Less Rigidity

I've been haunted by one word in a comment on my blog: rigidity. Lest I be accused of taking out of context, here is the whole segment: "What I see is a world that is not Black and White, Christian and non-Christian, Conservative and Liberal. I want less ridgity and more tolerance, I want less hate and more love. I want more humility and less arrogance."

I see some reason in this. I hate labels because along with a label comes a whole constellation of attributions, that change according to the "eye of the beholder." But that's a topic for another blog.

I believe that one MAJOR problem with our government, if not our whole culture, is a lack of rigidity. A lack of absolute structure. It's like our life is being built on shifting sands.

Rigidity is necessary in many parts of our life.

I constructed a compost barrel, using a recycled 50-gallon plastic drum, some scrap pvc pipe, a metal pole, and some scrap lumber. Since I was trying things out, I just put it together enough to see if it worked. I used the lumber to make two stands to raise the barrel above the ground so that I could spin it. Two 2x4s put together weren't stable enough, so I added two "leaning" type supports to the upright posts, nailing them in. However, even that construct wasn't stable enough . . . I found when I tried to spin the half-full barrel. It all started to collapse; I tried to keep it up, but the weight of it all knocked me down in a pile of poles. The point is it wasn't rigid enough. Some things don't work without rigidity.

This lack of rigidity is very much like growing up with an alcoholic father. We had to guess at the rules, which could change from day to day. It all depended on his mood. When my little brother accidentally broke a mirror that had been placed leaning against a wall, we had no idea of whether it was punishable or not and how extreme the punishment would be. As it turned out, our father made me decide whether to punish my brother or not. I had to figure out what the father wanted, and if I guessed wrong, I would also be in trouble. I didn't want to, but I said Teddy should be punished. Our father accepted that and beat my little brother with the buckle end of a belt until his bare thighs bled.

I spent many of my years growing up in a somewhat functional family trying to guess what my parents (mom and step-dad) wanted, holding my breath, tip-toeing. Many, many times, I chose not to ask if I could go to a party because they might say no. I just didn't go.

For the people of a society to deal best with each other, there must be some rigid rules. Used to be, a promise was a promise. It was rigid. You shook hands; you could rely on its being accomplished, short of death or God's intervention. Then it was a signature on a contract. That's why you had to read the whole contract carefully (even the fine print) before signing it. Signing a contract meant you were obligated to accomplish that promise.

President Obama has changed that, just trashing contract law in bailouts of banks and automotive companies. The most egregious example is Obama's dictating to the secure bond holders of Chrysler what they had to take in the supposed bankruptcy (with new rules written by Obama, et al.) There are many more examples of Obama's lack of rigidity, from his immediate and almost complete reversal of all campaign promises, to his apparent disregard of the rule of law ("no one is above the law"), to his circumventing legal provisions for checks and balances by appointing czars. . . Kevin McCullough writes an insightful column on the issue: "Why Liberals Never Lie." Basically,, he says, they don't lie because they don't have a rigid standard. The truth morphs for them.

The children of this alcoholism -- entrepreneurs and investors -- are reacting just like I did. Not being sure how any potential contracts will be taken, they just don't even take a risk. OR, they are spending all their energy trying to get on Obama's good side so they won't be punished or so they can receive special perqs.

The law should be rigid and not malleable by individuals, who are ruled by emotions. That way, everyone knows what to expect. We don't have to spend our lives trying to guess what might work or whether a promise will be kept.

In addition, I think most individuals need to make rigid rules for themselves. Goals need to be rigid. If your goals continually move or you drop your "goal" for another, they aren't doing the job of goals. If you want to be an honest person, your rigid rule should be to tell the truth, and you should not allow yourself to wimp out on that rule by fudging -- like telling yourself that white lies are okay. This doesn't mean you absolutely can't break your rigid rules; but it does mean that you don't justify the breaking of them.

