49 medals (16 gold, 19 silver, 14 bronze). Verdict: Not too shabby.
Asia/Australia: 4 nations (China, South Korea, Australia, Japan), 25 medals (10 gold, 7 silver, 8 bronze). Verdict: Eh.
The rest of the world: Zero, zip, nada.

A Thousand Shades of Gray

Leo Tolstoy, in the famous introduction to War and Peace, stated that every happy family is happy in the same way, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. If you listen to sappy love songs, they all tend to sound the same, with the same cliches and expressions. Happiness is certainly more pleasant than unhappiness, but it is not very deep. We do not think very much, or reflect very much, when we are happy. We just bask in the glow of our happiness, oblivious to anything that could threaten us, and hoping that these joyful moments of bliss could last forever. In my experience, they don't (perhaps you are more fortunate than I am in that regard). As someone who is not particularly happy a lot of the time (it is amazing how few people realize that, I do a lot of reflection, most of it rather unpleasant. I am happy when I am around others, talking and sharing stories. I am not happy alone, where my only comfort is my mind (and that is small comfort--the mind truly is a terrible thing, to spoof the NAACP slogan).

In these bleak days, it has become somewhat evident to me that within my family there is a wide variety of ways that people deal with grief. There are a variety of strategies that different family members use to try to escape/overcome/dull the suffering. Without naming names (except for my own, because I am generally someone who has little to hide, and who is vastly more harsh on myself than I am on others, as difficult as that may be to fathom), I will attempt to discuss the various ways in which my family is attempting to cope.

One way to cope with grief that most of my family is doing in one way or another is keeping busy enough that we don't think about the loss all that much. There's nothing like keeping your body and mind occupied through various means (some of them, like work and writing, productive, other ones (like playing computer games) are more escapist in nature). But this is one area in which most of my family has kept themselves from too much time to think. That is not to say that profound meditation/prayer has not occurred, it's just that it has tended to be uniformly sad, and quite frankly, not the most pleasant sort of thing. Even writing blog entries like this is difficult to me, because it means I have to think about what words to say about what the loss of my father means to myself and others, and that means I have to reflect upon the loss itself (which, although it may be helpful, is certainly depressing). It is much easier to escape, to busy the mind and shut off the suffering, and make one's heart a stone as much as possible.

Medication of the grief is another way in which my family is dealing with the loss. However, this is a much rarer solution, largely because many of us (myself included) do not drink all that often, although the use of antidepressants (not by me, though) also applies to some extent as medicating the grief. Here, sadly, fits a tragic tale that occurred when my grandfather Albright died. My uncle David never recovered from the death of my grandfather (to lung cancer, as he was a smoker) and drank often to medicate his grief. Four years later, depressed and despondent, he shot himself in the head, commiting suicide. Needless to say, I have taken the example to heart and have sought to avoid any substance which would treat only the symptoms of grief while exaggerting the despondency.

Another way in which I have (and perhaps others of my family have as well) sought to deal with the grief is by getting out of the house and trying to find company with others. I have not been so successful with the second goal as with the first, but when I am frustrated and annoyed, I don't like to be at home. I don't find much comfort for my difficulties there. I have some friends around, but not all that many (and very few my age, and even fewer who are my age that would be able to relate). Nonetheless, talking to others (even though the words they say--and the words I say for that matter--are not terribly helpful) is a good way to try to express the rather ambivalent feelings I have (then again, my feelings about just about everything are ambivalent, which is one reason I tend to avoid talking about feelings).

At any rate, there are many ways in which people deal with sorrow, some of these more helpful than others. Did I say that I tend to be even more crabby, cranky, and irritable when I am sad than normal (and I'm a rather crabby person most of the time anyway, but that's another story for another time)? Perhaps that is a bit obvious (though, again, people do not seem to understand or relate to me very well, especially when things are going poorly). Again, many members of my family have a good brave face (myself included), but that doesn't mean we do not suffer. It just means that the suffering is a bit beneath the surface. After all, some of us (again, myself included) do not trust other people very easily. We have reason not to, and that makes it difficult to let the barriers down, especially when we are not feeling our best. That may not be right, but that's the way it is, and we must deal with what is, not what we would wish to be.

