The 2nd Amendment, Considered

    In the latter years of the 1780's, in the time just after the guns stopped in the American Revolution, it soon became apparent to many men that the assembly of states under the Articles of Confederation was not working.  The lack of a Federal Government without any authority was leading rapidly to disaster, and, as several states were severely abusing the rights of others in matters of trade, a group of 12 delegates representing 5 states assembled at Annapolis to discuss a better way of handling interstate commerce. Most people, even those who claim to be students of American History, are ignorant of the import of this small assembly. I will not go into much detail here, but I do encourage readers to take the time to research the Annapolis Convention. It was the match that lit the fuse, and, for better or worse, the current crises of Government which we now face are ultimately solvable because these 12 men came together for a short 4 days in 1786.

    What I am about to say may cause some consternation to my conservative readers. Please bear with me, I promise, I have not fled the cause. The ultimate outcome of the events that started in Annapolis in 1786 was the Constitutional Convention. While I will be the first to say that a greater assemblage of political and philosophical thinkers has never come together, at least to my knowledge, they were not perfect, and they did not believe for a second that they created a perfect document. They created a constitution that was the best that could be assembled at the time. Now, here is where I am about to wade into treacherous water. We, as conservatives, need to quit focusing on what the "founders" wanted or intended. Honestly, 214 years after ratification, it is hard to impress people with arguments that what a group of rich, aristocratic white men intended matters. In short, it is not a defensible position. In fact, it is an argument that is not only easily brushed aside, but just as easily perverted. Witness Danny Glover's recent idiotic statements that the second amendment was added to protect slaveholders. This pathetic attempt to make the 2nd amendment into a race issue is nothing more than turning our own arguments on it's head.

    The founders realized at the outset of the union that the constitution was not perfect, and would need to be  changed to adapt to not only mistakes they may have made, but also to changing times. To do this, they provided for a very clear cut amendment process. It is not easy to amend the constitution, but it can be done, should there be a real need to do so. And that is what I now propose, in relation to the current gun control crisis.

    Based on polls that have been run recently, it is readily apparent that the majority of Americans are opposed to additional bans on weapons of the type that are currently legal. However, gun control advocates, continue to push there constitutionally questionable agendas based on the first part of the second amendment  the "A well regulated militia..." part.  This is dangerous ground we are walking on. We, as 2nd amendment advocates, continue to count on the courts to interpret the constitution, and this amendment in particular, the same way we do. To date, we have prevailed, but with Barack Obama in a position to soon be able to nominate more Supreme Court justices, just how tenable is this position? As we have seen in Roe V. Wade, the court is rarely willing to overturn a ruling once made, no matter how questionable it may be.

    So perhaps now is the time to seize control of the debate and propose a new, clearer constitutional amendment clearly outlining the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment does not require much legal mumbo jumbo. It should simply be "The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is further amended to strike the Militia clause, and is now to say simply, "The rights of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This will take away all the gun control advocates constitutional arguments, and I believe the votes are there to get this amendment passed. Thoughts?

Let's talk

                 Recently, I had one of those eye-opening moments where someone said something, and it was like a key turning in my head, unlocking a flood of thoughts that come together to form a very strong impression.  In this case, I was taking my sons to school, and there was an ad on the satellite radio for some program where parents with unruly kids can get their kids fixed in 12 hours or some other such junk.  My older son, who will soon be 15 said, “They don’t need a program, they need their butts kicked.”  It was at this point that a light bulb went off, and I realized that the key to everything I have been writing about lately can be summed up in one word: discipline. 

                The problem with the word discipline is that it has such a negative connotation.  I would not be surprised if the majority of you think of it only as synonymous with punishment.  That is the most common definition in use today, and because of that, most people are discipline averse, and therein lies the very heart of so many of the problems we face today.  We need to re-embrace the original sense of the word, which is to employ systematic instruction to train or to teach people to follow a particular code of conduct.  More importantly, discipline is the assertion of willpower over base desires.  Yet another synonym for discipline is self-control, and it is, in summary, the very act of self-control that we so gravely lack in our lives today.

                Discipline, instead of being looked at as a punishment, should be viewed in a positive light, as an action that improves us a people.  We need discipline in our lives.  We must see it not as the harsh beating that people may associate with it, but as the self-control of setting upon a path and following it through to the end.  Finding our own yellow brick road if you will.

                Over the course of the next few entries, I would like to explore the concept and tenets of discipline.  I want to look at recent history to see if we can determine where we left the path of self control and wandered off into the overgrowth of doing whatever feels good, regardless of the consequences, but to do this, I will need feedback and ideas.  Unlike previous posts where I pontificate on topics near and dear to me, I would really like to have a conversation with readers to get their ideas on this topic, so please, post your comments below. Thanks!  

Is Chivalry Dead?