Present attitudes toward marriage is a part of this lack of rigidity. People take an oath, "til death do we part," and yet, when they get bored or run into some conflicts, that oath melts like butter on a Phoenix summer day. Commitment, I think, requires rigidity.

So what did my commenter mean by "rigidity"? In context, I think she's talking about the concept she has about Christians -- that they tend to apply their own rules to everyone else, and they are rigid about those rules. That they are not tolerant toward others. However, I'd have to pursue that discussion to know if that's what she really meant.

The bottom line is we need rigidity to some extent. I see no problem with knowing what the rules are and being rigid about them. I personally do not expect non-Christians to follow God's rules, though if they did, they might be healthier and happier! (I DO expect Christians to at least try to follow God's rules.) In other words, I do not see rigidity and tolerance as being mutually exclusive.

Wake up, people!

Remember last year when gasoline went up to $4.00 a gallon? How mad you were at the oil companies?

If the Cap & Trade bill gets through the Senate, we can expect much more than that.* Who you gonna be mad at then?

*In the House, Republican amendments to the Waxman-Markey (Cap & Trade) Bill asking for a suspension of the bill IF gasoline goes above $5 a gallon, or if electricity cost doubles, or if unemployment goes higher than 15% were kicked out. That's a clear sign that at least one of these things will happen.

Not all revolutions are equal

The Iranian people -- being butchered by their own government -- are pleading for our help with their English posters of protest, and cries for US support from amateur reporters. And those of us who love our freedom want to help.

On the last day of my Beginning English as a Second Language class, I sat down with Kourosh Varanyi, a Kurd from Iran and asked him, "What can we do to help?" His English is quite rough, but he manages to get his meaning across.

He said, "Nothing." He explained that Mousavi, the opposition candidate, is just like Ahmadinajad.

"But maybe he's changed."

"No," Kourosh said. The Kurds* tried to revolt several years back when Mousavi was in charge. He signed for 24,000 people to be killed in one day. Kourosh swiped his hands, showing fait accompli. Then he pointed to a circular scar on the inside of his left elbow and another in his forearm. "Two more," he pointed to his left leg. "They shoot me."

"But Mousavi's wife . . .maybe it would be better for women." I was desperate for some kind of hope for the revolution.

"No. She's the same. No freedom for women. Islam law." Several times, Kourosh said, "We want government no religion. Like here."

"Secular," I said. "Freedom of religion." (Death to the dictator.)

"Yeah."

So now, my fellow believers, we know what to pray for. Not that Iran's revolution lead to a quick switch from Ahmadinajad to Ahmadinajad-lite, nor for a switch from the "Supreme Leader" to anyone else in the Islamic rulership. Instead, this revolution needs a carefully constructed new government, one created with as much wisdom and aforethought as our founding fathers had. This sort of revolution will not be quick. If it happens, it may take years.

*The Kurdish people are an ethnic minority of an area they call Kurdestan, that encompasses the north of Iraq and Iran, and the south of Turkey. They share more similarities with each other across the country boundaries than they do with the people of their nations. It was many villages of Iraqi Kurds that Saddam Hussein wiped out with chemical weaponry, after they got the idea that the US would support them in a revolt. No wonder the Iranian Kurds are hanging back and waiting on the Iranian revolt.

Daniel

I've been reading the book of Daniel. It occurred to me that, though it didn't happen through conquest, we conservative constitutionalists are in a similar situation as Daniel. Stuck in exile in a land we don't recognize, a land with alien values. . . our liberties curtailed.

In the last month or so, I've been discouraged enough to just not write in my blog. I wouldn't even look at it or at anyone else's blog. I felt originally that God wanted me to start this blog. I already had a "home" blog that I could write about little things, my dogs, my cats and cooking. . . But I felt led to create a blog about the big things: God and America, and how we relate. I felt some great purpose to this little blog.

But I saw no evidence that anyone -- other than a friend or two, in which case, I was preaching to the choir -- was reading my blog. So what's the use? Thus began my discouragement. And yes, I reminded myself that we can't always know the results of God's commands; we must only do them. But that didn't help me come back.