In The House Of Mourning

When a loved one dies, as my father died last Wednesday at the age of 59, one often wonders what one could have done differently had one known how little time was left. Especially as was the case with my father, where neither my brother or I had the chance to say goodbye, there is a lot of unfinished business remaining for the living when someone has died. While I am in no shape at this particular time to detail many of the stories that could be said of him, I thought it would be useful, even at this time, to take some looks at what life is like of one who, like myself, is in the house of mourning. There are many others right now who are grieving the loss of loved ones as well, including a few friends of mine. Grief is an intensely personal matter, and it is difficult to determine if my experiences are like theirs. At the very least, though, talking about something means that it is no longer festering inside.

Reconciliation

My brother moved from Pennsylvania in the summer of 2001 after graduating from high school and never reconciled with our father. He had a difficult relationship with my father, and always thought (as we all did) that there would be plenty of time to make up, when it hurt a little less, when the wounds had healed. And often, in those intervening years, my father sought to reconcile with my brother. But time ran out, and it never came to pass. Instead, my brother and I cried while sitting in the funeral home swapping stories about our father with the open casket nearby and fellow mourners all around. As guilty as both my brother and I feel, my brother feels it worse. My father and I kept in close contact for many years, almost every week, and I visited on occasion (if not enough--there is never enough time). However, those five years my brother and father were estranged were the last five years of life my father had. That is a lot to live with.

Unfinished Business

Humans are creatures of drama. I do not mean this in the hissy fit or manipulative sort of way (though that can be the case as well), but in the sense that we like closure, and dislike when something ends without a farewell, without a fitting closing. After my father's stroke, I was able to communicate with him through my grandmother, who would relay messages back and forth, telling me my father's condition (gradually improving until the end) and telling my father what was going on with me. Still, even though I was aware my father was in rather poor health, he was gradually improving, so there was no goodbye. I said farewell to my father only after he had already gone, with my hand on his coffin, eyes closed, saying farewell. There was nothing more, at that point, I could do. Anything I could have done was in the past, and was closed off irrevocably.

Stories of the End

Of course, when a loved one has died, especially when one is not able to be at the bedside in the final days and hours, it is important to be able to visualize the scene, in order to give one some sort of peace. While at the funeral home, stories were told about how my father dealt with the nurses who cared for him around the clock. Since one nurse had cold hands, my father nicknamed her Frosty. Another nurse was hot, so my father called her Jalapeño. It was like my father to name things. My family is always naming things. He did his physical therapy willingly, seeking to recover as much function as he could after the stroke. He never wanted to be an invalid, and he couldn't stand anyone else taking care of him. He was always the one who had to take care of everyone else, do what needed to be done, no matter the cost. Such a cruel end inactivity and paralysis is to one whose greatest gifts were activity and physical strength.

What Remains For the Living

Only my grandmother remains in the old family farm, which for over 200 years has been farmed by my family line. Those days, to me at least, seem at an end. My uncle (by marriage) and my cousin (both of whom work full time at the state prison) still live in the area but are unable to devote full time to farming. Farming is a bad business anyway, with high costs for equipment and feed and low prices for farm commodities, be they milk, grain, alfalfa sprouts (a favorite item in the diets of deer and my own salads), or beef. My grandmother, at almost 83, is far too old to take care of a farm on her own. It looks like that part of my family history is rapidly closing as well, without seeming remedy. Whatever I may be, I am no farmer, and so it appears likely that the beautiful hills and creeks on what I affectionately call Miller's Crossroads (after my family) will soon be home to half a million dollar homes inhabited by suburbanites who care little for the history behind the farm. Nor would they care that I would walk down Nathan's creek (yes, it was named after me) and sit on hillsides by an old coal mine shaft and write nature poetry. Nor would they care that my family has been farming these hills since before the United States was independent from Britain. All of that history will be paved under driveways with perfectly manicured lawns inhabited by people with no sense of history and oppressive mortgages that keep them from buying furniture.