                I poured my heart and soul into the last post, so I was not too sure that I would have too much else to give in regards to another post for a while.  Yet even as I was posting the last post, a Facebook comment from a coworker regarding the fact that, in her opinion, chivalry is dead, caused me to start contemplating my next entry.  As I have grown older, and hopefully wiser, I feel compelled to stand in the gap, and do some small part in the fight against the social and cultural degradation we seem to be experiencing in our world, and in our country.  We have gone down a slippery wet road to get where we are, and the climb back up will be difficult, but I believe it is a fight that individuals can win, should they desire to do so.  What then is the solution to our current morass of vulgarity and rudeness? Just as we didn’t get to this place through a massive cultural shift, but rather through a series of baby steps, each of which relaxed the social norms of polite society just a little more, so too will we have to take a series of baby steps to climb back up the hill. In spite of what the news media and politicians try to sell to the ignorant masses, there is no “big bang” solution to this problem.  There has not been a single big cause, but instead, a series of steps that have led to where we are today.  So why would they think a big solution is necessary?  Yet in typical knee jerk fashion, the answer is to throw billions of dollars away in pursuit of some government program that is destined to fail.

              

                The United States, from its very beginnings, has walked a razors edge when it comes to politeness.  By its very egalitarian nature, the country has struggled to maintain civility without obsequiousness.  When Washington first took his seat as the president, it should be noted that as he entered the congressional chambers, all the congressional representatives rose to their feet, in a gesture of politeness, but upon returning to their seats, they replaced their hats upon their heads, to indicate their equality.  We, as a country, have always battled the need to show respect with the stated belief that all men are created equal.  The problem begins when a confusion between equality and familiarity.  I may be equal in all parts to my doctor; still, unless we are friends, convention insists that I refer to this person as Dr. so and so.  While this norm is still in wide use, you must ask why then, do so many make the presumption that this is not necessary with others?  I must admit that that I find it a little rude to receive a phone call or email from a vendor that I do not know who immediately addresses me as Steve.  I do not think it necessary to take it to the level of Victorian convention, yet good manners does lead me to believe that until I have formally introduced myself, I, or anyone else, should be address by their formal name, not the familiar. Now, once I have introduced myself as Steve Lamb, I have given tacit approval for the use of my first name.  This is a simple example, but one that bears some thought.

                Yet another impolite trend that has taken hold is the use of profanity, by both sexes, in any circumstance.  I have, on occasion, been known to tell people not to use that type of language in front of my children.  On the baseball field, as an umpire, I will assure you it is one of the “P”’s that will get you ejected from a ballgame without discussion.  My mother used to say that people who used cuss words were uneducated, and did not know the adjectives that should be used, and resorted instead to profanity.  Profanity has been around forever, and there are times when it is perfectly acceptable to speak whatever words you want, but we should all be mindful of the time and place before using such language.  We should also not be afraid to tell someone to watch their mouth, particularly when children are present.  I promise, I am no angel here. I can weave profanity a sentence like a milliner weaves Venetian lace, but I do try hard, although I sometimes fail, to not do so when it would be inappropriate.

                There are many other things I could expound on, but I believe that we all know rudeness when we hear it. I would like to make just one more point, however.  In recent years, it has become quite fashionable to state that a person is a “straight shooter”, that “they tell you what they think”, or that with this or that person, “what you see is what you get”. Unfortunately, all this is really saying is that this person is trying, and mostly failing to hide rudeness with a veil of honesty.  You can tell the truth without being rude, and being rude does not make you a bigger or better person, it just makes you rude.

   

In  the end, we as individuals can do much to re-institute a polite society in America.  The simplest thing that anyone can do is to start making a conscientious effort to be polite yourself.  Most people over the age of forty have probably been taught what used to be called “manners”.  Nevertheless, we have slipped away from them.  Part of the problem is that we have evolved to put such a high value on casual behavior as to have the undesired effect of killing off the polite society that we should instead treasure.  As I stated earlier, I am not advocating a return to Victorian principles such as wearing tuxedos to dinner every night, although I do own my own tux, and wear it whenever I have an appropriate reason to do so.  Nevertheless, I am advocating, for example, simple things, such as keeping the elbows off the table.  That is only one example, and this is not meant to be an etiquette guide. There are wonderful sources of free information available to us all.  I personally am a huge fan of this web site: www.artofmanliness.com .  There are others as well, for men, women and children. I strongly recommend that you explore these for yourself.  To close, I leave you with this, politeness is a virtue and, as Benjamin Franklin once so famously said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, the have more need of masters.”. 

What Have We Done?

                I woke up this morning and turned the news on, only to hear of yet another pedophile’s arrest.  This particular piece of excrement was living in a travel trailer, and was found in possession of thousands of pornographic pictures of children, as well as a stash of little girl’s panties.  This is incredibly disturbing to me, and I feel so strongly about it that I am led to speak out about a number of points regarding this issue, and the impact it has on our society.  I think there are multiple issues at play here, and will be hard to cover it all. However, since it is so distasteful, I am going to try to wrap it up in one post, so this is a very long one.

