good letters

Are we capable of peace?

2007-09-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

Peace is no accident. It is the result of rational people choosing to value the future over the past. It requires a change to our accounting practices, so that we can count the cost of our safety. We have to choose to be good neighbors, to convince the community to stop hating us.

Each one of us is linked. If my brother's life is marred by tragedy, then my life is less for it. If my neighbor is a victim of violence, then my own good is diminished. And when a child I have never met or seen is hurt, or merely held down from becoming all that she can be, my peace and joy are reduced as well. We are all connected. This is what community means.

We cannot fight for peace. We can only fight to keep the violence somewhere else, for a time. But to achieve peace we have to put down our weapons and talk with our enemies. We have to pay for our crimes. We have to demand payment for the crimes committed against us, on equal and equitable terms. But redress of wrongs only covers past sins. We have to go further and talk about the present and the future.

How should we live within this community? That is not a question that we can answer in isolation. We cannot sit safe at home and dream up an answer that will work. We must engage the rest of the nations of the world in a way that has never been done. We must actually sit down together, talk and listen, and then implement significant changes in the way that we live.

Before that dialog takes place, we can only guess what the results will be. Probably the unintended consequences, in economic terms, will be bad. That is part of the cost of peace. The playing field will have to level out, and that means we will lose some of our elevated position.

True learning is painful. It requires us to admit our lack of knowledge. Sometimes our beloved teachers were wrong, and valuing the future requires us to abandon our sacred cows. It requires us to change. It often causes us to rebel and refuse, because it is painful and uncomfortable. This is especially true for professional ambassadors and politicians. We have to rotate through multiple decision makers on a regular basis, in order to filter out the mistakes and misconceptions of each individual person.

We will have to place restraints on our international companies. They will have to obey a higher standard in employment practices, environmental protection, and financial transparency. We will have to close the limiteb liability and jurisdictional loopholes that we have been using to protect our own interests. We will have to become sensitive to the fears and prejudices of our neighbors. This is the cost of peace.

Are we mature enough to pay the price? Do we have the discipline to do the hard thing because it is the right thing?

Barry Bonds

2007-07-23T05:46:00.000-07:00

Hank Aaron has 755 home runs. Most sports fans agree that this is the greatest record in sports.

Barry Bonds is close to breaking this record. I won't recount the evidence against him, but Barry is clearly guilty of using steroids to cheat. It's not certain he will ever be found guilty in a court of law. But he has definitely been found guilty in the court of public opinion.

The whole steroids mess is a major blow to Major League Baseball. The baseball-watching public just cares less about a game dominated by cheaters. And Barry Bonds is the poster-child of cheating baseball players.

If Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's record it will be a big nail in the coffin of the respectability of the sport. The sport won't likely die overnight. But it will be clear to everyone that the players, coaches, and management of baseball condone cheating, even at the highest levels.

But breaking the record is not guaranteed. If Barry cared more about the Game than himself, he would hit number 754, stop on home plate, remove his shoes, and walk away. That is all of the admission of guilt that we ever need. It is all of the penance that we ever need. Barry could enter the Hall of Fame as the second greatest hitter, and the greatest hitter of the asterisk era. And this is the only way that Barry gets off the field with his dignity.

If Barry steps up to the plate for a chance at number 755, the opposing pitcher should not throw the ball across the plate. Walk him. And continue to walk him until he retires.

Baseball has to wrestle with the steroids issue. So far all we have seen is a refusal to come to grips with the issue. If opposing pitchers give Barry Bonds the chance at 755, then they are condoning his cheating and complicit in his corruption of the sport. Once that record is broken it can't be undone.

Major League Baseball's marketing staff are hyping the breaking of the record. He'll hit 755 and 756, and it will be over.

How much better would it be to cover 40 (or so) games of Barry getting walked while on 754? Will baseball players stick to their decision to punish Barry for his steroids? Will someone break down and pitch to him? Will Barry accept his fate and retire? Or will Barry throw a fit each time he is walked? Whatever happens, it will be a spectacle.

Cauterize the wound and scream because it hurts. It will hurt.

I believe that it would be a huge step towards healing the steroids problem in baseball, if Barry were denied number 755. Players who are using steroids would understand that it really is condemned. It would go a long way towards renewing the publics' confidence in the sport.

Prerequisite

2006-05-01T18:15:00.000-07:00

You must love someone before you can effectively change them. This is true for individuals and groups of every size. You cannot force change from the outside. You must love and accept and draw close before you can affect.

This was the first genius of Christ. He loved before He challenged to change.

I love my country. I love my race. I love my culture, and my species. I will love you every step of the way. But I have changes that I wish to see happen.

Love means that I cannot wish and work for changes that are not really in your best interest. You and I may not agree about what your best interest is. But I believe that if you will listen you will come to agree with me. It is a process that we will have to work through together. It is not a process where I have to get my way in all things. Love means that I have to respect your free will.

Achieving Peace

2006-04-09T12:13:00.000-07:00

Let's assume for a moment that the goal is total peace among humans.

I'm going to go with the most extreme definition that I can think of:

"every single human is content to the point that they cannot be roused to commit an act of violence against any other human" *

That is an unbelievably high standard. Impossible to achieve. But if we got only part of the way towards that goal, wouldn't we be dramatically better off than if we achieved some lesser goal? Wouldn't any worthy goal be on the line towards that high standard?

So, if we were to set that high goal, what would we have to do to reach it?

The goal is from the perspective of each individual. So can we list out a series of minimum requirements for a person to achieve that zen level of contentment? Here's my first stab at the list:

Security. Everyone I care about, and all of our possessions, has to be physically secure.
Hope. I have to expect that tomorrow will be better than today, for everyone I care about.
Freedom. I have to be free to say and do what I want.
Quality of Life. I have to have more resources (money) today than I had yesterday; and I have to have reasonable expectation that tomorrow will be better yet.
Justice. I have to be convinced that if I am wronged I can get justice; and I will be genuinely compensated instead of just the lawyers making all of the money.
Life. Everyone I care about has to have their basic needs met: food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare.
Opportunity. I have to be treated completely fairly in all matters of contracts and trade--no discrimination on any grounds.
Ancient Hatreds. I have to be satisfied that all of the grievances committed against my ancestors and everyone I care about have been appropriately justified--compensated justly.

That is a short list, but it is massive in scope. That is appropriate for such a lofty goal. And so how can we achieve these things?

