Good Deeds

Saw this on Facebook -

https://www.otmj.com/st-lukes-medical-debt/?fbclid=IwAR3OJm_jyz7JlNbVV7jXAfIg9e5EQCf_RUv4fkNTroBGLUBuMJV1370Jtog

And it's far more in keeping with my understanding of what it means to be a good Christian. 

They also mentioned a church here that did something similar. I might have to check them out. 

Faith, Martyrdom, and Various Musings

In C.S. Lewis's Narnia series, there's a scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where the lion, Aslan, talks about the 'deeper magic'.

It's a very clear Christian allegory (though I didn't realize that until later, since I started reading this as a child)... in which the evil witch has convinced the lion to sacrifice himself, and all seems lost.

The concept of a 'martyr' has been used in a variety of ways over the centuries, some of them problematic... like the tendency to 'martyr oneself' by not speaking up about things that bother us, out of some misguided sense that we should be 'nice' and/or 'loving'. (Honestly, and I think anyone who takes a few moments of silence and is honest with themselves, which would you rather have - a friend or lover who never lets you know when they're upset, who suppresses it and pretends everything is fine when it really isn't? Or one that is honest with you, even if it sometimes hurts, but gives you the chance to address whatever-it-is? Sort of like the age-old question - do you want friends who tell you when you've got something stuck in your teeth, or pretend it isn't there?)

Then there's people who think 'martyrdom' just means suicide on behalf of some grand goal, and are willing to murder and die. Forgetting that a key part of becoming a martyr was being innocent... the very attempt to hurt and attack others prevents you from being a real martyr.

And there's the common notion that a martyr is someone who dies in a cause, but in way that inspires others to fight even harder. That's where the common belief that you 'don't want to make someone a martyr' comes from, where it's not enough to kill an opponent... you have to discredit them in the process. After all, killing the head of a snake doesn't work so well if it's actually a hydra.

So anyways - the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and the deeper magic.

The magic that comes from willingly facing the worst. Of allowing yourself to be weak. Vulnerable...

And somehow winning, despite it all.

Winning - not by having a deus ex machina come and strike down your opponents, but because something about how you lose inspires others. Converts them. Makes you and yours stronger, even in defeat.

Especially in defeat.

Which is part of why I consider everyone, even those who claim to be 'doing God's will', who have persuaded themselves that they 'have' to do something God's been pretty clear is wrong... have lost faith.

They think that they have to win. That the stakes are so high, that it's okay to lie... as just one example. Because it's in pursuit of a higher purpose.

Or it's okay to ignore the whole notion that "there is no compulsion in religion', as Mohammed says in the Koran, if it creates God's kingdom on earth.

People forget the very basics, because they think they can come back to it once they've got power. That winning is more important.

And yet, over and over again God (if you believe in Him. I'm not trying to persuade those who don't) appears to somehow turn defeat into victory.

If you only have faith, and trust, and continue to follow the right path... even when all seems lost.

Which is why I say, over and over again... that the extreme Muslim terrorists show an absence of faith, as they don't trust they can win without murdering their opponents.

And our current political alliance with conservative evangelicals also shows a lack of faith, as every. single. time. they. lie -

to 'win', to gain power, to make God's will happen... whatever the reason...

Every single time they knowingly do wrong, thinking that the 'ends justifies the means', and that this is what they have to do in order to win against such powerful opponents...

They show that they totally failed to understand what having faith in God means.

How can anything good come from such rotten foundations? They're building their house on sand, and calling it God's will.

No True Scotsman...

Wanted to share this -

https://thedispatch.com/p/the-rights-bullsht-problem

And clarify something, since I am guilty of a version of the 'no true Scotsman' declaration.

I like subverting the common argument. I have heard people on the right argue that 'no true Christian could support' X or Y, and it's wrong pretty much for all the reasons listed in this article.