                First, I must start with a statement about how I feel about these… I cannot use the word “people”, that would be too complementary, nor does “human”  work, so I will resort to calling them what they are, simply… predators.  I can think of justifiable reasons that a person may commit just about any crime.  I want to stress that I am not saying I agree with crime, or that I condone it in any way, but realistically, for example, a hungry person who steals something to eat, or a wife who runs down her husband when she catches him with another woman, are all examples that I think most people can at least understand.  It does not mean that their actions are right, or that I condone them, but I can see how they got to that place.  I cannot, though, in any stretch of the imagination, comprehend someone molesting a child.  Perhaps because my wife and I struggled for so long to have children, I am particularly defensive when it comes to children, but really, shouldn’t we all be?  These little angels represent the best of humanity.  They are where we all once were, and would probably like to return; innocent, trusting, happy, and carefree. Or that is where they should be, unless some worthless piece of rotten meat steals it from them. So I think I am pretty clear on where I stand in regards to child predators.  In my opinion, there is no cure, and if there ever was a crime that I could believe should be capital, it is this one.  At the least, I favor permanently removing the predator from the public, and permanently removing any sexual drivers from them as well. I have no mercy for them. But before I go further, I must tell you that just as with anything, there are multiple classes of predator in the group we call pedophiles.  First, throw oout the 19 year old boy having consensual sex with his 16 or 17 year old girlfriend. That is a different discussion for a different time. Furthermore, I do not intend to address the sociopathic predator. The John Wayne Gacy’s of the world. That is an entirely different class of animal, that can only be dealt with as you would with any dangerous animal. And I also think that many of the pedophiles from the Catholic Clergy, not all, but many, have a different set of factors that drove them there. These factors that can only be corrected by the hierarchy of the Church, not the people of this country.  I believe, realistically, that these predators, while making great headlines, are not the biggest group of pedophiles out there. The biggest group, and by its very size, the most dangerous, is the guy next door, the man who works in the cubicle next to you, the person that you would have never suspected. The Jerry Sandusky’s of the world. Just as with gun violence, the majority of killings are not perpetrated by mass murderers, but by career criminals, so it is with sexual abuse. It’s not renegade Catholic Priests or violent mass murderers who also abuse the children before killing them, it’s the perpetrator you never suspected. Luckily, I believe that there is something we as a society might be able to do to prevent these abusers from committing their crimes.  I believe that there are a large number of pedophiles who went over the a “moral cliff” who would not have, absent something to kick them over the edge, to take that leap into the abyss of depravity.

                So I  have to ask the questions. How did they get there? What synaptic misfire causes them to see a child as an object of desire? Is our culture doing something that encourages this behavior? If so, what? What should we be doing to discourage it? The media is all abuzz right now about gun violence, and how we have to stop the bloodshed, and all the gun control advocates keep pointing to the victims of Sandy Hook and Columbine, as well as other places, as justification for their prohibitive legislation. Yet where is the voice for THESE children? Taking the numbers from one of the most draconian gun control organizations, 5,740 children and teens were killed by guns in two years in the U.S. (2008 and 2009) (see http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf). At the same time, there were 86.7 and 87.2 million kids in the US in those two years, respectively. In the U.S. there are about 3.3 million reports of child abuse each year, of which, 9.2% are from sexual abuse (see http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics). So let’s do the math. That comes out to 326,700 children who are victims of sexual abuse in the U.S. each year. To compare with the gun control figures, you are comparing 653,400 children to 5,740. And worldwide, it is even worse. According to a study published in Clinical Psychology Review, 19.7 % of female children and 7.9 % of male children are sexually abused globally. Do you realize what that means? Almost 20% of the little girls in this world are victims. 20%! I have to ask, are our law makers really focusing on the right things? I don’t mean to turn this particular post into a second amendment rant, so I only want to add a point or two more.  Make no mistake, a child dying, for any reason, but particularly in a mass shooting such as Newtown, is tragic. I cannot comprehend the pain that the parents must feel.  Nevertheless, parents of children who were abused also feel the consequences, especially if the abuse was at the hands of someone they trusted, such as Jerry Sandusky.  And what about the victims themselves?  Now, I am about to make a statement that might cause me to be hated, but I would posit, for the children themselves, the scars and pain of sexual molestation that survivors carry are worse than the scars and pain that the shooting victims experienced.  No matter your faith practice, or lack thereof, no one can argue the finality of death.  These poor babies are gone, to Heaven, Paradise, to be reincarnated, or simply they have ceased to be, but regardless of your beliefs, their pain and suffering is over.  Not so for sexual abuse survivors.  They carry that for the rest of their lives.

                We have to start with how we have arrived at a time when this abuse has become so prevalent.  I’ve given it a lot of thought, both as a father, in a desire to protect my sons, and as a citizen who desires to protect our greatest resource, our children.  I believe there are a number of factors in play here. First, let me state that I know that pedophilia has always been an issue. I concede that point. I also concede that there is no way to completely end this horrendous crime, just as there is no way to end any crime completely, short of the extinction of mankind.  But I also believe firmly that this crime is becoming more and more prevalent in our society, and I feel called to speak out against a few of the factors that I are contributing to it. There are any number of contributors, but the ones that I hold most responsible are the pornography industry, the fashion industry, the internet, and of course, the entertainment industry in general.