Can we build a central government vested with all power to plan and organize this result? Can we trust a benevolent dictator to provide this? Can we expect it to just happen by sheer dumb luck?

No.

So maybe we can design a social-political-economic system that will give us all of this. It's going to take lots of work. And it won't be easy.

I think that the social-political-economic system that we build will probably have to have all of these features:

Absolute Equality. Every person is treated absolutely equally in all matters of law, contract, and trade. No one is above the law, especially public servants. Citizens and non-citizens are held to the same standards.
Absolute Freedom. Every person is completely free in the spheres of religion, speech, meetings, vocation, contracts, and trade.
Fair and Honest Free Markets. Every person and every business is free to enter into any business that they choose and conduct their business with as little interference as possible. Several basic business laws will be enforced strictly, including "No lies or deceptions", "No coordination among competitors", "No monopolies", "No bribes or coercion of public officials."
Open Government. The government is not allowed to have secrets of any sort for any reason. All public work must be done in public.
Zero-Corruption Government Workers. Strong anti-corruption laws. Government-funded elections--no campaign contributions, slush funds, etc.
Limited Government. There are many powers that we simply have to deny the government, like making war and the ability to increase it's power.

My lists aren't near complete. But I think that the direction I am leading is valid and will actually work.

So where do we go from here?

* I omit violence in self-defense on purpose. Real peace at this level requires zero crime--war is just large-scale crime. Self-defense is a response to crime, and so becomes moot in the absence of crime. That applies in small scale, for an individual; and in large scale, for a nation.

Letter to the Church

2006-03-02T05:45:00.000-08:00

Christians sin. It is an uncomfortable truth. Those who know best the cost of sin still partake all too often.

Some people profess Christ and then continue in their lives of sin with no sign of remorse or change. Only God can judge, but my heart screams that they cannot really know the same Redeemer I know. And my own sins condemn me, too. So I am slow to judge and quick to forgive.

People who do not know Christ, who do not have His Holy Spirit, cannot help but sin. They have no choice until they find faith in Christ. We were all there once. I remember that trap. I thank God that I am free from it. And I have enough memory of it to feel sympathy for those who are still trapped.

The Law was powerless against sin. All it managed to do in 2000 years was to prove beyond any doubt that humans couldn't not sin. And so God sent a Savior to set us free from the power of sin. The power of sin is so great, and our training in sin is so thorough, that even after God's Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us. we continue some of our sins. It is a shame. It is our shame.

We who are free should be a light to those who are still trapped. But our light is often dim. Those who are still lost revel in their sin, as we all once did. And they resent us when we talk about their sin, as we all once resented it. And they cannot tell the difference between our condemnation of sin and our condemnation of them. If you think back you can probably remember feeling that way, too. I remember it. It hurt when people told me that I was a sinner. It hurt when people told me I was trapped and lost. I knew it already, but I didn't want to admit it. I was miserable, and I thought there was no solution to my misery. And I certainly didn't want to hear it from someone else. Do you remember? You need to remember.

And so the sin of the sinners keeps them from the dim little light that we manage to shine. And many of them remain lost. And to the extent that any of us know the heart of God, our hearts are broken.

When Christ walked among us He was known as a friend of sinners. No self-respecting believer today is known as a friend of sinners. Does that ever strike you as strange? We are supposed to remain unstained by the world. I'm not sure we can make much of an argument that we are accomplishing that task. But one way that we try to remain unstained by the world is by not being friendly with sinners--that much is clear.

Christ was fully God, and somehow that had to have something to do with how He managed to be a friend of sinners and yet remain sinless Himself. We are not fully God, and so we wouldn't be able to be too friendly with sinners without getting a little stained.

I wish Scripture had given us more private conversations between Christ and sinners. Maybe those were conversations where even the disciples had trouble following. We do have some snippets, and I'm paraphrasing here. "I am interested in you"-to Zaccheus. "I understand you better than you can imagine"-to the woman at the well. "God forgives you"-to just about everyone he healed. "Believe in Me"-to Nicodemus. "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more"-to the woman caught in adultery.

From just those snippets we can see how He could be described as a friend to sinners, and there are many more just like them. And I am left wondering if these are things that we could say to sinners today, without getting too stained by them.

In our world today there is one group of sinners that seems to feel especially put-upon by believers: homosexuals. More than any other group of sinners, they refuse to see any distinction between themselves and their sin. And it doesn't help that their particular sin happens to be pretty repulsive to most of us.

I think that our personal repulsion to homosexuality is causing us to over-react to that particular sin. And homosexuals take our reaction very personally because they see their sin as their identity. And those two dynamics work together to keep homosexuals from Christ. Does that break your heart? I believe that it breaks God's heart.

There is a movement today to pass laws and amendments forbidding same-sex marriage. Some of the laws are written in more positive terms, but the effect is the same. These laws are primarily supported by Christians. And the homosexuals know it. And they take it personally.

Let's face it, Christians and homosexuals don't talk together very often. Whether it is true or not, they think we hate them. Some people who claim to be Christians even say loudly that God hates homosexuals. But we know that is a bald-faced lie. And we do little to correct it. Most of the communication between homosexuals and Christians is indirect, like through the signals sent when we lobby for laws.

So we don't talk to them much. A few "crazies" tell them lies designed to keep them away. We don't really correct those lies. And the few indirect signals that we do send are all interpreted by them as "God hates you and we hate you." This is not a good evangelism strategy.

I think that we need to ask ourselves what is more important: maybe leading some homosexuals to faith in Christ or defending the sanctity of marriage, or whatever other purpose you might have for supporting these laws. If you decide, as I have, that cracking the door open to shed some light into the homosexual community is more important, then you will not be able to support these laws.

And if becoming a friend of homosexuals is our goal, with the hope of helping some of them find Christ, then these potential laws represent a golden opportunity to give that door a big shove. It will probably be misunderstood and not trusted. But it is clearly a step in the right direction.

I think that evangelical Christians should publicly repent and apologize for these marriage laws, and stop supporting them. I think that we should be humble and gentle in our apologies. And I think we should be clear that homosexuality is still a sin, but it is not unforgivable. I would propose that the apology go something like this:

"
God does not hate homosexuals. Christians do not hate homosexuals. We can't lie that most of us really don't like homosexuality. But God classifies homosexuality in the same list that He classifies all of the stuff that we used to do: sin. He forgave us of our sins. And He wants to forgive homosexuals.