And instead of writing a post like this, I like to change it up. Break out of the well worn treads in our minds, where people think they know exactly what you're going to say next when you say something like 'true Christian', or 'patriot', or whatever.

And I also want to make other points of course. Because the Bible has that whole bit about golden calves, and false idols, and being unable to serve two masters... 

And what if you can't serve God and follow Jesus and believe in a form of capitalism that allows corruption like in my previous article?

Who do you really follow?

The World Is On Fire, Feels Like

So I saw this post today - https://seananmcguire.tumblr.com/post/190152843280/victory-new-free-file-rules-ban-tax-prep-firms

and it reminded me yet again why I'm so angry with modern Christian conservatives.

The world is full of stuff like this, and they should be at the forefront of that fight. 

So very much of the Bible has to do with social justice, and taking care of the poor. The ill. The hungry. 

If you're more concerned about homosexuality than you are about stuff like this, your priorities are really screwed up. 

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't sodomy, it was their widespread selfish and evil behavior, like rape. And targeting visitors/guests.

Where are the Christian Conservatives standing against poverty and corruption? 

and this just...

Wow.

Since I do try to hear other points of view, I figured I'd read an article with a headline indicating the left was overreacting on the war crimes but -

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/war-crimes-hysteria-on-the-left.php

And, well, here's the thing. 

Trump clearly uses Twitter to float trial balloons, and then walkbacks or tries to find a 'legal' way to do things that don't go over well. 

I only had to see the back and forth of some of his earlier chaotic policy changes to figure that out (remember the whole 'banning Muslims' thing?)

So, sure, he hasn't actually committed a war crime. 

That is only because of the feedback he gets. 

If you don't make it crystal clear that it's NOT ok... Well, do you honestly think he'd rein himself in?

Which is pretty much why I wrote my previous post. 

We, as a people, need to send a clear message that it's a bad idea. 

So very, very, very bad. 

And I am disappointed that too many people are willing to blindly support him, to the point where they'll actually try to justify committing war crimes, instead of send that message. 

Untitled

I had a bit of discussion on Twitter yesterday, and I'm sort of upset about some of what I'm seeing, so I figured I'd try typing it out here.

In college, I tried a variety of things. Tai chi. Ballroom dance. Hapkido. 

One of the things that stuck with me was that martial artists have options.

If someone attacks you have choices -

Block it. 

Hit back. 

Dodge it.

Move with it, make them overextend and lose their balance... And throw them, or put them in a joint lock, or whatever. 

Its easy to narrow your focus, get tunnel vision, and think it's binary... But it's generally not. 

So what disturbed me on Twitter was all these people acting like we only had two options - be weak and do nothing, or commit war crimes.

Like... We have a whole range of options. Do nothing, sure. Sanctions. Striking military targets. 

Why did so many people seem to jump straight to war crimes?

I cannot express how... Disappointed I am right now.

Because it's not just the President. It's all the people who support, enable, and encourage him. 

I find the ones claiming to be Christian to be the most offensive, personally. (Turn the other cheek, anyone? If you sit in silence for 10 minutes and are honest with yourself, do you really think Jesus wants this? It's insulting to all the good Christians I respected and admired that these people claim to speak on behalf of them, and Jesus, and God.)

But really, all of them, no matter what their reasoning, are enabling this. 

So much for the rule of law. 

So much for principles. 

So much for truth, justice, and the American way. 

Apparently, for some of us, those things are as strong as tissue paper. 

God help us all. 

Odds and Ends

I've been reading that book on Stalin, and it brought up a bunch of other things that I decided to type out here... hoping to untangle the complex muddle.

As usual, there are about a million caveats to everything, and I'm only doing a superficial look at some pretty deep topics.

Guess it's a good thing I'm writing this in a semi-obscure corner of the internet. ;)

Okay... where was I?