                First, I believe pornography, and the industry around it, are the main culprits, particularly when the internet is employed as the primary delivery vehicle.  We are suffering from a pornography epidemic, and the problem is that the culprit is malicious, it builds upon itself.  Just as one can develop a tolerance for arsenic, so does a person develop a tolerance for pornography.  To make my point, let us look at history.  It is 2013.  In 1913 a woman exposing any part of her lower leg would be considered shocking, and very titillating to the men who were lucky enough to catch a glimpse.  Fast forward fifty years and Hugh Hefner is becoming rich exposing women’s breasts in a magazine.  Nothing else though.  Again, the men who took a peek were very happy to see it at the time, but after repeated exposure, it was not exciting anymore.  They needed more to arouse them.  By the time we get to the 1970s, there’s been a sexual revolution, and breast are not really that erotic anymore.  Cheryl Tiegs shows hers off in a wet swimsuit in Sports Illustrated.  Farah Fawcett never wears a bra, and has one of bestselling posters of all time to prove it.  What was shocking in the 50’s is now accepted openly.   So here come magazines like Hustler and Penthouse.  Now, it’s not just breasts.  In those magazines, the reader gets to see pubic hair!  Move along to the 1980s, and now that’s not enough, they have to see the vagina now! And now, everyone is getting home video machines, so now you can go in the back room of the local video store and rent a movie of people having sex.  If it’s a really graphic one, there might even be a group sex scene, because, come on!  Who’s it going to hurt! Enter the internet – now, you don’t have to even go embarrass yourself at the video store.  The internet offers at least the perception of anonymity, so there is no shame to hold you back.  Now, every single kink you may have ever entertained in a fantasy is there, yours to indulge in.  All you have to do is plug it into a search engine.  That’s where we are today.  Nothing seems to extreme.  People having sex?  Meh. I can see that on regular TV.  Want a little group or girl on girl?  Hell, HBO has that. The prurient mind needs a bigger kick now.  That no longer does it for him, or her, while this is a problem readily acknowledged in males, there are women who have this issue too. They need something more. Animals? Sure, Fetishes? No problem! Who’s it going to hurt? The problem is, as one of my closest friends likes to point out, it’s slippery slope.  Pretty soon, what was perverted 100, 50, 30, 20 even 10 years ago is now the norm.  Look at the popularity of the 50 Shades novels.  These are mainstream best sellers, yet deal with some of the kinkiest sex act imaginable.  Anais Nin would blush.  So what is next?  For the person with a sexual problem, too often the next step is of the edge of the cliff, into children.  Moreover, my biggest fear is, like so many other things that were once taboo, but are now considered normal, this will ultimately be deemed as ok, and we, as a society cannot let that happen.

                So what about the fashion industry? Think about the models they use. Most of the women modeling clothes have the figures of pre-pubescent boys. Really, how can any man find that attractive? They are even cutting their hair in short boyish haircuts. And on the subject of hair, there is a new trend emerging that initially I didn’t pick up on, but now, on reflection, disturbs me more than any other, and that is adults removing all their body hair. OK, I know that women have been shaving their underarms and legs since the 20’s. That’s a little different, as it is a visual thing. But now, men are shaving their chests, backs and legs. Why? To look like teenagers. Consider all the “Twilight Moms”. That is one really disturbing group. These are grown, often middle aged, women who are going crazy over adolescent boys. And the worst trend, the more I think about it, may be the rage of removing all the pubic hair. Both men and women are doing this. Now, I have nothing against being neat and trimmed, but complete removal? Other than trying to make their genitalia look like a child’s why would anyone do this? I am not saying that every woman with a Brazilian bikini wax is trying to indulge their partner’s pedophile fantasies. I think it is an erotic trend that people are seeing porn stars do, so they try it too, not realizing the underlying current of the trend. Question is, why are pornstars doing it? The short answer, so that they can look younger. As an experiment sometime, Google something like “teen sex” and see how many “barely 18” sights that come up.  Really? Barely 18? I remember 18. It wasn’t that great. When I was 18, 18 year old girls were hot, but I’m 46 now. No interest here. Yet they attempt maintain legality by passing off older (hopefully) models as “barely 18”. Really, you can say what you want, but all amounts to is another step in sexualizing children. These are all trends driven by a fashion industry, that is in turn driven by the need to always shock, because that shock factor is what brings fame, notoriety, and in the end, rewards.

                Now, to one of the biggest industries on the block, the entertainment industry. I have never seen such a collection of mercenary scumbags anywhere on earth that can compare with those in Hollywood. And Ironically, they have to unmitigated gall to criticize Wall Street? It almost brings me to a boiling point to even think about the hypocritical, self righteous, egotistical  megalomaniacs out there.  I don’t even know where to begin. Those Twilight Moms didn’t discover Jacob or whatever the other one’s name is by accident. It was well promoted. We were all hammered with pictures of these kids, standing there bare chested. Really, who ever heard of a hairless werewolf. But I digress. Across the range of entertainment, the industry has held their right to artistic freedom so dear as to threaten anything and everything that might disagree. Want to rile up a bunch of soccer moms with Taylor Lartner? Go for it. What can we do for the Dads? How about Hannah Montana’s new found penchant for going braless! That will get daddy riled up too. I have to say right now, I don’t care if she is technically an adult now. If I was Billy Ray Cyrus, we would be having a serious come to Jesus meeting. And do I need to go into all the actresses who now feel the need to flash there coochies so that you can see their wax jobs? It is really disturbing when you consider in light of the big picture.