After He forgave us He empowered us and commanded to stop our sinning. And when homosexuals come to faith in Christ we believe that He does the same for them. We understand that homosexuals hold their homosexuality very close to their personal identity. But drunks, prostitutes, adulterers, and all other manners of sinners feel their sin is their identity as well. We know because we were all there once. And letting go of that is scary and difficult. But God can be trusted. And the rewards are well worth the sacrifice.

We are dropping our support for the marriage laws and amendments. We haven't changed our minds about marriage being designed by God to be for a man and a woman. Nor have we changed our minds about the value of having both gender parents raising children. But we recognize that this world is an imperfect place. And the damage that these potential laws were doing was greater than the good that they might accomplish.

We are not just retreating to fight a different battle. We are trying to obey the example of our Savior who didn't fight battles at all. He just loved and accepted people first, and then only challenged them to change after they already had fallen in love with Him.

We are sorry that we have been so very mean to you for so long. Our God is perfect. But we are very slow to follow His lead sometimes. We have been too slow defending your human rights. We have been too silent defending your honor. We have been too phobic to show you our friendship. We were wrong. We commit to you that we will try to do better by you in the future. And we grant you full permission to throw it in our faces and correct us when we fail. We probably will fail again. But hopefully the failures will get smaller and less common, with your help.

You are welcome to come into our Churches and sit next to us in our pews. We aren't perfect. And there are certainly a few stubborn people here who are still not very accepting. But we will try to accept you as people and show you the kindness and compassion you deserve.

If you decide to put your faith in Christ then He will empower you with His Holy Spirit and work on you to stop your sinning. He did it to us. And He was right that the benefits are absolutely worth the sacrifice. But we understand that you have trouble believing that. We were skeptical, too.
"

I think that a statement like that will genuinely help lead some people towards Christ. Of course we have to then follow it up. Killing the marriage laws will only be the first step in a process of actually being compassionate and kind to lost people whom we feel little love for. But Christ did not call us to feel love. He called us to act in love.

Ironically enough, if God chooses to move among homosexuals and begin to really reveal Himself then we might actually accomplish the thing that we were hoping to do with the marriage laws: defend marriage. Because God will not change, and homosexuals who come to Christ will have to stop their sin. I hope for them that they can find sexual fulfillment with a spouse of a different gender. But some will undoubtedly end up struggling with celibacy. And others will refuse to give up their sin, and just reduce their dosage. Like some of us do with our sins. And that will be a little uncomfortable for most of us. But God did not call us to be comfortable, either.

Grace and Peace.

Innumeracy

2005-10-05T05:53:00.001-07:00

If you have not read Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, but down the internet and go to your local library or bookstore now. The internet will be here when you get back.

I read a copy from my library. I'm going to buy a copy to keep and re-read, and to share with my kids when they get a little older.

I do a lot of personnel management. One section of chapter 4 really struck a chord with me, and I think will make me a better manager. It will also certainly effect my plans for Democracy 2.0.

Paulos applies the probability theory of 'regression to norm' to human behavior. Regression to norm indicates that if there is some baseline average result (like an average number of units sold) and at any interval there is a high deviation from that average (like a particularly good or bad sales month), probably the following interval will see results that are closer to the average. For instance, if you are averaging 30 units sold per month, and you sell 60 this month, you are highly likely to sell less than 60 next month. That is the definition of "average", after all.

You can substitute trend for average, and the same thing occurs. If you normally sell 1 unit more each week than you did the previous week, and suddenly you hit a spike and sell 5 units more this week, then you will likely sell less than 5 additional units next month.

And it works backwards, so if you sell less than your trend one period, you will probably sell closer to your trend the following period. Once you know the average or trend, you can plot that probably your results will be closer to the trend after any large deviation.

It doesn't matter what the activity is. It doesn't matter what the underlying causes are, as long as there are no real structural changes that effect the environment. If you have an average or trend that you can track, then it will behave this way.

Now apply that to people; specifically to performance. If you are managing a person who averages X units over a certain period, and they have a markedly up or down period, they will probably perform something closer to their average the next period. If that weren't true then the "average" you thought you were looking at really wasn't, or there was some environmental change that you didn't recognize.

But you are saying, "what if they just got better?"

Learning curve

Standard deviation

Trend line

Praise and Punishment

"behavior is most likely to improve after punishment and to deteriorate after reward. Consequently, the human condition is such that ... one is most often rewarded for punishing others, and most often punished for rewarding them." researchers Tversky & Kahneman

What to do? Recognize the trends and standard deviations. Manage for behavior changes that carry the person up the learning curve--change the trend.

Al Queda

2005-10-05T05:53:00.000-07:00

Al Queda has already lost

Al Queda contains the seeds of its own destruction. It requires that people choose to give up their freedom and accept bondage to its radical Islamic clerics. There is a finite number of people who will make that choice. And then Al Queda will starve of followers.

I believe that Al Queda has already lost because it cannot ultimately recruit enough followers to its regime of oppression. I believe that all that really remains to be determined in this struggle is how many people will die before Al Queda burns out.

Therefore the correct strategy is not to kill the current members. In fact hunting them down and killing them is actually detrimental to our best strategy. The correct strategy is to deny Al Queda new recruits. We do that by making Al Queda irrelevant, not martyrs. Our shortest path to victory is to suck up all of the recruits and supporters--denying them to Al Queda.

This is something that liberal free-market democracies should excel at. Empowering people over government is the primary function of liberal free-market democracies. Historically these types of governments have had a hard time keeping people out. Immigrats by the millions pour out of oppressive regimes and in to liberal free-market democracies.

Why does this current conflict seem to be ending that trend? I believe that there are two big reasons why liberal free-market democracy is less appealing to the oppressed right now, during this conflict.

1) Al Queda invited us to play the game their way, and we foolishly accepted. The strength of democracy is that the people are free. And yet by invading countries and forcing regime changes we have been tricked into exerting control. So we are asking people in those countries to accept control from America as opposed to control from some local faction. That is a foolish choice. We need to turn the tables and set these people free--actually free and not controlled by us.