So this history book was talking about some of the factions within Russia's revolutionary movement (i.e. Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks), as well as the cultural support for autocracy, and various other things that I really don't have the cultural context to understand. (Autocracy? Really? I don't see why you would dismiss the hundreds of years of history we have proving what a bad idea this is... but okay. Seems plenty of Americans today agree, given that they seem bound and determined to recreate a strong authoritarian figure with few checks and balances on their power. More fools they.)

Anyways. Lenin (and Stalin) seemed to support the idea of some sort of technocratic elite guiding the peasantry... which, honestly, is part of why far right and far left are sometimes not very different from each other. I mean, when you propose a strong central authority that 'knows better' than the ignorant masses... it's pretty much the same sort of system no matter what fancy labels you put on things. You just get a different group at the top of the heap. (Like the 'children's book' I keep mentioning, Hope for the Flowers.)

I say contradiction, because we were founded as a republic... with the belief that 'all men are created equal', and yet many of our Founding Fathers were slaveowners who clearly did not believe that lofty ideal. And we created a system where the masses could vote, except that we actually restricted voting rights to land-owning white men, and put in place the electoral college and Senate to help counterbalance the masses.

Do we believe that average citizens can make wise decisions, should have a say in their government, and should be represented by said government? Or do we really believe that there are people who 'know better', and should guide us to the 'right' decisions even when the 'ignorant masses' disagree?

Yes, I put single quotes around those things to highlight the phrases that generally embody an elitist attitude.

There are times when I get... well, both points of view, tbh. We - fallible human beings that we are - have a tendency to get into fads and things, and can sometimes be very foolish indeed. I don't think I even have to use political examples for this - just look at business, and the various fads that sweep through corporate America, like Lean Six Sigma. (Which is not to say the fads are bad, necessarily, but all too often businesses seem to jump on the bandwagon because that's what all the other cool businesses are doing, and they aren't actually doing the work to manage change effectively, so no matter how good these ideas are they become yet another 'check the box to keep the boss happy' kind of thing.) Or businesses decide to sell the physical assets they own, because that's what the cool accounting strategies say to do... and then some years later we can't get the addition or upgrade to our warehouse because now we're renting it from someone else, and that owner doesn't support doing so. (An oversimplification.)

Consider economic bubbles, and how every Christmas some toy is the latest craze. Tickle Me Elmo, anyone?

And yet, despite the craziness of humanity en masse, there are problems with letting a 'technocratic elite' make all the decisions.

First and foremost, the tendency to grow arrogant and dismissive of views that don't agree with yours. After all, you know better. It happens so much so that the Law of Unintended Consequences shows what a powerful force it can be. The tendency to live in a bubble, where you only see a narrow view of an issue, and thus have trouble coming up with real solutions.

Then there's all the usual problems of groupthink and whatnot - if your technocratic elite all go to the same sorts of schools, and all get trained to think the same way, then you don't have a very diverse body of thought... and tend to dismiss the out-of-the-box thinking that comes from those who don't have the same background.

Which almost inevitably seems to happen. I don't know why it is, but God (or evolution) seems to love putting talent and creativity in out-of-the-way places. So much so that I tend to think this is more firmly on the 'nurture' side of the nature-vs-nurture debate. As soon as one group gains control and manages to shunt out competition in one area, it stagnates and stultifies and some completely different area starts flourishing almost as a counterpoint. (i.e. Hollywood started as a place for creatives to make movies... then when it got locked down and commodified to the point where it became formulaic and less creative, we got the growth of indie films. YouTube... well, you have to wade through a lot of crap and mediocrity, but you can also find golden nuggets of creativity there. This is part of why I say that any time you hear complaints about a 'talent shortage' what you really have is a pipeline problem. We are bursting with talent and creativity, and if you struggle to find it you should take a long, hard look at your recruiting system.)

So... sometimes the people who study a topic really do know better, and sometimes they really don't. Which doesn't really help much, does it?

More and more, I keep thinking of something my brother said a long time ago - that the true virtue is wisdom. I forget what philosopher he was drawing on for that, and I'm sure I'm misremembering it, but there's a lot of truth to it. Wisdom is the difference between boldness and foolhardiness, caution and cowardice.