                Yet no one is speaking out about this. Why? Are the perceived first amendment rights of pornographers more important than the rights of our children? Is the Supreme Court invented right to privacy more important? Where then, do we draw the line? I refuse to believe the philosophy that there are no moral absolutes. Morality is the essence of humanity. Certain basic tenets are absolute, regardless of faith, creed, or conviction. Killing another person in cold blood is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Torturing animals is wrong. And most assuredly, harming children, the most innocent, the most defenseless, in any way, from a rifle to taking inappropriate pictures, is WRONG. Is it because we no longer honer the aged, and are obsessed with eternal youth? Have we become so youth obsessed that we feel the only way to recapture our youth of the past is to harm the youth of today? I hope and pray that every one of you who reads this will have a couple of predictable reactions. First, I hope that the first thought, or rather, the first fact, that comes to your mind is that he is not talking about me. I would never do that to a child. Then, I hope that your next is agreement that there is a sickness that must be addressed. But most importantly, I hope that the third thing you discover in reading this, just as I have, is how we, the ones who protest our innocence, are, in our tacit acceptance of trends and behaviors that on the surface seem perfectly ok for consenting adults, are in reality enabling, if even passively, the moral justification of child abuse.  I honestly don’t have an amazing solution that has evaded everyone else to throw out that will fix this problem. Prohibition will not work. It never does. Just as banning semiautomatic weapons is not going to stop mass killings, neither will the banning of pornography result in the end of sexual abuse, particularly of children. But we, as the marketplace, have much more power than lawmakers anyway. We can choose what we spend money on, and the market will respond. If the market refuses to spend money on things that enable pedophiles to take that leap, then they will be deprived of them. And if even one child is spared isn’t it worth it?

                At this point, there are probably readers who are saying that I am off track, and that those things have no bearing on a pedophile’s behavior. I’ve heard these arguments before. Violent movies do not make people violent, right? It’s just a movie. Yes, and maybe porn doesn’t make people horny either. They just watch it for the fine acting and artistic quality. And those multimillion dollar 30 second commercials during the super bowl are done for fun. They are not intended in any way to influence human behavior.

                Look, I’m not a puritan. I am, as my wife will attest, a normal adult male. And because I am an adult heterosexual male, I do find adult females attractive. But not teenage girls, and I really can’t understand someone attracted to a prepubescent child. That is beyond me. God made beautiful creatures when he came out with women. All soft and round and curvy in the right spots. Teenagers and younger are like unripe fruit. Why would anyone want something that hasn’t matured yet? It makes no sense to me. It’s been many years since I was a child. I am a full grown adult. I have no desire to try to recapture my youth by chasing after something young enough to be my daughter. I think St. Paul said it better than anyone when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. KJV.  Perhaps we, as a society need to put away our childish things, and admit that doing without a few things that on the surface appear to be safe, in order to keep our children out of harm’s way. 

A Bad Conversationalist

    I will be the first to admit, as will anyone who knows me and is willing to be honest, that I don't do well in social situations.  Conversation is perhaps one of the most challenging things that I ever have to do. I know that may sound a little odd, but it is the truth. When I find myself in a social situation in which I am expected to talk to someone, I completely freeze up and generally struggle, for something, ANYTHING, to talk about.
 
     What really makes this bizarre in my case is that speaking in public does not cause me any problems. I have done presentations to large audiences a number of times, and not only do I like to do it, I humbly admit that I am quite good at it.  Particularly if the topic at hand is something I am passionate about. I have taught classes, given lectures, addressed large assemblies, and generally enjoyed getting up in front of crowds and pouring out my stuff with passion and conviction. So why can't I be just as forthcoming in a casual situation?

    This is not a minor problem. My inability to interact socially has cost me dearly over the years, in more ways than I probably realize. I am finally overcoming it, and I am surprised at the source of this new found inspiration. Recently, after years of thinking about it, and researching, I decided to take the final step, and petition an Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons lodge for the degrees of Freemasonry. I went into this expecting one thing and have, in such a short time, received something totally different, but so much better than I ever expected.

    You see, I expected to meet a group of men who I would be able to know and perhaps meet with for social reasons on occasion. I was attracted to the concept of guys getting together, without one of the two extremes that my usual (small) circle of friends seems to focus on. Now, before I continue, I want to say that I'm am walking on very, very thin ice here. I am almost afraid to go down this path, because I know that one misplaced word can have the completely unintentional consequence of offending one or more of the close friends that I hold so dear. So before I proceed, please, please understand that I have no intention of insult or injury to anyone in what I am about to write. I really mean this.

    As I said, my friends tend to come in two flavors - highly religious, or highly party motivated. I honestly am not 100% comfortable with either. I love them all, but I am always afraid of slipping up and embarrassing myself with my religious friends. You know, dropping that profane word at the wrong moment, or unthinkingly quoting a person who they feel is immoral. Worse yet would be to do something that they may see as wrong, and not even knowing it. There is a lot of stress there for me. And again, there is nothing wrong with them. This is the social anxiety I spoke of in the introduction coming to the surface. I'm actually pretty religious myself, but my personal faith is a hodge podge coming from many directions, including my Catholic upbringing, my own personal studies, my contacts with people of other faith walks, and many other factors.

    At the same time, I've never been 100% comfortable with my party crowd either. Again, I love them to death. But I'm not a drinker. No religious or moral conviction at play here, and I will have a drink, but it just isn't a big deal to me. Too many alcoholics in the family tree scares me, I have to admit, and I'm not crazy about the taste, especially beer. Hey, I don't like mustard either. Stop judging me. I also do not indulge in any other mind altering drugs, or tobacco. Tobacco, I do have an issue with, it stinks, and it killed my mother, my mother in law, my favorite uncle, and it causes me to have asthma attacks. But if you want to smoke, it's your lungs, not mine. I just politely request you don't smoke in my home. The rest of the drug scene is a "meh" to me. I've never tried them, don't have any interest in it. If it's your thing, it's your body, I don't care. Just don't try to drive or do something where you might hurt someone else. So when I get together with these folks, I worry that they think I'm trying to be a "saint", mainly because I've never hidden my faith, and that they won't want me around because they think I'm judging them. I'm not, but again, it's that social anxiety kicking in.