2) There are 2 wars being waged. The first is the shooting war. We see that on our TV news. Guys with guns and bombs kill other guys with guns and bombs. We are fighting that war full tilt. But the second war is a public relations war for the hearts and minds of young Islamic men. And we aren't engaged in that war at all. That is the battle for recruits, and Al Queda is currently winning. But they are only winning because we are not currently paying attention to that war. There has never been a greater public relations machine invented than free market democracy. We just have to shift gears and start fighting the important battle.

At Bastogne, Patton realized that if he could deny the German Panzer tanks of their fuel, then he wouldn't have to face the Panzers in battle. Young Islamic recurits are the fuel of Al Queda. If we are to win then we have to keep those recruits out of the shooting battle. We can't kill or capture enough people to accomplish that mission. We have to engage them mentally and win them over.
Al Queda is not a democracy. It doesn't operate like a democracy. Bin Laden has a few advisors, but they must fear for their lives constantly. Not because we are gunning for them. But because if they anger Bin Laden then he will have them killed. Those advisors are not free to speak their minds. There are only a small handful of minds planning strategy for Al Queda. They may be pretty good, but they are severely hamstrung by their lack of freedom.

America is a democracy. George Bush is in power now, but not for too much longer. In a few years we will have to elect another leader. And we will tell that leader what we want done, and how we want it done. And while our political process has some very serious flaws, a lack of dissenting opinions is not one of those flaws. Every one of us will second guess George Bush, and every one of us will offer our alternate suggestions. The vast majority of those suggestions will be foolish. But a few will be great. One or two will be truly brilliant. This is the secret strength of democracy--billions of minds working on the important problems together.

Al Queda literally is facing a one-against-billions situation. Bin Laden literally has to out-think every single one of us. And all of us together only have to out-think him alone. This is a tremendous advantage for us.

We have laws and processes for peaceful regime change. We call them elections. And while they are not perfect, we rarely commit acts of mass genocide to control the outcome. These elections, and the public opinion polls that mimic them, allow our democracies to grow, change, and adapt in ways that Al Queda simply cannot. When the war starts to go really bad for Al Queda, they will start attempting to kill Bin Laden. The Germans tried it at the end of World War II because they couldn't say to Hitler, "that was a mistake". Because Al Queda is not a democracy Bin Laden will have to die to make way for a new leader to implement any significant change in strategy.
Bin Laden is the king, to use our western terminology for it. In our western history men have fought and died in service to their king. That is the nature of a kingdom, where a king rules. But we know that if you give those same men who were willing to die for their king an opportunity to become their own kings, then they will take that opportunity. That is a fundamental truth that Al Queda simply cannot change: If given a choice, each man will choose to free himself of the tyrany of servitude and be his own king.

Therefore, the short path to victory is to:
A. Immediately end the hunt for Al Queda.
B. Immediately end as much of the bloodshed as we possibly can.
C. Start marketing and selling liberal free-market democracy to young Islamics.
D. Help democracies succeed in Islamic lands.

A. Immediately end the hunt for Al Queda.
Yes, they are our enemies. Yes they ordered the deaths of American citizens. But we have to accept the fact that they got away during the few weeks when we had an opportunity to kill them without making them martyrs. Now they are almost more dangerous dead than they are alive. So we have to isolate them and wait for them to kill themselves. It is not an easy decision to make. But it is the decision that will cost the fewest additional lives.

B. Immediately end as much of the bloodshed as we possibly can.
Every bullet that we fire is another opportunity for Al Queda to recruit. So we order our troops to stand down and not fire unless fired upon; and then only if they were 100% sure that there will be no civilian casualties. After that change takes effect, then we can start the marketing campaign.

C. Start marketing and selling liberal free-market democracy to young Islamics.
We can market and sell anything. The product here is liberal free-market democracy. The target audience is young Islamic men and women. Go.

I would start with explaining our view of the war in Iraq:

You were hostages and human shields. As such, some of you were killed when we came in to set you free. If we could have reduced the innocent deaths, we would have. More of you would have died if we had not invaded. And we are working hard to help you establish a free government where you will no longer be in danger. Sadam laid a trap. He hid his armies and chose to let them fight guerilla warfare after we were in place rather than keeping us out. It was the strategy that put you in danger for the longest. And we walked right into it. And now we are walking right out of it. We are going to keep enough of our armies here to make sure that you are not invaded by Iran before your government can get its own army established. And if anyone here in Iraq gathers enough power to threaten to derail the establishment of a free government, then we will oppose them for you. We will accept nothing less than your freedom. We won't even accept you as our slaves. We have no slaves, only friends.

The good news for this marketing assignment is that liberal free-market democracy will actually improve the lifespan, living conditions, personal happiness, opportunities for improvement, and just about any other social measurement that you care to toss out. It is an easy sell. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of people who risk their lives to sneak in to the US every year. No, literally ask them. Write down what they say and send that to the yound Islamic men. Seriously. This is maybe the one marketing job in history that telling the whole truth will abosolutely work. Democracy has warts. Tell them about the warts, and help them understand that their government will be in their hands, and they can fix those warts and show us how superior they are.

Muslim women are little more than abject slaves. So convincing them that their lives will be better should be a cinch. It should be the easiest sell in history.

The bad news is that part of accepting liberal democracy is granting ancient enemies freedom of speech. That will be a hard sell.

D. Help democracies succeed in Islamic lands.
The heart of a stable free-market democracy is the middle-class. The middle class must have secure property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and movement, freedom of worship, mailing addresses, the right to work, the right to form businesses, basic security from crime and violence, and a just court system to work disputes equitably and quickly. That is a tall order. But that really is all that a government needs to do. Other than that government has to just get out of the way. But we haven't done an adequate job of explaining that formula to the people who need it most.

We can't tie up their natural resources (oil) in long-term contracts with our companies and government management. We have to privatize their oil industry, give every citizen shares, let them form smaller companies to specialize in the different aspects of drilling, pumping, refining, and distributing; then let them compete. We have to let them become entrepeneurs and start owning their own companies and controlling their own destinies.

Every bit of control that we maintain will undermine their ability to succeed. So sweetheart contracts have to end. This has to be about them.

We Believe

2005-09-11T09:32:00.001-07:00

We Believe Liberal Democracy is the best known system of government, and yet it is still imperfect.

Free-Market Capitalism is the only economic system that has any chance of delivering prosperity to all.

Justice is the only viable foundation for human society.

Peace is the ultimate goal of all we do; not a shallow peace of oppression, but a genuine peace from equlity and lack of conflict.

