Marketplace of Ideas, Strategies, Etc.

I posted a link earlier to an article discussing how black feminists on twitter campaigned against twitter trolls who were pretending to be women of color, and said I was saving it 'for later'.

That later is now.

See, I believe there is something to the whole wisdom of crowds thing. I also believe there are ways of disrupting it, preventing the whole from acting in a 'wise' manner. A lot of it has to do with the free marketplace of ideas, and what sort of behavior is acceptable (and not) in advancing your arguments. This also ties in a bit with my previous post, regarding strategies of attack and counterattack.

What I want to start with, though, is with the common reasons people dismiss the 'wisdom of crowds'.

The most common one, I think, is that survey after survey shows that quite a few of us aren't really all that knowledgeable... so it's hard to believe that the whole can be wiser than the sum of it's parts. I think Malcolm Gladwell explains the mechanism behind that rather well in his book The Tipping Point. Sure, if you conducted a survey on something like, I don't know... car mechanics...

The majority of us would probably sound dumb, we'd have no idea what a carburetor is or what it does, or why the car sputters, etc. And that's okay, because if we ever actually need to know that information, we'd go find ourselves an expert (a maven) to fill us in. We'd go to our buddy the car mechanic, or google the symptoms and find a youtube video, or take it to an actual mechanic - though we'd probably want to have some reason to trust their expertise, as there are too many horror stories of mechanics ripping people off.

The point, though, is that even if we collectively don't seem to know much about cars, we generally known how to go the experts when we've got a car problem, and the whole is wiser than the sum of it's parts.

By the same token, during an election people may not pay attention to the blow-by-blow accounts, may not recognize the names of obscure candidates at the beginning, but we have political experts who do pay attention... and they advise the people around them who don't often have time to dig into the facts, and the ultimate winner of an election can be a better choice than you'd expect.

I say 'can', because of what I'm about to get into next:

The wisdom of crowds is not perfect, and there are ways of subverting it. On a small scale, a lot of it acts like my earlier discussion on decision-making, conformity, and groupthink.

If someone quickly gives the impression of support for an idea and squelches dissent (so that people think they're the only oddball who thinks differently, or has no way of identifying who else feels the way they do, so they can't work together to present an alternative) one forceful person can make it seem as though 'the crowd' agrees with an action that doesn't actually draw on the wisdom of crowds.

It's the magic trick by which dictators and tyrants hold power despite having real support from only a fraction of the population. So long as it's the right portion, in the right places, they can control the decision-making process. (And, much like my earlier example where the military is trying to defend against an enemy coming across a mountain, said dictator will sometimes be right, but there's always a risk that they'll be disastrously wrong given their horrible decision-making process. One singular person with ultimate power can definitely make decisions faster than committees, and sometimes committees don't have good dynamics and don't make wise decisions, but unless that singular person with power makes a sincere effort to get diverse opinions and makes a sound plan that takes into consideration all the various concerns - i.e. consider the likelihood that the enemy will come through the large pass or the small pass, and then create a plan that takes both possibilities into account, though focusing on the most likely - they generally don't have the time or knowledge to be expert in everything they need to know, and will probably miss something critical. At some point or another.)

The other thing I wanted to point out is that support doesn't generally come from a vacuum. That doesn't mean that there's actual support for the proposed solution... to go back to computer software, it's more like there's a vulnerability, and malware can exploit that vulnerability in a variety of ways... whether by installing spyware to monitor you, or running a bitcoin mining program, or looking through your files and copying anything interesting. The underlying vulnerability is the same in each case, but the way that vulnerability is exploited is vastly different.

In the same way, the underlying vulnerability may be frustration at the inability to better yourself through hard work. It may show itself (I don't want to say 'exploited' in this case, because many of the people gaining support because of that vulnerability are idealists who sincerely want to improve the system, it's just that their ideas gain traction because of this underlying vulnerability) in support for a particular political candidate...  or support for something like socialism. That's part of why FDR claimed he was saving capitalism from itself (and also why the intense distaste for his policies, and efforts to roll them back seem so short-sighted. If you're not addressing the underlying reasons why FDR and his policies came into being, then all you're doing is resetting the situation to a place where capitalism will fail.)