There is never going to be a perfect system. Whatever system you come up with, there will be flaws. And people who will try to exploit those flaws.

The system only works when the majority of people are wise enough to make it work, and to avoid those flaws. (And boy, oh boy, is there a lot of foolishness going around today... as people who really ought to know better are one by one dismantling all the checks and balances and various measures to keep the craziness in check.)

This whole debate is also, in many ways, similar to the debate over whether or not we elect politicians for their judgement or to implement our will.

To which I will say... yes.

Or rather, it is the interaction between the two, the debate as someone 'knowledgeable' tries to persuade others to their point of view (and succeeds or fails) that is important. We shouldn't blindly go with the masses when we truly think their wrong, and we also shouldn't blindly assume we know better and ignore the masses.

It should be a dialogue. And one in which we are open-minded, and continue to evaluate/assess our policies. (This ties back to some earlier posts on whether it's better to have a good plan, poorly executed... or a bad plan, well executed.)

I honestly don't like getting too caught up in any specific ideology, because all of them are short-hand for a complex and messy reality. If that particular way of looking at things is useful, great. If it isn't, try another. (In public policy we called it 'evidence-based practice'. I want what works, not what you've convinced yourself will work. And that again is a very superficial statement on a deep topic, because how do you decide what is a sign something is 'working' or not? Works for who? How?)

So anyways...

Stalin (and Lenin, who led the Bolsheviks initially) made a mistake, to my mind, by deciding that his technocratic elite knew better than the peasant masses. It meant that when the Bolsheviks came to power they also ruled as autocrats. I think. Still reading up on that, ofc.

Which is not to say that the Mensheviks were right, either.

Or rather, to bring in yet another complex subject -

It's a bit about how some change comes from the top down, and some comes from the bottom up...

And the most effective changes really do both. There's support from the top, and support from the bottom. If it's only from the top, it's like all those business fads I talked about earlier - people check the box and mouth the words, but drag their feet and continue to do things their own way... and just sort of wait for the people at the top to leave, or get tired and move on to a new best thing, or whatever.

And if it's from the bottom up, with no support from the top, then it generally doesn't get the support it needs and just makes people frustrated and cynical.

(This also, btw, shifting gears completely because it's my blog and I can do what I want... is part of why Trump has demonstrated what a horrible leader he is. Or maybe the difference between being a founder and taking over a large and complex organization as a CEO well after the organizations history has been established. You see, anybody who has ever taken a leadership position in the latter has had to deal with the sort of resistance I just described. There's organization history. An established way of doing things. And people are resistant to change. You have to convince them that the change you want to make really is for the better... and managing that change is a talent a great CEO will have.

All this talk about a 'deep state' is because Trump doesn't know how to deal with those sorts of problems. I mean... JFK had a fit - iirc, can't find the details online - because he wanted a sign for the CIA headquarters taken down and it took far more work than it should have to find someone in his own government who could get it done. These are the challenges you deal with in any sort of large-scale organization.

But Trump is labeling that sort of leadership challenge as 'traitors' and a 'deep state'... because he really, really, really sucks at leading in any sort of organization where he can't just rule by fiat.

Such a shame his supporters are willing to tear down any such obstacle to doing that. We fought a whole revolution against a king, and made it clear we don't like kings, and these guys are essentially trying to reinstall a de facto king. It's about as un-American as you can get.)

Anyways. Lenin and Stalin's belief in a top-down technocratic elite was wrong.

And I find myself wondering what would have happened if someone wiser had prevailed (and why does so much of this history seem like a horror story, where the worst decisions keep getting made, over and over again? Did someone put a curse on Russia? And why do I keep sensing parallels to our own history today, where I fear we will continue to get people making foolish decisions. I hope I'm wrong, because I don't really want to see what happens if the foolish powers-that-be don't wise up before it's too late.)