No one can set free any other person. Each human is responsible for their own freedom.

It is a noble and worthy cause to educate people about the path to peace through justice, freedom, equality, and cooperation.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Democracy 2.0: the Goal

2005-09-11T09:32:00.000-07:00

Imagine a perfect human society. What does it look like?

(really think about it for a minute)

How many people do you think would agree with you on this? If you think that every single living person would agree with you then you are deluded. Maybe most of them would agree with you IF they knew everything you know about economics, politics, government, etc. But they don't know what you know. And you don't know what they know.

So how could you possibly agree on the form and structure of a perfect human society? And, more importantly, if that unknown perfect human society is the undescribed goal of all of our current work, how can you expect to agree with anyone on the changes that should be made today to the current system to reach that goal.

If a doctor did not know what a healthy person should look like, how could she prescribe a cure for what ails them?

We do not really know what goal we are striving after. We may think we know that we want more or less of justice, mercy, freedom, safety, etc. But we cannot even articulate what the right amount is.

Democracy 2.0 is an attempt to define the goal that we are all striving for. I want to lay it all out, expose every assumption, and define every trade-off. Then we can debate it, separate from today's scandals. With enough time and discussion we should be able to design a system that we can all endorse as the best overall system that we are capable of dreaming up. We should be able to clearly define the places where the system will accept tweaks and changes that experience will require. In fact the system must be able to be greatly modified from within, if it is to stand the test of time.

Then, and only then, can we have an intelligent discussion about changes to the current system.

We need to decide where we are going before we make any more course changes.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Why do bad things happen to good and bad people?

2005-09-11T09:31:00.000-07:00

Genesis 50:18-20
"Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, "Behold, we are your servants." But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid, for am I in God's place? And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

If you don't believe in a God who directs the course of human history, then you can only attribute Joseph's wisdom to luck and good attitude. If you believe in Joseph's God, then you see the wisdom of ages, that He works in every situation for the good of those who love him.

Joseph was beaten and sold in to slavery to prepare the way for his family's salvation in egypt during the coming drought that only God could foresee. When did Joseph decide that God intended good to come out of this horrible situation. When did he decide to forgive his brothers.

2 cor 1:3-5

eph 2:10

matt 25:31-46

"You are best equipped to minister by being a survivor" Matt Cassidy

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

The lesson of Cimon and Pericles

2005-09-11T09:24:00.000-07:00

Both virtuous men. Both generous men who looked after the poor and needy. And yet they lived in a system where the principle way in which a person could distinguish himself was to oppose someone. So Pericles had to work for the banishment of Cimon.

How can we build a system where this type of personal competition was not undermining the public good?

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Clouds

2005-08-19T09:22:00.000-07:00

Clouds float by.

They do not care about the blood you bleed or your secret tears. Later clouds will unleash their rain gently or violently and clean away your mess. But neither do those clouds care for you.

Whether you are good or bad, the clouds will simply float by or rain as they do.

And yet the earth is watered. Many have individual complaints. But the overall system has worked exceedingly well for a very long time.

There is something quite zen about that. There is some deep wisdom that I can only grasp at. That part of the system is bigger than any of us, or even all of us. The clouds don't care what we want or what we need or what we do. They just do their thing and leave us to adjust. And yet we all see the clouds and feel the rain.

I am not sure that government can be that independent from the day-to-day of human concerns. But I believe that de Tocqueville was right when he feared that democrcy would make government too much a slave to the whims and desires of the little people.

Government is like a giant bulldozer. Rarely does an individual person have a problem that can be solved by a giant bulldozer. People generally have hammer and screwdriver-sized problems. and goverment is not the right tool to fix those problems. At least not federal government. Maybe local government should be a hammer or a screwdriver. Maybe.

But it is too much to ask one government agency to tackle both international peace, redistribution of income, equitable use of resources, arguments between political parties, graft, and corruption. We only ensure that it will do nothing well by asking it to do too much and be too involved in our little problems.

Democracy 2.0 will probably need to have more branches of government that are each directly responsible to the people. I am not yet sure, but I am starting to think that the only branches of government that are not directly responsible to the people should be the branches that directly interact with the people. The purpose of this distinction is to avoid just the corruption that de Tocquevile predicted. If an incumbent politician is in charge of handing out aid to the poor, it is too easy for him to buy votes by being overly generous. The people who hand out aid to the poor should be caring and generous. But they should not be compensated based upon how much they give away. It is a form of separation of power. If we give ourselves more power, then we need to check ourselves against abuses of that power.

If the clouds heeded our cries there would be chaos. Would life on Earth survive? I suspect not. I think that they have to ignore us in order to keep us alive. Are we willing to learn the lesson and apply it? Does the lesson apply here?

I think the lesson applies. I am not sure if we have the self control to apply it. I am still thinking about it.

What do you think?

Democracy 2.0

2005-08-09T08:11:00.000-07:00

The house is in need of repairs. Everyone agrees on that. But no one is really in charge of the overall repair project. So everyone has called their favorite handyman to fix the place.

Plumbers are moving plumbing. Carpenters are replacing woodwork and moving walls. Painters are changing the wall colors. Electricians are working on the wiring. And masons are changing out some stonework. But nobody happened to notice the problems with the foundation.

Does this project have any chance of success? No. This project is clearly just a money pit. Which is not such a bad thing if you are a contractor getting paid by the hour. But I'm one of the home-owners, and I want all of these contractors to get out of my house and my pocket.

Imagine a perfect human society. What does it look like?

(really think about it for a minute)

So how could we all possibly agree on the form and structure of a perfect human society? And, more importantly, if that unknown perfect human society is the undescribed goal of all of our current work, how can you expect to agree with anyone on the changes that should be made today to reach that goal?

If a doctor did not know what a healthy person should look like, how could she prescribe a cure for what ails them? If contractors are not all working from a single set of blueprints and plans, how can they finish repairing a house?

We do not really know what goal we are striving after. We may think we know that we want more or less of justice, mercy, freedom, safety, etc. But we cannot even articulate what the right amount is. We have no plans for what the finished house looks like.

Democracy 2.0 is an attempt to define the goal that we are all striving for. I want to lay it all out, expose every assumption, and define every trade-off. Then we can all debate it, separate from today's arguments and scandals. With enough time and discussion we should be able to design a system that we can all endorse. We should be able to clearly define the places where the system will accept tweaks and changes that experience will require. I suspect that the new system will need to be able to be greatly modified from within, if it is to stand the test of time.