This discouragement is tied together with the feeling that I get when I call and write our senators' and representative's offices and get a polite acknowledgment, or worse, a response that explains to me why they choose to vote contrarily. The anxiety, the urgency within me, the need to do something, anything! is hardening to a husk of what it was. What's the use?

In the prospect of long-term exile, Daniel and his friends behaved in a way to glorify God. Their home, homeland, capital city was shattered. They had been, in essence, kidnapped, and taken to Babylon to serve the king. I wonder how much time and effort they spent in trying to get away. Or did they from the start give it all up to God?

When my Christian friends shrug and say, "These are the last days," and their attitude is to basically roll with it, accept it, I get really irritated. We can't just bend over and take it! This is not the time to withdraw and wait on the Lord! That's abdicating our responsibility.

First, Daniel and company made sure that they were able to continue to glorify God through maintaining dietary standards -- not with a protest fast, but with a suggestion of a scientific experiment. In order to get this far, they had to treat their jailers, the chief of eunuchs and the steward over him, as people, not as evil enemies. I'm sure that if God had not brought Daniel into the favor of the chief of eunuchs, whatever he suggested would have been dismissed out of hand. But the chief explained to Daniel the reason for the food they were having to eat. And Daniel could come back with this suggestion that they compare the results of the two diets after ten days. And in case you don't know the story, Daniel's diet of vegetables and water kept him and friends much healthier than those who'd been eating the king's delicacies and drinking the wine.

Their training was to last for three years, but even before that time was up, Daniel had his first big break in being able to tell the king his dream and interpret it. It was into their second year there.

Hmm, we've been in exile only a few months. We have to see ourselves as being in it for the long run. Even if we are able to put politicians with integrity (boy, is that an oxymoron!) into office in 2010, we will still be fighting an overall attitude of relativism and a lack of understanding of the Constitution.

And Daniel lasted as wise man, counselor for the king, through King Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the short reign of his son, Belshazzar, the reign of Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian. (This is where I am in the book of Daniel.)

What struck me is that through Daniel's behavior, all these kings knew God to be the "living God, steadfast forever." They didn't necessarily give up their own gods, but they recognized God and His power.

Let this be a wake up call. We've been called bitter clingers; let us now cling even more tightly to God. The anxiety is counter-productive. At the same time, let us not relax and give up our responsibility as citizens. That's part of the problem and why we are in this mess.

When I told a liberal (progressive) friend that I was planning to go to Washington, DC, to protest on the 4th of July, she said, "It's good that you're finally getting involved."

I said, "Thank you," but I was miffed. What do you mean finally getting involved? I've been involved all along. I've been doing the things we're supposed to do -- informing myself and voting. But . . . that wasn't everything we needed to be doing, I realize now. I think we have abdicated our responsibility as citizens, assuming if we voted correctly, then these politicians will keep the country running. It's like those parents who send their children to school with the idea that now they don't have to do much in the training of their kids. While protesting should not have to be a normal part of an involved citizen's life, when the citizen has allowed things to get out of hand, protesting is perhaps the last option.

We should have been training our children about the steadfastness of the Constitution, about our founding fathers and their vision, and making sure that our educational system doesn't allow the insidious changes, revisionist history, etc. to make inroads into our children's minds. In my defense, I didn't know about these things. But responsible citizenry requires much more thorough education than we got in K-12 and even through college.

We should have been keeping an eye on our representatives, both state and federal, following what they were voting on and how they voted, and expressing our educated opinion at every turn. If we had, they would not have been able to vote themselves an automatic pay increase every year, for example.

The US that Obama envisions and the results, which we envision, cannot be more alien to us than Babylon to Daniel. We must find a way to work within the framework we are given, so that when it's all said and done, God will be glorified.

What can you say?

What can you say to those "bleeding heart liberals" who throw the number of 47 million people in the US being uninsured at you? Especially when they add that 9 million of them are children and most of them are working families?