It may also show itself in support for libertarianism, or whatever. A vulnerability can also be exploited to take us in darker directions, like white supremacists, xenophobia, and the like. The point is that there's some underlying reason people are drawn to support certain ideas, and we have to address that if we want to get anywhere. Much though I dislike those ideas, I understand that there's an underlying fear... perhaps even the same fear driving support for socialism. The fear that you won't be able to succeed through hard work, but in this case you blame it on illegal immigrants and affirmative action efforts rather than the wealthy bilking you out of fair compensation. (This is speculation, and I'm sure there are people studying the topic who can give a better explanation.)

I'm not saying any of these things are the right answer, btw. Simply trying to point out that, well, there's a reason every single idea out there has support, and we shouldn't just dismiss those ideas without at least considering why some people honestly support it.

But this is all describing a fairly honest marketplace for ideas. One where most people genuinely support their favored ideas, and for the reasons given during the exchange.

There are people who deliberately subvert the system. Who, for example, are dishonest about their reasons for supporting an idea. (When I was deployed with the New York guard, I was caught off guard once because apparently we had 'internal reasons' and 'external reasons', and we were only supposed to tell 'outsiders' the external reasons for something. That whole thing rather disturbed me, since we should be able to honestly tell why we wanted to take an action, and having an entirely different set of reasons that was known only to those of us in the unit seemed dishonest. This was for a fairly mild issue, though. Like, it seemed silly that we were even trying to hide our reasons in the first place since there was nothing bad or wrong about our reasoning, which is part of why I apparently crossed an unwritten rule I hadn't been aware of when I mentioned the real reason in a meeting. Seriously, if you have an 'internal' reason and a 'public' reason, you might want to take a long, hard look at yourself in a mirror because you are clearly exploiting a vulnerability of some sort for your own purposes... and if you're afraid to publicly admit what that purpose is, you are misleading all the people supporting you.)

The article about the black feminists on twitter is another example of this, for a variety of reasons. First, though it's not quite the case in this example, we've got the problem of twitter bots... given the tendency to self-censor if you feel you're the only one who disagrees, various people try to manipulate the marketplace of ideas by making it seem like they have more support than they really do. They hope to draw on the bandwagon effect, and get more people to agree with them than they otherwise would have. So they flood social media with accounts saying they support some idea, or disagree with another, and hope to gain traction.

Second, and more specific to this case, they will try to sabotage opposing ideas. In this case by running a false flag operation that tried to make the other side look more extreme than they really were. (This, btw, reminds me of some more historical efforts to disrupt unwanted ideas. Like the Pinkerton agency and it's efforts to infiltration unions and disrupt strikes. Or the FBI, and it's attempts to disrupt the Civil Rights Movement.)

If this was more like a game of Dominion, these would clearly be attack cards... with all the risks and issues that go with that. It refuses to address the underlying reasons why people are drawn to these movements (in the case of strikes, the mistreatment of workers. In the case of civil rights, the frustration with a system that puts up roadblocks and obstacles to every effort you make towards building a successful life, solely because of the color of your skin).

It's like they see the signs of an unexpected program on their system, they assume it's malicious (which... I know I keep saying this is where the analogy breaks down, because it's not. Or not necessarily. Maybe I should say that the hacks can be benevolent or malicious depending on user intent, and the same vulnerability can be exploited to patch the system or break it. The analogy only goes so far, at this point.)

Anyways. They see unexpected activity, assume it's malicious, and instead of digging down to the root vulnerability and patching it themselves, they scramble to create another program that can disrupt or reverse whatever unexpected behavior they see.

This is why I talked about fear and arrogance, earlier. There's an arrogance in believing you know better than everyone else, an arrogance in believing you are justified in doing whatever you have to in order to make sure what you consider the 'right' decisions are made, an arrogance in believing that those actions are justified in your case (and not, when taken by your evil opponents)....

And there's arrogance in assuming that the only reason your ideas aren't more popular is because people are too stupid to understand, and/or that your opponents are too good at manipulating the system.