Then, and only then, can we have an intelligent discussion about changes to the current system.

We need to decide what this house should look like before we rip out any more walls or install any more plumbing. We need to decide where we are going before we make any more course changes. I call that goal "Democracy 2.0" because I believe that it will end up looking more like modern free-market democracy than any other known system.

And I'm not very good at naming things. So I expect someone to give it a better name. This is not something that I am going to patent and claim ownership of. I need your input. And you need mine. And we are going to have to work on it until we agree.

Who I Am

2005-08-05T20:17:00.000-07:00

What is the measure of a man?

Am I the sum of my inputs? Or the summary of my output?

Is it my heart that defines me? Or my mouth?

I reluctantly agree with Paul that "what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."1 And with James that "the tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body."2 And with the writers of ancient wisdom:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.3
Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.4
The poison of vipers is on their lips.
Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.6
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
and the way of peace they do not know.7
There is no fear of God before their eyes."8, 9

And yet I hope.

I am twisted and broken and grasping and yet I hope.

Who am I that I carry within myself this contradiction, the knowledge of our complete failure buoyed by a perfect hope?

Hope is a decision. Much like Love is a choice. I choose to hope.

I want to see a tomorrow that is brighter than today. And yet every living person is a fountain of selfishness and evil, and I am the worst. There is no rational basis for expecting a brighter future. So I have nothing to hold on to except hope. It is a rational choice to believe in the irrational.

Without hope there would be no point in taking another breath. And so with every breath I hope.

I am not hoping for Divine intervention. I am not hoping for a miraculous perfection of the human spirit. I am hoping for a social and economic system organized such that it is in each person's best interest to behave himself. That is all I can hope for.

I see the world that we have. And I see that we very nearly have the power to design our own society as we see fit. I hope that we have the communal wisdom to distrust ourselves and build a society based on justice.

I am the very personification of hope for justice.

-Aristides

1 Romans 7:15
2 James 3:6
3 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20
4 Psalm 5:9
5 Psalm 140:3
6 Psalm 10:7
7 Isaiah 59:7-8
8 Psalm 36:1
9 Romans 3: 10-18

Help Me Find Water

2005-08-02T15:33:00.000-07:00

In the real world I have a real job. That real job even looks good on my traditional resume. And although I'm relatively successful, I'm miserable--a fish out of water.

Can you help me find water?

I am utterly convinced that there are reasonable solutions to the largest and most important questions facing our society: inequality, injustice, and corruption. I believe that genuine lasting peace among humans is possible; and solving those problems is the only path to that peace. I see the puzzle. I understand many of the pieces. I can feel the presence of a solution, even though I can't quite map it all out yet.

My pen name gives away my ancient hero. My modern hero is Hernando de Soto.

I have visited both extremes--liberal and conservative--and found them both lacking. I've read Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Plutarch, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Friederich Hayek, Alexis de Tocqueville, Samuel Huntington, Desmond Tutu, John Mueller, Richard Pipes, Mancur Olson, Richard Epstein, Thomas Sowell, Amy Goodman, Amy Chua, John Perkins, and Thomas Barnett. I am not afraid of any of these people, but I am not willing to be constrained to follow any of them. I expect the eventual solution to prove to be quite moderate, in current American political terms--taking good ideas from anyone willing to speak up.

I don't expect to solve the problem by myself. My greatest dream is only to help map out the solution.

I have researched some places where I might fit in and get to work on these problems. Think Tanks, Policy Advocacy Centers, and the like seem to be the most obvious choice. But I am wise enough to know that most of them are de facto ruled by the political interests of their financial supporters. Maybe you can help me find an open-minded place that will consider a non-traditional applicant.

I would love to go back to school and get a PHD in History, Economics, or Political Science. Then I could approach these places, or get approached, in the traditional manner. But I have a growing family to support. I am well paid now, but not well enough to take the time off for a second college education. And my job demands too many hours to attend night school or even take correspondence courses. So I will have to approach them as I am. Whoever they are.

I expect to relocate.

If you are interested in solving these problems, then I ask for your help. I am a real person with a real name and a real resume posted elsewhere on the web. If you know someone who knows someone, or if you have a lead or idea for me, please contact me at trying2bgood(at)gmail.com.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

A Little Sympathy

2005-07-21T08:16:00.000-07:00

It is easier to curse the darkness than to invent the electric lightbulb. It is easier to complain than act. There is value in complaining. It gets everyone's problems aired, and problems that are not known cannot be fixed. It seems to me that the complaining is being taken too far in certain circles and being excluded from others.

I hear the complaints. I am logging them in my memory and writing them down so I can ensure that my plans address them. But don't expect to see me crying and weeping with the victims. That simply is not in my emotional make-up. Someday soon you can ask my spouse for confirmation. I am a little worried about the stories you will hear--all of them true, just painful for me.

Please do not mistake my cold exterior for a lack of caring. I care too deeply. But my emotions are in check under the service of my reason. The fires of my hatred for injustuce and my compassion for the downtrodden are consciously kept on a low and steady burn. The flames may appear small, but they will not be extinguished while there is life in this body.

Do not mistake periods of silence for loss of interest. I have much work to do that does not involve writing you these letters. I look forward to the day when we can truly work on this together, and not be separated like this. But I cannot get there until my preparations are done. So I will continue working; still listening and learning. You have my sympathy, and my love.

-Aristides

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Kindness

2005-06-26T19:17:00.000-07:00

Every child is born capable of selfishness. Every man, woman, boy, and girl is capable of great acts of crasping and clinging. There is no greatness in one who is accomplished at collecting. It is to be expected, and not worthy of glory, that a person can accumulate wealth.

If you are interested in greatness then you must learn to give.

The measure of a person's greatness is in both the amount that they give and the amount that the recipient is different from the giver.

It is only a little goodness for a rich father to give small gifts to his beloved son. It is a greater good for a poor woman to give the same small gift to a stranger. It is even a greater good for a rich person to give lavishly to his enemies.

We need to learn to lavish our kindness upon those who least deserve it and who least like us. We cannot fight to achieve lasting peace. We can only give, abundantly, freely.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Forgiveness

2005-06-26T19:14:00.000-07:00

I choose to no longer be bound by the mistakes of your past.

