What's more important?

One of the things concerning me these days is the idea or concept the most important thing is being on top or 'winning'. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, sports, or life in general, the most important thing seems to be, to quote Oakland Raider owner Al Davis, “just win, baby”.

While winning is understandable in sports (although sportsmanship is far more important and should be the first focus), it is extremely disturbing in politics. Although when one looks at politics, they can see how closely politics and sports seem to be. If you're going to have a representative government (whether parlimentary as in Europe or our own representative republic), politics is going to take on the qualities of the coliseum games of ancient Rome. Both sides fighting each other using tactics that almost shock the senses. It seems almost to the point in our modern society that politics have all the drama and bloodsport of professional wrestling. Listening to the radio these days, and how people on both sides are quickly getting to the point of 'the end justifies the means', it reminds me of a wrestling quote. The individual involved was talking about winning a particular type of match, and I'm paraphrasing here: “to win, to survive, you've got to get down in that gutter and do something so horrible, so violent, that the other person looks at you and says 'I quit'.”

Is that where our society is now? We have had other instances in our country's history where people who were passionate about their particular point of view decided the ends justified the means and the end result has been violence. If we are not careful, we have multiple issues that may lead up to violence between people. We need to work on our ability to not only communicate our ideas, but our listening ability to understand the concerns and fears of others, so we can better address those things and come to a peaceful and equitable solution.

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

I suppose this happens every time we have a 'change' in our government. Members or supporters of those who didn't 'win' start proclaiming that it's the end of our country as we have known it (does it feel fine? I don't know), and warning anyone who will listen to prepare for those things seen in 'banana republics' (why do bananas need their own government anyway?) or from the past. Nazi Germany has been used as an example so often that there is a 'law' about using Nazis or Hitler in a debate called Godwin's Law. The law states (and I'm paraphrasing, since the original law referenced Usenet) 'the longer a discussion, the higher the probability of a comparison using Hitler or Nazis'. Far too often these days, we'd rather short circuit the discussion and cut off the other side, so we (and I use that term loosely) immediately go to the Nazi argument. What happened to the days when we'd debate and discuss the issues of the day for hours on end? Using comparison and contrast, refuting arguments using logic and wisdom instead of going for the emotional? I'm not really asking for an answer on this, I know my own rhetorical skills are lacking, so I'm probably just as guilty as those who I am criticizing.

In any case, what I am getting to is: most people in our country today have at least a rudimentary idea of how politics and our government work. We completed major elections last year, and we are now seeing the results. Whether you want to call them good or bad is your own opinion, those who know me know where I stand. Those who are on the outside looking in have been wringing their hands, and I can't say it's without cause. Eight years ago, we were seeing the same thing coming from the other side and they weren't without cause either, although I could say we made it through and once again we had a peaceful transition of power from one political party to the other.

I am not saying we shouldn't be vigilant and watch those who are in power, that's what we are supposed to do as concerned citizens of this country. I am also not saying that we shouldn't disagree with each other and those in our government. That's the primary reason we have the first amendment, to allow the discussion and exchange of ideas without fear of persecution or prosecution. It would appear to me that today we are no longer interested in persuasion through rhetoric, meaning we don't seem to be interested in winning people over to our way of thinking by our arguments. We'd rather find ways to make people agree with us, and that only causes hurt, anger, and a deepening of the 'us versus them' mentality unfortunately prevalent in today's discourse.

We do need to make sure our arguments are grounded in sound reason and we must be able to defend our beliefs and positions at any time. If we can't defend our positions and beliefs, then we need to look at why we have those particular beliefs and whether or not we should continue to have them. We should not be afraid of being wrong, and we should be open to different understandings. Of course, some things are non-negotiable, but that shouldn't be the case with everything. Even Martin Luther, in his response to the Diet of Worms said unless he was refuted and convicted by the scriptures or by clear arguments he was in error, he would not recant his writings. He showed he was open to learning and persuasion, but it was within a very narrow scope of argumentation.

The other point I would make is that if we are Christians and citizens of Christ, we need to look to and remember Romans 13:1 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.' God has put our current government and the government of all the other countries of the world for His purposes. We need to be watching, waiting and praying so that His purposes are made known to us.

What have we taught our children?

As parents, one of the biggest things we have to deal with in our children is conflict, and how to deal with it. Our children (I mean this in a general sense) fight with each other, children from other families, and when they're old enough they'll even try to fight with their parents. As adults, we see conflict every day. Between coworkers, between groups of people with differing views on a variety of subjects, and with spouses as well. How we react to and resolve those conflicts is one of the most important lessons we teach our children.

Our society has taught that if you are not 'getting along' with your spouse, you can divorce them. What society is teaching our children is: to give up and walk away is an appropriate form of conflict resolution. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't appropriate times when people shouldn't 'step away' and try to calm down in order to resolve the conflict. But far too often people aren't willing or able to take the time and energy necessary to engage the other person to find out what the root problem is, any and all misunderstandings between the two people, and to find an agreement both people are comfortable with.

One of the other things society has taught us is that it is entirely appropriate for people to say, as in the title of the Queen song: 'I want it all, and I want it now.' There is no way that everyone can have things that way and not be in conflict. And when both people in the conflict have that mindset, the end result is easy to predict: both people will be hurt, angry, and something that could have been easily resolved is now an unconquerable mountain.

The title of an old Rolling Stones song is more appropriate for dealing with conflict, at least on a personal level: 'You can't always get what you want.' We must learn to apply that principle when dealing with other people in a conflict situation. We must be careful, however, that one person doesn't do all the 'compromising', as that only teaches the one who didn't compromise they can get their way.