That there's no underlying vulnerability to patch, no reason to worry about 'saving capitalism from itself' like FDR did, because the only reason there's support for things like socialism is because of... I dunno. People's stupidity, or evil villains, whatever. Take your pick. (You can also make a similar argument about support for white supremacy, tbh. What's the underlying vulnerability drawing people to such a horrible idea?)

But the arrogance is only part of the story, and the other part is fear. See, if you truly believed in capitalism. If you truly believed it was the best system...

Than you wouldn't feel threatened by socialism. You would know that people may try it, but that it would fail, and they'd eventually come back to capitalism.

But fear, fear that maybe capitalism wouldn't triumph, fear that people won't be 'smart enough' to do what you arrogantly believe is the right thing, fear that 'the enemy' can manipulate the marketplace of ideas in its favor, all that fear means you feel justified in doing 'whatever it takes' to fight socialism.

Whether that means supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, or a military-led government in El Salvador, or backing a coup in Guatemala. All were done primarily out of fear, and fear-based policies often have negative consequences. (And, as just one consequence, the instability the US contributed to has created an incentive to migrate. In some cases, by seeking asylum in the US. We have at least some responsibility in creating the mess on our own borders, not that our government would ever admit it.)

Fear is used to justify tactics that undermine the whole wisdom of crowds thing, and makes people focus on the symptoms instead of the root causes of a problem.

Fear and arrogance are used to justify doing whatever it takes to win, and to dismiss any dissent as either stupidity, naivety, or enemy action.

If your ideas are not gaining traction, you're probably missing something important about your messaging. It may be that you just need to make better arguments, or it could also be that you're not addressing something that people think is more important at the moment, or any number of things.

Forcefully attempting to coerce and manipulate people into supporting you is ultimately destructive to the entire system.

Brainstorming

What a crazy time to be alive.

Making sense of things is almost impossible, and I'm not really sure what I'm going to type here. I just felt the need to sort of brainstorm it out.

There are a couple of underlying... assumptions? heuristics? worldviews?

Whatever it is, it tends to shape my perspective on a lot of things. Some of it's pretty basic - like the concept of a 'social contract', and the importance of people feeling like they  have some sort of say in their governance. (It's part of why gerrymandering is such a threat to our system. More, I would say, then whatever fears or worries the people instating it have about what would happen if they didn't have power. Undermining the social contract, undermining the connection between the will of the people and their government, is far more of a threat to America than bloated government, high taxes, etc.)

Free speech is good, protecting minority opinions is good. (The problem with lack of gatekeepers to filter out the crap is part of what I wanted to brainstorm here. Protecting minority opinions has similar complications - does it include protecting racists, for example? Otherwise someone is still deciding what is 'acceptable' and what isn't, in which case free speech and protection of minority opinions is really just protection for the ones we agree with. The underlying issues, though... the problems with censoring speech, the ills that occur when minorities are not protected, well... these are values we - the West - have come to over a long period of time. And, unfortunately, they are values that somehow wind up getting challenged. Again and again. It's sad when people who claim to be all about America are somehow the very same people pushing for things that go against the values we fought for and stood for. But that's a really long topic to get on, and I'm not sure I want to do it right now.)

Fear is almost always a bad sign. Fear, the actions/plans/strategies based on fear, and the results of fear-based strategies are almost always bad. To do a mish/mash of two quotes that I saw on a computer screensaver once "Fear is the mindkiller. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I remember reading about the Civil War, decades ago, and thinking 'the fear that the North would outlaw slavery led to the attempted secession of the South, which wound up making their fears realized... and probably even faster than they would have been otherwise.' That is, when we act on fear, we can often lead to the very thing we are afraid of. (So, for white supremacists, letting fear that we will eventually be a minority in America lead to violent actions and upheavals could actually hasten a time when we are, in fact, a minority. But then, idiots like that probably assume - since they're foolish enough to think the color of the skin somehow makes them superior - that they're going to win any coming showdown. Considering how many wars had unpredictable results, I think that's a remarkably foolish gamble. But hey, nobody has a monopoly on stupidity.)

So anyways, on to the rambling.