Relentless

2005-06-19T09:44:00.000-07:00

Love is found more in the things we have given up than in the things that we have kept.*

Power is found more in the things that we have given than in the things that we have kept.

A man whom I greatly respect once put his arm around me, hugged me close, and said to me, "I am convinced in the Lord that He has great and mighty things planned for you to do." That blessing has haunted my mediocrity.
I sometimes ask who I am. I sometimes wonder if I have anything to give. I don't think I am a great man. But I do not think I will give up.

Read this at my funeral, and ask me if I persevered.

*Rich Mullins

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Powerlessness

2005-06-16T14:25:00.000-07:00

The current world socio-economic system is a power-over system. That is the tune that is playing, and everyone is dancing to it. I want to change the tune.

As long as somebody is in power, somebody else is powerless. And it is exactly that powerlessness that fuels the fight against the abuses of power. We can't stop the fighting until we give up our power. But without power, how do we stop the fighting?

I'm old enough to have had a few jobs. In one of those jobs I was stuck trying to manage a guy who was more bull-headed than me. For various reasons I couldn't fire him. And he knew that. And he refused to do anything that I asked or told him to do. I was stuck, and almost lost my job over my inability to get him to change.

Instead of firing me right off, my boss brought in a board member of our company to evaluate me on why I was ineffective. He immediately recognized my problem, and he had a solution. In a situation where I had no real power, I had influence.

Instead of pushing the hard-head away, my new mwntor recommended that I bring him in closer. We had lunch. We got to know each other. I found out about the pressure he was under. He found out what pressure I was under. We came to understand each other. He didn't want official responsibility, so I made him the unofficial assistant manager. We has regular leadership team meetings, just he and I. He got to be the hero for both improving and implementing my crazy ideas. And I got to keep my job, because along the way he had really joined the team and changed his behavior.

I learned then that there was another way to influence someone, other than exerting power over them. My intentions genuinely were for the good, so I was able to bring him in and empower him to solve my problem for me. I didn't have to force him to change. I changed his environment and allowed him to change.

This same process can work for nations. It is slow, but the results are more sure.

We have to set aside our own agenda, meet with the outsiders, and form a new shared agenda. We have to give up on power, if we are ever going to accomplish the peace that we want.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

Fairness

2005-06-16T05:23:00.000-07:00

Think for a minute about the world around you. Can you support your family? Can you protect your family? Is your voice heard?

If you answered 'no' to most of those questions then you would have a legitimate complaint. It would be perfectly reasonable for you to oppose the power structures around you and push for change.

Most of the people outside of the western world answer 'no' to all three of those questions.

Think about that for a minute. They are having an extraordinarily difficult time providing for their families. They cannot protect their families. And their voices are not being heard.

It is no wonder that the terrorists are finding safe haven and support. Most non-westerners should be supporting the terrorists, except that they have homes that western armies can bomb so they must keep their support hidden. That is what I would do if I were in their shoes. And it is what you would do, too.

I only see two options, and one of them is so unbelievably horrible that no good person could possibly support it. We can either kill them all or we can start listening to them and start helping them find ways to protect and provide for their families. Between those two extremes there is nothing but continual bloodshed. In fact the choices are really between fast genocide, slow torturous genocide, and peace.

I know that there are other issues. There is a dispute over land in Palestine and Israel, and this dispute is not going away. But think about this dispute for a moment--Israelis with guns and missiles fighting against Palestinians with rocks and suicide bombers. How would the dispute change if every Palestinian and every Israeli woke up tomorrow morning and truly felt that their families were safe, they would be able to provide for their families, and their concerns in the dispute would be heard? Can you imagine such a day.

I can imagine it. I am working towards it. In a word, I call it Fairness.

We have to replace armies with police.

We have to start listening, and actually take action to open up markets and do whatever the non-westerners need in order to feel safe and provide for their families.

We have to convince them that they have to reduce the corruption in their own governments before they can make any real progress towards prosperity. And by convince, I do not mean invade and overthrow or coerce with economic sanctions.

I ask myself this question: "What would I do if the Palestinians, Ethiopians, Saudis, Egyptians, and all the rest were my own beloved children?" What would you do? You would change the social and economic power structures to make the playing field fair to them. That is what you would do. That is what I will do.

Aristides

2005-06-14T19:26:00.000-07:00

"Of all of Aristides' virtues it was his justice which most impressed itself on the masses, since it was this which he practised most consistently and which affected most people. For this reason, although he was poor and had no standing but that of a popular leader, he won that most royal and godlike title of The Just. That is an epithet which was never sought after by kings or tyrants: some of them delighted in being styled The Besieger of Cities, The Thunderbolt, or the Conqueror, and others The Eagle or The Hawk, but all of them, apparently, preferred a renown which was founded on power or violence rather than on virtue. And yet the divine nature, with which these men strive to be associated and to resemble, is believed to be distinguished by three superior attributes, immortality, power, and virtue, and of these the noblest and the most truly divine is virtue. The void and the elements are, in a sense, immortal, and earthquakes, thunderbolts, floods, and hurricanes can overwhelm by their power, but justice belongs only to those who are capable of reason and the knowledge of the divine.

So when we consider the three sentiments, admiration, fear, and reverence, which divinity inspires among mankind, we find that men appear to admire the gods and think them blessed because they are immortal and unchangeable; to stand in fear and awe of them because of their power and authority; and to love, honour, and reverence them because of their justice. At the same time men long for immortality, to which no flesh can attain, and for power, which remains for the most part in the hands of fortune, while they give virtue, the only divine excellence of which we are capable, the last place in their scheme of values. But here they show themselves fools since a life that is spent in the midst of power and great fortune and authority still needs justice to make it divine, for injustice renders it merely brutish."

"Plato, too, gives his opinion that of all of the men who enjoyed great names and reputations at Athens, Aristides is the only one who deserves our praise."

--Plutarch, "The Rise and Fall of Athens"
Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert

Bloody Revolution!

2005-06-13T19:44:00.000-07:00

No!

If our goal is peace, then our path cannot be violence. If we contradict our own principles in establishing our new governments, then we cannot expect to hold to our principles in any other point.

I must admit that I am quite torn on this. Not in America. Here revolution is quite possible at the voting box. But in many places that would never be a possibility. Should we support the violent overthrow of existing tyrannical regimes, even in the case that there is a wonderful benevolent democratic government waiting in the wings? No.