Closing Thoughts

I will probably be reflecting often in the coming weeks and months, and years, about the life of my father. Such reflection is natural and proper, even if it does make me very sad. My father always said that he would die young, and always careful to remind us about his life insurance policy. I know I never wanted to hear it. But he was right, a painful truth that is true for many members of my family (including myself). We specialize in speaking of bitter truths that no one wants to hear. My father died young, like all of his siblings. Those who have little time on this earth must accomplish what they wish without the ability to rely upon seniority or those other ways in which the mediocre rise through out-surviving the great. No, those who are set on this earth with but a little time to do their deeds must do what needs to be done at all times, because one never knows how much time is left to accomplish one's life work. And that is something I feel no less strongly than my father did.

Hunting....

It's been a bad week to be a hunter. According to the Ludington Daily News, some small newspaper in Michigan, a 64 year old hunger was shot when his hunting buddy mistaked an elbow for a squirrel. This sort of accident reminds us that old people should not be allowed to shoot guns if they are too senile to shoot them correctly. (The same would apply to old people driving slowly and doing anything else that requires acute mental power and quickness). Apparently the old man was treated and released, as the friend was using only a .17 caliber rifle. How a camofloged elbow could be mistaken for a squirrel is beyond me. Maybe the friend just needed his eyeglass prescription updated. The police are investigating, as they should.

Then, of course, there is the famous, or infamous, case of Chaney's trigger finger. While hunting with some acquiantances, the hunting party flushed out a covey of quails, apparently (according to the Yahoo! News article). While one of the party was walking to collect the quails (and without waving his hand to show everyone where he was), Chaney flushed another covey of quails and sprayed shotgun shells in the direction of his hunting buddy, hitting him in the face, neck, and chest. Ouch. Remind me never to go hunting with the Vice President. It's not like I'd ever get invited to, anyway. Chaney forgot the number one rule of hunting, which even someone like myself (I'm no hunter) knows: always know what you're shooting at. It's a good rule in other areas besides hunting, though it is harder to apply there.

When I went to Pennsylania this past weekend for my father's funeral, I was reminded that my family farm has a "No Hunting" sign on it. My father was not a fan of hunters. It was not that he was squeamish about death--as a farmer it was not uncommon for cattle to be slaughtered--but it was that he saw the nobility of the deer and the lack of nobility of the hunters and their tactics. I remember once, as a teenager visiting my father in the summer, that as we were returning in the evening from an outing (watching a movie, probably), we saw a hunter in our farm, trespassing, and hunting out of season. The hunter was using a spotter to try to freeze the deer in place to make them an easy shot. The practice is illegal, but common.

My father (and I agree with him on this point) did not consider this to be in fair sport. A hunter using wicked means to get an easy kill (and then, no doubt, brag about his prowess to his friends and talk himself up as a great and brave hunter) struck my father, and I (even at that age) as quite unjust. This is not to say that all hunters behave thusly (for those hunters who wait for hours and hours freezing in tree stands in forests, rather than farms, waiting for a deer to come within range, I respect the dedication, though it would be quite boring to me personally, not being able to keep silent or still for very long without extreme difficulty), but that my conception of hunting was formed by experience in hunters behaving poorly. My conception of many things was formed in that way--which is unfortunate but nonetheless my experience.

I am glad that my father insisted our 130 farm was a refuge for animals (except for groundhogs--whose holes destroyed farm equipment with alarming regularity), with special care taken to dogs, cats, cows, horses, hawks, and deer. I am also glad that he chased off the hunter from our land, even though the hunter was much more heavily armed than we were. If people do not stand up themselves for what is right, then they will see nothing but wrong committed against them. This is especially the case where people are careless and wicked with deadly weapons.