Over a decade ago (how weird, to talk in terms of decades now!) my boyfriend at the time commented on his Toyota truck and the concept of 'buy American'. I am absolutely horrible at quotes, so I'll just paraphrase his reasoning -

He bought the best truck on the market. If they want him to buy American, then America needs to step up and be that best truck on the market.

I know there's a whole bunch of underlying things not addressed here - disparities in the economy that allows certain goods to be manufactured more cheaply for one reason or another, tariffs, transportation, etc. - but I think he brought up a rather good point.

Namely that, when threatened, challenged, and afraid, there are two ways of dealing with it. Step up to the challenge and get even better (in which case, the issues with, say, competition being able to pay lower wages, just becomes a driver for getting even better. A challenge that makes your eventual triumph even more meaningful, since you had a handicap the entire time)... or let fear drive you into trying to protect your position by eliminating the competition somehow. Tariffs, 'buy American' drives, things that allow your existing business to continue to compete even when other businesses might actually be providing a better product at a lower cost. (Again, note that this is a complex topic, especially when you get into what countries like China have been doing to help develop their own domestic businesses. The people pushing for these policies often justify them by saying 'this is what they're doing, so we have to do it as well in order to keep up.)

The underlying reasoning, for all of that, is fear. And as I said above, that's sort of one of the things I consider noteworthy.

In political science, they've noted that previous presidential candidates often spoke positively. Uplifting. We want leaders who challenge us to rise to the occasion. To shoot for the moon. To stand up to the Soviet Union.

Trump. Well. Even though he had some of the typical markers ('Make America Great Again' talks about how great America is) the underlying structure is entirely fear based. We have to 'Make America Great Again', because we no longer  think we are. We're somehow losing our greatness, according to some people at least. (And just as Jim Collins described in 'How the Mighty Fall', that fear can make us susceptible to anyone who promises to save us. And so we get some outsider riding in on a white horse to save the day, even though they very often are actually the ones who wind up delivering the final, fatal blow.)

Great presidents encourages us to stand tall and rise to the occasion. Trump, on the other hand, feeds our fears and brings out the worst in everyone. Aside from politics, aside from anything else, seeing the sheer level of pettiness he brings to our political system is horrifying.

And I am disturbed, perturbed, and disappointed in all the various people who allow him to have what influence he has. Because nobody can be a leader when others refuse to follow.

The Republicans in particular have been awfully horrifying with how often they wind up justifying supporting Trump even when it goes against things they used to stand for. Christian conservatives as well, who laud someone who seems like the epitome of everything Jesus stood against.

But hey, that's politics, right? Should I really be surprised at how much people are willing to compromise themselves, at how nicely they can come up with something to justify doing whatever it is that is in their self-interest? Whether that's supporting Trump, or doing shenanigans to try and shape the upcoming midterms in their favor (even when it means closing polling sites and/or moving them to hard-to-reach places, because apparently they'd rather undermine the social contract and disenfranchise US citizens than lose an election.)

And that, right there, is how you know someone's political judgement has been compromised. That the wisdom of our founding fathers, who understood the risks of power and put all sorts of careful checks in place, has been lost by near-sighted people more concerned with staying in power than maintaining the legitimacy of our system.

When did we become so afraid? Why are we so afraid? We're in one of the best positions, as a nation, possible. We're capable of being so much better than this.

Fear, Faith, and the Self-Evident Truth That All Men Are Created Equal

I started to write something about the fears underlying our current political climate, but realized I have to step back and offer some thoughts from my own personal background.

These, for better or worse, were formed during my younger days...where I spent a rather large amount of time attending Catholic schools.  It's not meant to challenge anyone else's current beliefs so much as identify concepts I grew up with.

The word 'catholic' means universal.  I always thought there was something important about that, not in terms of the power the early Catholic church held, so much as that it's meant to say this is a religion that is for everybody.  Universally.  It in inclusive, inviting, all-embracing, of general interest, with liberal and wide sympathies.