    So after saying all that, it probably sounds very strange that I enjoy being around people, just as long as I don't have to initiate a conversation. I also love to talk. If you have a conversation, and engage me in it, I can talk for hours. How neurotic is that? But back to the topic at hand, because I am rambling. I sought out the Freemasons for two reasons, one, they have a strict rule not to discuss politics or religion in the lodge. Sweet. That takes care of social anxiety problem number one. Secondly, going back to the 19th century, Masonic lodges in America do not allow alcohol. That eliminates problem 2! I may have to check these guys out, right? So I did, expecting to find a group of guys I could meet with every month or so to contribute to the community, and perhaps make some good contacts. I figure, if the conspiracy theorists are right, I might as well be on the right side. Who knows, maybe it will get me out of a speeding ticket one day. I really had no expectations beyond that.

    Was I ever wrong. What I found was a group of like minded men, from all walks of life, who sought to constantly improve themselves, and to always be there for each other. They didn't care about religion, although many are very faithful. They don't care about my politics, although many are very active politically. They don't care that I'm not a drinking man, although I'm sure a few of them may tip one back on occasion. What I found, much to my surprise and joy, was a group of men that I felt instantly comfortable with. I have no problem talking with them about a variety of topics. I feel no judgement, not that any of my other friends judge me, but that social anxiety was gone. I have found a home. This is what I have been looking for for 45 years. Friends and brothers who will listen, talk, and spend time with me as I am. All the while, making me a better man.

    Some misinformed people think Freemasonry is anti Christian, or a cult, or a political group bent on world domination. They could not be further from the truth. The Masons I have met may not all be Christians, but they live out Christian values better than many people who like to advertise their Christianity to the world. Remember what Jesus told us? That the greatest commandment was to "Love the Lord God with all your heart, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself." ? That is the essence of what I have found in the lodge. So if I seem to be very excited about it, I am.

    But you say that Mason's seem to be in positions of power? I say you are looking at it from the wrong angle. There have been many Masons who have become very powerful. Fourteen U.S. Presidents were Freemasons. I would posit that Masonry did in fact play a role in their success, but not for the reasons conspiracy theorists would claim. Masonry teaches us to be better men, to strive to be the best we can be, and to serve our communities and our fellow man. How can those lessons not help a man reach the highest levels of government? To be a successful leader, one must learn to be a successful servant. That is a fundamental fact. That fact is at the heart of Freemasonry. A good Freemason is by his very nature a servant. So it follows that many Masons will seek out positions of service. Look up that list of Presidents. Many of them are considered some of the best this country has ever had. That's not a coincidence.

    So back to my social anxiety issues - I know this post seems like quite a ramble through a lot of topics, but that is the heart of it. I am thrilled to find myself, after 46 years, finally overcoming this crippling issue. And I'm doing it without altering my brain chemistry, without resorting to mind altering drugs, and without following some self help guru's platitudes on winning friends and influencing people. (As a side note, I love good self help literature. I encourage all of my employees to read the great works, including Dale Carnegie, but at the same time, I am not a big proponent of Carnegie's teaching, not because he was wrong, per se, but because I think his teachings are too easily misread.) I did it by finding a group of brothers and letting them take me as I am, and helping me become who I want to be. I am only now taking the very first steps of this journey, and already, I have found so much to be thankful for. So to all my Masonic brothers - Thank you!

    And to all my other friends, on both sides of the spectrum. I still love you guys too! Probably more now than ever! And I hope that you will find me to be a better friend than ever. At least I hope I'm no longer the weird guy in the corner who never talks much. But if you do see me, don't hesitate to come talk to me! I will talk back, I promise.

A Line In The Sand

In the annals of History we have a story. This story is of a group of men who were willing to stand up for what they believed in, even if it meant losing everything they had, including their lives.  The story tells us that sometime between March 3^rd and 5^th, 1836, Colonel William Barrett Travis assembled his men at Mission San Antonio Valero, what we commonly call the Alamo.  As the story goes, when Santa Anna sent Col. Travis a letter demanding surrender, Travis assembled the men and explained that defeat was certain, then withdrew his army saber from its scabbard and drew a line in the dirt, asking all those who would stand with him to cross over. All but one, Moses Rose, elected to stay, fight, and ultimately die for what they believed in. Is the story true?  Who knows?  Moses Rose spent the rest of his life trying to live down the ignominy of being the “coward of the Alamo”, so he certainly would not verify the story.  Nevertheless, in the end, it really does not matter, truth or allegory, it makes a point that there comes a time when people must choose between being cowards, or standing up for what they believe in.

                My fellow Americans, we are at one of those moments now.  Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms is under the greatest attack in history. At times in our nation’s history other parts of the Bill of Rights have been attacked, and these attacks ultimately have been repelled but often at the costs of lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.  Just as there have been reporters who have justifiably gone to jail to protect their rights to free speech, just as Joseph Smith was a martyr to his right to practice his religion, just as Medgar Evers and so many others gave their lives for others freedom, we find ourselves again at a crossroads, where fear and predjudice meet to deprive honest citizens of their constitutional rights, and we must choose.