Well, first you can point out that the numbers are misleading. Of that 47 million, about 10 million aren't even citizens! Almost 18 million make more than $50,000/year; they can afford to have the insurance but they choose not to (more than half of 18 million make more than $75,000/yr.) It's not a money issue here. And 19 million are young people (between the ages of 18 and 34) who feel they don't need it right now. And finally almost half of 47 million are only temporarily uninsured, like for four months, because they're between jobs. Yes, those numbers and groups can overlap, but there is an exaggeration of lack of health insurance in the US. (I'm taking these numbers from "Next on the Statists' List: Health Care" by David Limbaugh, but I'd heard them before.)

Second, point out that lack of health insurance doesn't mean lack of coverage. The law requires emergency room care even when someone can't afford it.

Third, and most importantly, you can tell them government health care will do the opposite of what's intended. Government mandated health coverage will make people less likely to get health care. I know it sounds crazy, but it's a simple matter of economics.

Government control of medicine is price control. When the price is required by government fiat to be lower than the market dictates, you get more demand (more people taking advantage of the lower price) and less production. Fewer people will be encouraged to become doctors and nurses. So you end up with a shortage.

That's why the long waiting periods for care in Great Britain and Canada. Many people die while waiting for their treatment! That's why they need "advisory boards" to decide what medical treatments are not financially feasible. So they'll be weeding out the people who won't benefit enough from treatment (i.e., they're old anyway and will be dying soon) and weeding out the treatments that are too costly.

So the old man above will not receive much care in Obama-care. Too bad, huh?

With My Boots On

Latest reports are that Medicare has only eight more years. To be honest, I don't expect to be able to use any Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.

For one thing, I can't imagine not working. Yes, I'm getting older, and a few times, my mind has wandered over the path of thought the word "retirement" leads it. Thoughts like how many more years? How will we be able to live? But I'm pretty sure that even once I retire, I'm not going to stop working. How boring would that be? How useless I would feel.

My dad worked up until he died. I guess you'd say he died with his boots on.

In the movie Secondhand Lions, Hub, one of Walter's great-uncles, is fighting the idea of growing old. He's used to a life of war and battle, having fought in two world wars and numerous other smaller wars. Now Hub keeps doing crazy, dangerous stuff and Walter's afraid he's going to die. At one point, Hub and Garth, his brother, use their money to buy a lion so they can have a lion hunt. But the lion is an aging lioness that won't even run. Walter keeps her as a pet. Then when the boyfriend of Walter's mother is beating up the boy, the lion attacks the boyfriend and dies in the fight.

"She died with her boots on," the uncles told Walter, "protecting her cub."

Later, Walter convinces Hub that he needs both his great-uncles to take care of him. Hub promises to lay off the crazy behavior until Walter has graduated from college. The movie ends (and begins) with the uncles flying a homemade WWI bi-plane into a barn. The sheriff telling Walter says, "They died with their boots on."

That's what I want. Let me die with my boots on.

My Prayer

Dear God,
On this National Day of Prayer, I pray for our leaders, for the people whom we put into power over us, starting with Barack Obama. I don't pray for him enough. Lord, be with him. Be that niggling little voice of conscience that never leaves him. Surround him with people who will tell him the truth, and help him to accept the truth. Even, Lord, if it's Your will, provide him a "road to Damascus" experience and a change of heart. I pray that Your will be done.

I ask the same for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Let the believers in Congress listen to Your voice and act on Your directions in interactions with these leaders and other congressmen. Further, let the believers wake up to their true duty. And Lord, if they do not, help us to vote them out of office. Guide us in knowing the truth about our representatives.

Please help me love those certain people in our government that I have trouble loving. Show me again how to love with Your love those that I have, in my fleshly reasoning, written off as not deserving of respect or love. And forgive me for my arrogance of judging, better left up to You.

There are many more to pray for, but I wanted to start with these people. Thank you for reminding me that You, Father God, have the ultimate victory.

Connie