Better Lucky Than Good

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. The Super Bowl last night is a good example of such an occurrence. I have been a lifelong Pittsburgh Steelers fan (and there is little chance of that changing anytime soon), but to be honest, neither team played very well last night. This game could have been an absolute rout if either team had played well, and would have been a high-scoring thriller if both teams had played well. As it was, both teams played poorly overall, but Pittsburgh just had more big plays and fewer mistakes. And in the end, that is what won it. So, in this particular space I would like to comment on my observations of the game.

Hands Made Of Putty:

While neither quarterback was perfect, both quarterbacks did a decent job. Ben Roethlisberger passed a lot better than a hideous 22.9 rating would suggest. Both quarterbacks passed on the mark except for a couple of errant tosses. However, the receivers on both teams were dropping passes left and right, up and down, sideways and diagonal. It didn't matter if the passes were screen passes, first down passes, or would-be touchdown passes, but neither set of receivers could get a glove on the passes on a consistent basis. Hines Ward was a deserving MVP, but that is because he was simply able to get his gloves on two deep passes. That's all it took to be an MVP in this game. Jerramy Stevens, the trash-talking Seattle TE, caught a touchdown pass (on a somewhat questionable pick pattern) but dropped at least 3 other gift-wrapped passes. It's not like either secondary was doing well, the receivers on both teams just couldn't hang on to the ball.

Trick Plays:

Pittsburgh's offensive output was greatly enhanced by a couple of trick plays that really caught Seattle off guard. The Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward flea flicker pass had been done earlier in the year (against Cleveland) for a TD, but apparently some Seattle DB's didn't study their tape well enough, because it worked for a TD again in the Super Bowl. Roethlisberger's canny scrambles (including the TD run that gave Pittsburgh a surprising halftime lead) and his long 3rd down pass to Ward that set up the touchdown run kept Pittsburgh's offense on the field and were critical in victory. That Cowher had enough faith in his players to use such trickery in the Super Bowl speaks highly of his credentials.

You're Killing Me Smalls:

On the other hand, Seattle just killed themselves with mistakes: a push-off for offensive pass interference that negates a touchdown pass, a holding penalty that negates a 1st and goal, a (questionable) clipping penalty that adds 15 yards to an interception return, and poor clock management and field awareness that ruined any chance at a last-second comeback. These sort of mistakes will come back to haunt Seattle as they replay the game over and over in their minds. This is not to say that Pittsburgh didn't make mistakes. The underthrown pass that led to the longest INT return in Super Bowl history comes to mind, as does two false start penalties on the opening drive, probably due to jitters. But Pittsburgh made fewer mistakes than Seattle, and on this day, it was enough.

Not So Special Teams Play:

Neither team had great special teams, but Pittsburgh's special teams were average and not poor, and that made a lot of difference. In 3 straight punts where Seattle could have pinned Pittsburgh deep in their own territory, Seattle punter Todd Rouen kicked touchbacks. While Chris Gardocki had one touchback himself, he did manage to down a punt on the two yard line, which was the best special teams play of the whole game. Seattle kicker Josh Brown was 1 for 3, and though two of the field goals were really long (50 and 54 yards--both missed), his team was depending on his long leg to cover for their penalties, and not finishing those drives was critical. So while we should give him a pass, those misses did change the complexion of the game considerably.

We're Going to Disney World Baby:

In the final analysis, though, the Steelers did what they had to do to win (without playing dirty and chippy like the Seahawks did). Bettis (aka "The Bus") will retire a Super Bowl champion, and looks strong as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Cowher has now shed his label as a "can't win the big one" coach (here's hoping Tony Dungy wins one as well someday), and has to enter consideration in the Hall of Fame as one of the winningest coaches of all time. Roethlisberger has become the youngest QB to ever win the Super Bowl, even though he probably feels pretty rotten about his game. Willie Parker has outran his North Carolina ghosts with the longest run in Super Bowl history (76 yards and the game-winning TD). Dan Rooney and all of us who are Pittsburgh fans get one for the thumb. So, even if the game was less than beautiful and both teams were rather shaky, a lucky win is still a win, and it feels a lot better winning than it does losing. So, cheers to Pittsburgh.