                My question to you is, is this your line?  I am finding that for me, it is.  I find myself researching very carefully companies and organizations, to see if they have a stated position on the 2^nd amendment.  I find myself losing longtime friends and acquaintances over this.  I have made drastic changes in my spiritual life. I have found my line in the sand.

                Because of this line, I have resigned a church council position I have held for several years.  I have disassociated myself, personally, with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of their call for strict gun control. In searching for a new church home, I have summarily rejected the United Methodist Church, The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, and even a return to the Roman Catholic Church, all because of their official positions calling for strict gun control. I am sure other churches have similar statements, these are the ones which I have found to date.  I reject these positions, and refuse to be associated with any of these organizations because of this issue. I do believe churches should always follow a policy of pursuing nonviolence.  I too pursue that policy.  That’s why I carry a gun, a .40 caliber violence deterrent works when all other options have failed.  To these churches, I ask, when Jesus was taken captive by the Romans in the garden, what happened?  Remember?  Peter drew his sword and sliced off a man’s ear.  Jesus then told him to put it away.  I want to put that in context.  At the time of Christ, the Roman Gladius, i.e. a short sword, was the most formidable individual weapon known to man. And here was Jesus’ right hand man carrying one.  Really no different that a group of guys going to a park for a prayer meeting, and one of them carrying an AR type rifle today.  And Peter deployed and used it.  Did Jesus chastise him for having it? No.  Think about it.  Swords are not easy to hide.  Jesus knew he had one.  More than likely, the other Apostles did as well.  Jesus did not try to take away the sword from Peter.  He merely told him to put it away, that it was not the time to use it.

                The question must be asked why Peter carried one in the first place.  While it isn’t written down anywhere, I don’t think it is too far of a leap to suggest that he had that sword to protect himself from thieves and other violent criminals.  He obviously felt the need to protect himself, and Jesus, from the Jewish authorities.  Keep in mind also, that  Judah, at time, was a province of Rome, and in less than 40 years, Jerusalem would be sacked and the Temple destroyed under the heal of an oppressive government. Two years after the destruction of the Temple, 960 brave Jewish freedom fighters would have their Alamo.  They would find their line in the sand at a place called Masada, and live forever in history as heroes.  How were the Jewish patriots able to fight the Roman’s, the most powerful army in history to that date?  They were able to, in no small part, because the Romans had been unable to disarm them.  I usually try to stay away from playing the “what if” game when dealing with history.  I am a trained and degreed Historian, and playing what if has always been something I attributed to amateurs.  However, the question must be asked, what if the Jews, the Gypsy’s, the Masons, the Slavs, and all those other groups would have had Mauser rifles in 1940?  What if the Students and Tiananmen Square could have fought back?  What if?  It’s not just about fighting back against criminals, although that is by far the most common use for personal arms, but it is also about checks and balances.  Remember those from High School Government?  Congress places checks and balances on the Executive, and Judiciary, and the Executive places checks and balances on the Judiciary and Congress, and the Judiciary places checks and balances on the Executive and Congress? They always left one group out.  And it is one that none of the founders would have forgotten.  The People.  The People place checks and balances on all branches of the government, and they use two tools to do it.  The first is the ballot box, and the second is an armed citizenry.  Take away that check and balance point, and you will throw the entire nation into turmoil, and set it on a path to destruction. 

                This then is the point that all gun control advocates fail to see.  The government, any government, when left unchecked, will ultimately become oppressive.  History has shown us this over and over again. I am not in any way calling for revolution or civil war here.  I love the United States of America.  I revere the fact that we have maintained a peaceful transition of power, without violence since the 1868 elections.  I hope and pray that we can maintain that for hundreds of more years to come.  Nevertheless, I maintain that the reason we can is because of the 2^nd amendment.  It is not about hunting, although I love to hunt.  I can effectively hunt using archery equipment.  It’s about protection, from both criminals and governments that mean to do me harm.  Peter did not carry that sword in hopes he would be able to sneak up on a rabbit and slit it’s throat.  He carried that sword to protect himself from criminals and thugs, both official ones and unofficial ones. Nothing has changed.  We still have that need.  If the criminals and thugs have swords, then I need at least a sword.  If they have AR type weapons with 30 round magazines, then I need the same.  Moreover, in obtaining and keeping them, I take upon my own shoulders the mantle of protecting not only myself, but you too.

It is time for a reality check.  Let us look at some numbers, shall we?  Mexico has very strict gun control, yet more murders by firearms  than many other countries.  In 2010 for example, Mexico had 11.14 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people.  And breaking those down even further, of those 11.14 deaths, 10.0 were homicide.  .67 were suicide, and .47 were unintentional.  Compared to the United States, with 10.2 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, but only 3.7 of those are homicides. 6.1 were suicides, and .2 were unintentional. So in the U.S. of those 10.2 deaths per 100k, realistically, removing every single firearm from existence would have prevented, at the most, 3.9 deaths per 100k. I base this on the belief, which I feel is well founded, that a suicidal person will find a way to kill themselves, one way or the other.  In addition, I stress that 3.9 is the most that might have been prevented.  Homicide was not invented with the firearm. Before firearms, there was knives, swords, bows, arrows, even rocks. If someone wants to do harm to another badly enough, they will find a way.