They always talked about how Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors (i.e. the worst of the worst in his time.  Tax collectors probably being similar to a loan shark of today.)  He invited all to come to his table

Inclusiveness, to me, seems to come from God.  Exclusiveness is a sign of man's ego.  That is, 'exclusive' appeals are the ones that make you feel singled out and special.  Ads 'only for those with a discerning eye'.  Flattery.  Scientology.  Secret societies.  These are all things that appeal to us because they make us feel special.  Select.  Elite.  Unique.  Apart from (and better than) the average imperfect person.

Inclusiveness says all are welcome at our table.  The homeless, the poor, the crippled and blind.  After all, whatever you do to the least of us you are doing to Jesus.

Universal.  Welcoming to everyone.  There's something about that which seems to call us to be better people.  Our better selves.  And it's a bit of a mystery how we all have an intrinsic worth, intrinsic potential, no matter how rich or poor we are.

It's a calling to create a society where everyone can live to their full potential.  Which is a bit of a mystery, and goes against what we see in everyday society.  How can that bum sleeping on a bench be as worthy as that CEO with six houses and twenty cars?  How can we all be special, in a way that doesn't make it irrelevant to the point that nobody is special?  It's kind of a mystery, in the first sense of the word.

Still, this is a mystery that was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that "self-evident" truth that all men are created equal.  Even CEOs and homeless people.

What's so sad and strange and twisted about human nature is that we can take a concept like that, and still turn it into an exclusive way of life.  "Our" people are deserving of mercy and compassion, but those others must be stricken off the face of the earth.  Like the Pharisees called out in Matthew 23 (different translations here and here), we find a way to show off our faith, try to look beautiful on the outside while inside we neglect things like justice, mercy and faithfulness.  (This is part of why I find the so-called 'christian' conservatives who back Trump a rather poor example of the faith.  He is not exactly a paragon of justice, mercy and faithfulness.  Those who support him seem more concerned with publicly showing off their faith and condemning/judging anyone they consider sinners than with truly living a Christian life.)

What's even more interesting is the psychological impact of inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness.  In Matthew 19:8 Jesus said "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

I found this concept of hardened hearts rather fascinating, partly because if ground has hardened, hitting them with something generally just compacts it even further together.  In the same way, verbally telling people "you are wrong",  "you should X" or "you should Y" is more likely to just harden people even more.  They'll be even more determined to cling to their view, if only to prove you wrong.

Inclusiveness, however, softens the ground.  It means people don't feel they have to cling to an particular idea or way of being in order to resist that outside pressure...which in turn can make it easier to really evaluate what's best for yourself.  (Yes, some people can do this even with outside pressure...but most people tend to react to a perceived attack by getting more defensive and holding on even harder to whatever they're being attacked on.)

That's part of why the Christian organizations that stop being preachy/judgemental and really engage with people's lives seem to have far more of an impact than passing legislation condemning a particular act. 

In some ways, this desire to pass laws enforcing religious values seems more like a value-signaling method to publicly announce how 'christian' you are (like the Pharisees above) rather than a sincere effort to engage with people and their lives...and in the process, it just hardens hearts and makes it even less likely anyone will hear that little inner voice that you could say is God speaking to you.  Or your higher self.  Whichever concept is most convenient.

In many ways, I want to see who people choose to be when they are truly free to.  When they don't feel outside pressures trying to make them be this or that.  When they've had the chance to make mistakes, and screw up, (like the Prodigal Son) and explore this or that. 

I suspect that, when unpressured, most people will be driven by that inner voice to be something better.  Sure, sometimes we'll be like little kids who eat too much candy.  Our stomachs may hurt, and we may regret it later. 

Lesson learned.

What seems to drive this desire to force people to be religious is fear.  Fear that, if we didn't, they would never realize something was undesirable on their own.  To use the candy analogy above, it's fear that the kid will decide to eat candy for the rest of their life. 

Except I kind of suspect God rigs the game in His favor.  That is, if left alone the kid eating candy will probably begin to feel it unsatisfying.  (FYI: This analogy is not meant to actually apply to dietary habits!)  And eventually the kid will get sick of candy and start searching for something else, until eventually the kid discovers the satisfaction of eating an apple.  Or somesuch. 