A Notice To My Readers

It has come to my attention that people have taken offense about some of my posts. Given the fact that there are vew few comments to my blog (and by comments, I mean very few people who send me their comments themselves, and not the comments that people make to others about what I write, which is more properly called gossip or slander), it is difficult for me to determine the precise nature of my audience. I only know my audience when they speak to me directly in some fashion. During the time I have written this blog I have had to deal with a few issues, and have generally been successful at doing so once I was able to explain myself and once those who were troubled or bothered by what I said were able to explain themselves.

I am a person of rather strong and public opinions, and there are times where the fierceness of my words can lead to a different perception than is intended. Despite the fact that I am a busy person, though, I am generally quick to respond to requests for explanation or clarification. I cannot answer your objections, though, if you do not come to me personally and privately about them. If you have comments to make (or even corrections, if you think I have made a mistake on a point of fact), there is a comment option at the bottom of the entry. All comments go to my personal e-mail inbox, and as long as you are not a spambot, and I'm sure most of those with objections would not be spambots (because most spambots always have nice things to say about entries and want you to help them advertise real estate, or Nigerian bank accounts, or something else that is equally bogus). And assuming you have something real to say, I will allow the comment, reply to it, and life goes on.

I would like to close this particular message by quoting what is on the top of my blog whenever it is read: "This blog, hopefully, will contain brief and humorous bits from my day-to-day life, with a minimum of philosophizing (though probably a lot of dry and ironic humor)." While I am a mostly serious person, this blog is intended to have at least a slight amount of humor about various matters. For example, 18 year old mayors, the blogging habits of pigeons (see previous entry), and so forth. What is stated here usually has at least some sort of an ironic bend to it (not always, however, funny).

I respect my (wide) audience well enough to open up about various subjects, even though I don't know all of the readers here personally (and some of those I know personally, I do not know very well). I enjoy giving my opinion (sometimes, perhaps a bit too much), and I enjoy hearing the thoughts and opinions of others. If you wish to express something about me, please give me the respect I give to you and discuss those thoughts and opinions directly to me. I don't bite, I promise.

What do pigeon bloggers rant about?

http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=201063

Yes, California is now having pigeon bloggers with cell phones on their back texting (automatically, we hope) the air quality in various cities. You know the world has gone to pot when pigeons have blogs. I mean, if a pigeon can have a blog, just about anyone can. I heard about the story first on my drive to work this morning. Thinking about the story further made me wonder what pigeon bloggers rant about.

I mean, I know what I like to rant about (and, apparently, everyone else does too--when I went on the UCG Young Adult Cruise this weekend a random minister I had never met, and some people I didn't know from here in Florida had read my blog, and commented on it). But what do pigeon bloggers rant about? Do they crow about the high quality of cars in a given interchange, discuss their favorite statues, give each other tips on which parks to visit where the bread crumbs are the tastiest? What sort of things make pigeons unhappy? Do they stress out over runins with glass windows, or complain about that one time they got hit by lightning, or talk about their friends and relatives long gone?

I am, of course, being somewhat facetious (that is, jocular, or mocking). Still, for those who wish to hear the opinions and judgments of a rather dirty bird, you can go to http://www.parasitelab.net/netlab.php. This site will (soon, we hope) have the bird blog uploaded. I can't wait to hear what those birds have to say. For those who want to hear what I have to say, you know where to find me, but of course, you already knew that.

If a brother sins against you...

Occasionally I use this blog as a platform for ranting about my own shortcomings and those of others. Usually, of course, I am vastly harsher on myself than on others, but often it is necessary to point out less than flattering qualities in other people for their own good (and I am sure that those who point out my less than flattering qualities agree as well).

Matthew 18:15-17 states: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or tax collector."