                I am not so callused as to believe that the events in Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, and Ft. Hood were not tragic.  I do not think any sane person would even attempt to refute that.  I do think it is striking that the common thread in each of these events was that these all took place in supposedly safe “gun free” locations.  No one has ever been protected by a cheap plastic sign from someone who is bent on hurting them.  That is reality.  It is not pretty, and it does not make us feel good, but that is the problem.  We, as a society and culture, have placed so much emphasis on feeling good and warm and snuggly and safe, that we have brought this on ourselves. It doesn’t make us feel good to have armed men and women roaming the halls of our schools to protect the children. After all it might upset their sensibilities.  It doesn’t make us feel good to identify people with obvious psychological problems, and remove them from society where they can hurt others, using a strait jacket if necessary.  It might hurt their feelings, and cause their parents anguish.  I don’t mean to be harsh, but really, how about the parents of the victims?  For those parents who have been faced with that choice, and made the right one, I commend them, but they are few and far between.  I know several families who have children that have demonstrated psychological issues.  In each and every case, they have made it a point to make sure dangerous tools, like firearms for example, were not in place were the child could obtain them  When it comes to Newtown in particular, I become very frustrated, because the fault lies with the mother.  She knew he was disturbed, yet she kept the weapons, and kept them in a place where he can get them.  And she paid the price for it.  The unfortunate thing is that so do 26 other people, but back to the topic at hand.  We do not want to take responsibility for our entertainment choices.  There’s no way 2.5 hours of shooting and blowing up everything in sight in a movie, or endless hours of Modern Warfare or Halo could incite a person to violence. The media doesn’t have that kind of influence over people’s behavior, right?  Then why do I have to sit through endless commercials every time I want to watch a TV show?  Are they trying to say that the 30 second commercial will influence my choices and behavior, but the gory slasher movie doesn’t?  I have to admit, I may not be the most sophisticated guy there is, but that sounds stupid to me. I could turn this into another entire blog post about personal and parental responsibility, but that will be for another time.

                                We have reached our Alamo.  Our Santa Anna today comes in the form of Diane Feinstein, Barack Obama, and Mike Bloomberg.  Our line has been drawn. Are you going to stand, or will you be the Moses Rose of this battle?  Will you give up your church, your friends, and if need be, your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor?  There is so much we can do.  We can write.  We can share this message with others.  We can refute their arguments with facts.  Throw your money and support behind organizations that are on your side.  Conversely, withdraw that support from organizations opposed to you. For this issue, that means supporting the NRA.  I am a life member.  You may not like everything they do, or the way they do it, but right now, they are the 800 pound gorilla standing between you and Senator Feinstein, so I suggest you give it a banana and let it do its thing.  Also, check with organizations you are associated with.  Do they reflect your values?  I found that many don’t.  Withdraw your support.  It may be painful.  It was for me, I loved the people I attended Church with, but I cannot support the ELCA.  As a sidebar, for those of you who are Lutheran, and are wondering, the Missouri Synod is out as a choice for me as well, based on their stand on an totally different issue.  When I withdrew from ALC, I cited personal reasons.  I didn’t want to engage in a politically charged debate with people I otherwise loved and cared for.  I now think I may have been wrong there, but that was before Newtown, and the renewed attacks on our rights.  Folks, Barak Obama has ordered that El Deguello be played. It is time to take a stand.  So what about you?  Has your line been drawn? 

Christmas and Glue

    It's about 6:30 on Christmas morning, and I am the only one up at my house. Because of family traditions that go back many years, the presents are all unwrapped, and all the family visiting is done for another year. I'm the only one up in our house, and this has given me some time to reflect on the past year, Christmas, and many other things.
    What is Christmas to you? Skeptics will tell you it's just a day that was arbitrarily picked to celebrate the birth of a child, and the day was perhaps picked to appease pagans who were already celebrating something else on this day. Perhaps that is the case. It's all conjecture. One of the fundamental rules of historical scholarship is that if it wasn't written down down by several independent sources, it didn't happen, so all of that is conjecture. My point though is that is really doesn't matter. 
    Christmas is more than a day to celebrate a birth. Christmas is more than a day to overeat. Christmas is more than a day to give and receive. Christmas is more than just a day to reconnect with family and friends. Yes it is all those things. But those aren't nearly as important as what Christmas really is. Christmas is glue. Christmas is a day in which for a short time anyway, the majority of mankind is united. It is a day, or perhaps a season, where we all come together and enjoy spending time together and being generous. It is a bonding agent that unites disparate materials together as one for a short time, and that is the real power of Christmas.  
    Among Christians, it is a short time in which we can put aside theological differences, which probably don't matter to much to Christ anyway, and be one in worship. It doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever flavor of Christian you may be, we all unite on this day. Non-Christians as well. Many Jews, Hindus, and Muslims still celebrate the spirit of the season, visiting, exchanging gifts and good tidings, and in general, embracing the true spirit of God, which is love. St. Paul said it best so many centuries ago in his letter to the Corinthians (13:13) "But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." God is Love, and, lest we ever forget that, which we often do, we have a few select days, among which, the greatest is Christmas, to remind us, and reunite us, in that overpowering love. 

Merry Christmas Everyone!