Whereas if you come in saying "you can't have all that candy!!!  Stop eating candy! Here, eat this apple, you'll like it better!") the kid will probably resent being told what to do, decide s/he hates apples, and secretly - or not-so-secretly - keep choosing candy instead.  It's not even about the candy, so much as it is about rebelling against your attempt to tell them what to eat.  You might even be right, but they'll stubbornly refuse to admit it.

In many ways, I think these attempts to force religion on people are actually a sign that you lack faith.  You lack faith that people will realize God's will on their own, and think they will only do what He wants (or what you believe He wants) if you force them to eat apples.

National Security Musings, Cont.

I want to get into the nitty gritty of strategy, but I do think there's a couple of points about human nature I should make first.


There does seem to be a universal (or almost entirely) universal desire for respect.  Fairness. Decency.  We can train ourselves out of it, teach ourselves that 'the world is not fair' and that 'this is just the way it is', but it's something that we lose because of life experiences and the choices we make.  It's not something natural.


Which is why universal human rights are so powerful.  It's not so much that the ideal matches reality, as that so long as reality fails at this...we are likely to see unrest and instability.  Sure, 9/10 people will put their heads down and get on with life, no matter what.  And yet there will always be that tenth troublemaker, that young person who hasn't had reality beat into them yet, or an old person who is too tired to care. 


We can argue about what should and shouldn't be considered a human right, about where these ideas came from, and more.  Later.  What I wanted to focus on the most, here, is that living up to these ideals says something powerful, too.  It says that you can lead a nation without arresting everyone who disagrees with you, or makes fun of you, or makes you the butt of a joke.  That you can successfully impose law and order without resorting to torture.  That such things are actually unnecessary to ruling, at all.


Which has certain implications - namely, that all the states who do engage in such behavior aren't doing it for reasons of state.  The state can survive without it.  Rather, all the rulers engaging in such behavior are doing it because they've confused their own self interest with the needs of the state. 


What that also means is that every time we fail to live up to our ideals, we show that we don't truly believe that we can succeed while staying true to our ideals.  That we don't think we can win without torture, or manipulating elections, or arresting those who disagree with us. (Kind of reminds me of an ex-boyfriend of mine, discussing 'Buy America' and Toyota.  What he basically said was that he would buy the best car, whoever made it.  And if that car wasn't American than we need to get our act together and start making the best car instead.  Win not by pulling down the competition, but by pushing ourselves to be better.  This, btw, is the exact opposite of what Donald Trump is doing.  He's not going to "Make America Great Again" by creating an environment where we have the best manufacturers.  Instead, he's going to do it by trying to make it harder for the competition to sell to us.  Granted, you can say other countries have been manipulating the system in their favor already.  This is another topic too long and complicated to get into right now, but I want to point out that we need challenged to be better and do better, to rise to the challenge.  Not to whine about what other countries are doing.)


During the Cold War that I've been writing about, you could argue that a lot of our actions were taken because we didn't truly believe in capitalism.  After all, if capitalism was the right path all we had to do was wait.  Other countries will figure it out, eventually.  Even if the very worst happened, if communism had swept the globe and capitalism had fallen by the wayside, if the beliefs were correct wouldn't they eventually have been resurrected?


The fear of communism, then, actually shows how little faith we have in our own system.  Just as the justifications for 'enhanced interrogation methods' reveal how little we actually believe in rights such as "no cruel and unusual punishment".  Sure, this was not applied to US citizens...but if we truly believe this is a right, then we should be practicing it 100%.  Not deciding it's wrong for US citizens and acceptable for terrorists. 


Ideals aren't something we're supposed to give up just because things get tough. 

Decision Making, Fear, and Intelligence Work

“.. Fear is often described as False Evidence Appearing Real.”

― Nick Vujicic, Life Without Limits

Saw this on Facebook yesterday, and it fits what I've been thinking about all too well.  First, though, I wanted to explain why I'm writing about something that happened before I was even born.

Right now there's all sorts of issues going on - Syria, ISIS, Russia, China - and making the right decisions is crucial.  I don't want to say that the decisions I'm about to discuss have direct parallels.  The situations are different.  Russia is not quite the same as the Soviet Union, our relationships with China are different, etc.