Now, it is fairly clear and obvious what these verses mean. While putting them into practice is somewhat difficult (for me, as well as for you, no doubt), what they say is quite direct and straightforward. If someone says or does something that offends you, you have the responsibility to go to them. Some of us, like myself, are not very difficult to find. I generally am quick to answer my e-mails (perhaps too quick on occasion), and I even answer the phone. You can even, if you really want to, speak to me in person. I am generally accommodating to requests for explanation and clarification, when those are necessary. In other words, I am not a difficult person to go to if you have a problem (though I tend to be a bit prickly when it comes to criticism, a quality I am sure I am not alone in). I am a bit annoyed, to be honest, when people tell me unflattering things to my face. That said, though, I am vastly more annoyed when people do it behind my back. The Bible condemns that sort of behavior most strenously, and states that those who practice such behavior will not enter the Kingdom of God. Do you want to enter the Kingdom of God? I know I do.

Now, if you do not get a satisfactory answer from me (or anyone else) concerning your complaints, your next responsibility is to find a couple of brethren who are moderate and somewhat patient and then go to the person again, with impartial witnesses to determine the attitude of the brother or sister who offended you. This is not the opportunity to go find some friends and gang up on someone, but rather a request for honest mediation of a problem. I don't know of very many people who have done this in their complaints with me (there are few who do the first step, and few times in my life where some conversation has not resolved the basic issues to at least an agree to disagree level), but perhaps they should if they do not receive satisfaction in personal conversation. I am someone who speaks many works, and must be occasionally reminded that not everyone shares my bluntness and candor, or my oftentimes extreme views stated rather matter-of-factly as if they were obvious truths (at least they are obvious to me)...

It is only after personal conversation has failed and the person is unwilling to accept mediation with impartial mediators that someone should go to the church about an issue. Most people (you know who you are), however, take this as the first step, and never even bother to go to their brother at all. The Church at Corinth did it, and was upbraided (that is, corrected) for it. Now, I am sure I am not the person best suited to give such rather correctional messages (I try to avoid them, because I am all too aware of how often I fall short of the standards of perfection, and wish to avoid both the appearance and the reality of hypocrisy), but someone ought to.

Let me be blunt, much of the time I rant about people who are already dead and cannot defend themselves. People tell me all sorts of nasty things about Abraham Lincoln, who happens to be my favorite president and a personal role model of mine (though I am certainly willing to see his flaws and faults), all because they are pro-Southern and have very harsh views as to the president that lawfully and properly removed them of their illegetimate property. However, they consider it no small thing to insult someone who was a president of the United States. Likewise, people around me are often saying the most savage things about former president Clinton and his wife, commenting on their sexual lives (in sometimes unseemly detail and content) and considering them people of no moral principles whatsoever (and, to be honest, I do not view them very highly either, though some do based on political ideology). Again, these were people who God placed (for whatever reason, these matters are mysterious to me) in authority over us, and people feel no compunction about speaking wickedly about them.

However, many of these same people express the most wondrous stock and horror over fond leaders of their own being questioned. None of us are above questioning (again, I know I'm not, and I don't assume that others have much less that needs correction than I do), whether dead or alive. Those whose legacy extends far beyond their own lives merit the most questioning. That is because the legacy of their deeds lives on after they are gone, and that legacy itself may be the sources of many problems, besides many blessings. If we cannot see fault where fault lies in others, we are not judging as we ought. God is merciful, though, and for that we must all be thankful. If God was not forgiving, none of us would have a chance to enter His family. I truly wish that God has or will forgive those whom I criticize, for I know how strongly I ask for God's forgiveness for my own sins, which are legion. That said, before we can be forgiven, we must realize what we need to be forgiven of. It is for this reason that criticism can be a moral course of behavior, because people are often blind to their own sins, and often justify them. I only say this because I know myself well enough. We need to face up to what we are before we can become what God wants us to be. None of us are there yet, and we all have much work to do. That work, though, should be done in a way that is candid, open, and honest. And trust me, if I have a personal problem with you, I will not hesitate to bring it up to you myself. Don't say you weren't warned.