The last we should keep in mind in a conflict is to keep the emotional responses to a minimum. We've often heard as children, and even adults,we should count to 10 before we answer someone if we feel ourselves getting angry. Taking the time to listen to the other person and understand them will go a long way in keeping a conflict from getting out of hand. Our emotions will lie to us sooner or later, and we need to remember that.

Do we understand there is no free lunch?

Thinking back over this last election, and what we have seen so far, one thing continuing to stick in my mind is how many people want the government to provide them services or funds for any number of reasons. Some of those reasons may seem more significant than others: failing businesses, unable to work (mental or physical), unable to make ends meet, and so forth. I'm not going to sit here and try to say whether one reason is more important than the other, as that's really not my place. No one gave me the authority or power to say 'that's a good enough reason for assistance', or 'that's not a good enough reason'.

The whole discussion reminds me of a story I read about Davy Crockett, when he served as a representative from the state of Tennessee. As it is told, in a speech he talks about making the rounds in his district in preparation for re-election. He meets up with a farmer, and after the usual discussion about crops and weather, asks the farmer if he will support his re-election. The farmer tells him no, and when asked why, the farmer explains it is because in his mind, Davy Crockett forgot the constitution and the limited powers it entailed. Where did the farmer get this idea? From Crockett's support of a bill to give money to families affected by a fire in Georgetown, Virginia. The bottom line of the speech given and the story was to serve as a reminder to Congress and the country at large that the government is not supposed to be in the business of giving money to people, charitable or not. If we cannot wrap our minds around this principle, then we have gone very far afield from the principles on which our nation was founded.

There is a second story or saying that this reminds me of. It has been attributed to many different authors, but its' message is particularly timely: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." This has been attributed to people from Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Tytler, a scottish lawyer. It really doesn't matter who spoke or wrote it. I think it casts a dark shadow on how our fallen nature can corrupt governments conceived under the best of intentions.

The title of this post refers to the concept that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. All the money being given to banks and other industries have to come from somewhere. Someone has to put the money up for all these programs and such. I don't believe the average American has any concept of borrowing and credit and so forth. Banks and other companies dealing in credit provide the money we 'charge' to buy all those things we think we need. Sooner or later, we need to pay them back. If we don't there are consequences. Those consequences can vary from garnishing our wages to pay the debt, to the ruination of our ability to obtain credit through collection or bankruptcy.

Proverbs 22:7 states: 'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.' The government seems to have picked up on the principle behind this verse and we are starting to see evidence of their applying the principle to industries they have given money to: banks given money to stabilize their situation during the credit crisis last fall who don't need it anymore aren't being allowed to give it back to the government. Is it because the government wants to control the operation of the banks? We can't say right now. We saw last week General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner forced from his post by the White House. Is this the beginning of government control over the American automobile industry? It's still a little early at this point. One thing we should keep in mind is many of us have received money from the government in some way, shape or form. School lunches, welfare for the poor, farming subsidies. These are some examples of 'free' money from the government. These programs are not free, but are paid by taxes. If you think about many of these programs, there are conditions attached in order to receive the money. Those conditions are the recipients' 'payment'. The bottom line for those who receive theses 'benefits' are we are now 'servants' of the government and we must do what they say. Some of us are happy servants, some are not. But until people learn to quit borrowing we will continue to be servants to the lenders. If you accept government funding be prepared to pay, and not just in money.

I guess what I am trying to put across in my own feeble method is: when we start asking our government to provide things for us, we are in grave danger of morphing our government into something other than a democracy (which people seem to think it is) or a representative republic (which is the actual design).

Thoughts on cars

With all the news the auto industry has made this week, I thought back to some of the vehicles my parents owned during my years growing up.

During that time, which seems somewhat ironic at this time, my parents owned a car made by a company that no longer exists as an independent car company. The car was an AMC Hornet Sportabout station wagon. It was one of the first cars I remember, so it made an impression. The car and how it performed overall seemed fine, at least by my small child standards. I don't remember the car ever breaking down, or having any major mechanical defects (although the rear passenger door didn't like to unlock sometimes). I think my parents owned it for 5-6 years.

I think they would have owned it longer, but at the time my parents had bought a towed camper and the car couldn't tow it, so they traded it in for one of the first GMC Suburbans (first model year anyway). I found out later the vehicle was slightly unusual (the engine they put in was too small – at least for that size), but it served the purpose my parents wanted it for. I hardly noticed at the time the gradual disappearance of the AMC brand, but I thought about it more as I got older and looked back.

I recently did some looking around about the life and demise of the AMC brand. They were actually a fairly popular brand in the 1970's, making vehicles people wanted and being 'ahead of their time' regarding safety and fuel efficiency. What did them in was some poor choices (AMC Pacer), and not having enough capital to deal with economic difficulties. They partnered with Renault in the 1980's and were eventually absorbed by Chrysler. Apparently they were the last 'independent' automobile company (in other words, outside of the 'big 3' in Detroit).

As I got older, the vehicles my parents owned seemed to change with the times (by that I mean they didn't let cars get more than 7-8 years old), and my parents pretty much stayed with American automobiles, Chrysler products to be specific, although there was one import that my brother bought and my parents got from him, a Toyota.

I look back at my own car ownership history (as short as it is) and it's much more eclectic. There's been a mix of domestic and import cars, depending on needs, wants, and availability. Today, I've got two 'used' vehicles – one domestic van and one import car. I'm happy with what I have, since my purchasing criteria has more to do with how they perform than a particular company.

Brand loyalty used to be an important part of our culture and buying process. Today, I guess brand loyalty doesn't matter much anymore, but then again why give money to companies who either can't or won't change with the times and operate without assistance?