What I hope to do, more than anything, is get people thinking more about what signs will prove or disprove any particular belief about the current situation.  It's like prepping a battlefield - if you know the enemy has to take one of three different paths (barring trickery or creativity you aren't prepared for) then you'll want to know which one they're taking.  You can't make assumptions, or your defenses will be set up all wrong and you'll be vulnerable to the side you weren't expecting.  So you figure out what will let you know that they've chosen a particular route.  Maybe sensors far enough away to give you time, but close enough that they won't trigger unless the enemy is committed to that route.  And you have to watch all three routes, not just the one you think is most likely.

So, whether Vietnam or our current mess, the question becomes "what indicators tell us what the enemy is doing?"   

Or to add another cliche:

Hope for the best, plan for the worst...

But don't assume the worst.

Counter-Terrorism, ISIS, Paris, Etc.

I am ashamed and horrified at the news these days.  It seems to me that it is the easiest thing in the world to capitalize on fear, to give in to the pressures of the day.  Like all these governors claiming they will reject Syrian refugees.  Like the facebook posts arguing we should close our hearts and homes, give in to the fear that they're all somehow terrorists.

This bothers me, for two reasons.  First - because I know Muslims are a group like any other.  That is, I (as a rather lapsed Catholic) am very different from a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, even though we all might nominally be called Christian. So even though there are some jihadists mixed in with the community, I know that the vast majority are people just like you and me.  People who want to live in peace, and security.  People who are refugees because they are NOT terrorists.

Second.  Well, the second reason gets more at the mystery at the heart of human nature.  It's easier to explain with a story:

A facility had tools go missing, so the manager decided to put all the tools in a room with a chain and a padlock, so only he or his designated people could get to the tools.  His CEO came to visit and heard about this.  The next day, he dropped the chain and the padlock (which had been cut through with bolt cutters) on the manager's desk. 

I think the appeal here is immediately obvious.  There might have been one person in the entire plant stealing tools, but locking them up made it seem like everyone was untrustworthy.  Who wouldn't want to work for a CEO who made it clear he trusted his people, even at the risk of losing some tools? 

At the same time, if you were the manager whose tools were missing, what would you do?  Or rather - what would you have done differently?  (This rings especially true for me, because we recently bought a cage to store some of the equipment at work.  Not saying they were stolen, precisely.  Its more like people on a shift who knew they had a 'good' one might happen to leave it in their locker or put it somewhere hard to find so that they could easily use the same one the next day.  I personally would have preferred to spend the money to buy everyone their own, and have them sign for it and be accountable for it...but I digress.)

The point here is that sometimes we make choices that sound good at the time.  That are clearly a reaction to a specific situation, and seem like the best/easiest response to that situation.  But in the long run?  You've got employees who know they aren't trusted.  That fuzzy thing called morale drops.  The more you try to control, the more resentful people get, the more morale drops...the less people want to work there. 

So some terrorists, who happen to be Muslim, are committing  horrific attacks.  Part of the strategy of terrorism is to do that...to provoke an overreaction, one that feeds dissent and fuels your side.  (Algeria, for example, where the French rounded up the innocent as well as the guilty, thereby pushing the innocent into the arms of the insurgents/terrorists.)

And here we've got people immediately saying "Let's stop letting refugees in".

It's understandable.  And it's a short-sighted reaction entirely based on fear. 

"Fear is the mind-killer."

So let's try to think about this without fear, without that little voice saying 'if we accept these refugees we'll open ourselves up to attack'.  After all, who is more likely to become a terrorist - someone who found welcome and safety in European lands?  Or someone who has been shuffled off, rejected, abandoned, and left with nowhere to go?

That little voice, btw, is the voice I feel the New Testament repeatedly says is wrong.  Where is the notion of the Good Samaritan?  Of the person who would give the shirt of their back?  Or is charity only for people 'like us'?

Hell.  I have a house, and a spare room.  Sort of.  I'd have to move some things out, and it'd be kind of cramped.  But if there's any organization out there looking for a temporary home for a refugee family in the States I'm willing to take them in.

It's the right thing to do.