This is my own best-case scenario for the revolution:

Citizens within a country band together and discuss the new government that they want to build.
Those people express their commitment to non-violence right up front.
They publish a plan like this one.
They conference and plan and vote among themselves.
They pool their private resources and begin publicizing their plan for a new fair, open, democratic government.
They design a transition law for the existing government--a law that outlines the time and process for transitioning power from the existing government to the new government.
In America, that transition law would have to be a constitutional amendment. In other countries it might not have to be an amendment.
Whatever the form of the law, the citizens government works to get that law on the ballot, or to get themselves on the ballot to let them enact that law.
None of this should be subversive or hidden.

The reasoning here is clear. If this new government is going to be open, honest, fair, and equal, then everyone must have the opportunity and ability to participate.

If the current government is a despot, like North Korea, then I would still not endorse violence. Only after people within North Korea begin working on forming their own set of laws and preparing to take over non-violently--even hidden--should outsiders begin trying to buy out the existing despot. How many billion dollars would it take to buy out a despot?

I don't live in a despotic nation. I don't have to face that option myself. I thank God for that. But I must admit that since it is not my life nor my future at stake, I have to let those people decide about bloody revolution for themselves. I would strongly urge them that they should try any other possible means, even to the point of risking martyrdom, other than staging a bloody coup. But in the final analysis, that is their decision.

The only eventuality in which I would choose to be a party to violence is in defense of a fair and just democracy that is simply outgunned by its enemies--internal or external. Once the government was in place, and once the people really believed in and had participation in, such a government; I would stake my own life to fight and kill and possibly die to protect them.

My own challenge is to show that fair and just democracy is doable, livable, and desirable enough that even tyrants will be willing to step down to get out of its way.

Equality

2005-06-11T18:48:00.000-07:00

I do not want to be a first. I don't want to even be first among equals. I just want to be equal.

We have to remove all of the power and opportunity for corruption from government. Pay those people well, but monitor them constantly. They don't get to have secrets. They don't get to make big deals. Government workers give up some privacy and some priviledge, and get a low-risk well paid job. As long as they don't steal from us, they get to keep their jobs, basically.

Measure and monitor them. Like in a high-security environment, there needs to be counters, counters of the counters, and counters of the counters' counters. Then there needs to be publishers who distribute the counts to the public. It costs more up front, but the reduced amounts of corruption should more than make up the difference. Slow is ok. Expensive is even ok. Theft and corruption is completely unacceptable.

We want peace. We have to form governments that are capable of peace. That will get boring and tedious, but it is worth the effort.

A peaceful government will have very little corruption. corruption creates inequality, which ends peace.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

What are you doing?

2005-06-11T12:54:00.000-07:00

You undoubtedly see the problem. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Are you in denial? Are you pretending that your people are not part of the problem? Are you pretending that you would not do the same things, or different but equally unfair things, if you were in power? Are you lying to yourself and thinking that you would say "no" to the people who paid for your power?

It is time to move on to the next step. Stop complaining and do something. Stop pretending that a different mugger would leave you better off. As long as we have a system that enforces corruption as the gateway to political power, we are lost. Elections are nothing more than picking a different thief to rob your house and steal your safety.

The system must be replaced.

It is beyond repair.

It is beyond renovation.

It is beyond saving.

What are you doing to make sure that the next government, the next constitution, the next system, is fair?

I am working through designs. I am thinking about the nature of the conflicts between rich and poor, business and employees, business and peace, media and truth, equality and freedom, etc. I am reading histories and wisdom. I am talking about the future, and making plans.

Once I feel like I have some solid general designs, I will start presenting. For now I am just musing and hoping to stir the waters.

Again, what are you doing?

Peace

2005-06-11T11:49:00.000-07:00

The Powers that be will never give us peace. Their power is based largely on fear, ignorance, hate, and conflict. Peace would undermine their power.

This is a systemic problem. It is not the personal evil of those in power that brought about this situation. It is not a person, party, or ideology that continues the violence. The system has evolved in such a way that conflict supports and extends the power of the powerful. Maybe some historian can determine how this came about. I don't care. I only care about fixing it.

How could it be that conflict would not increase the power of the powerful? How could the system be designed to avoid that feedback loop?

I'm not sure that I have an answer yet, but I have a few ideas. I'm sure that others, when challenged with this puzzle, will be able to improve or disprove these ideas and provide even better ones.

What if the political leader who declared war must immediately be executed? If he really truly believes that people must die for some cause, then he must be first.
What if the declaration of war (or start of any form of hostilities) could only be approved by a direct vote of the people? Then the people who will die will have a say in the matter.
What if the profits of war-making enterprises (from oilmen who make gas for tanks to manufacturers of all types of weapons) were taxed 100% and redistributed to the families of fallen soldiers? Then the businesses that are directly involved in preparing for conflict must be involved in avoiding conflict in order to save their own profits.

Peace will not happen by accident. We must design for it, plan for it, and work for it. The lives that we have been living have not achieved it. If we want peace then we must change.

Potential

2005-06-10T15:25:00.000-07:00

I am absolutely convinced that good government is possible. I just need some time to work on the design.

Democratic.

Carefully managed.

No room for corruption or abuse of power.

Common people have to realize that government is their tool to oversee businesses and the rich. That is the balance of power. The design of government should keep the people from selling their birth-rights.

It is complex.

It must be done.

It will be done, eventually.

I want to get there sooner rather than later.

Power = Corruption

2005-06-10T13:06:00.000-07:00

Note: Power brings corruption. always. in all things. in all people.

personal power is the enemy of peace and safety. personal power must be abolished.

-------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent from a T-Mobile wireless phone.

To Soldiers

2005-01-17T09:13:00.000-08:00

Dear American Soldiers,

Thank you. I know you don't want to be there; whichever particular 'there' you happen to be stuck in. I know you miss your families. We miss you, too.

What you are doing is important. It might not seem important. But the short-term and long-term interests of this country require petty despots and violent villians to cease their evil ways.

What you are doing is more than fighting. Hopefully, eventually, your work will create peace and order in troubled places. But the people there are not accustomed to peace and order. And they won't take to it easily. And the old forces of tyranny aren't going to quit. You are going to have to kill a whole lot of bad guys before peace and order can break out.

It is more complicated than just killing bad guys. It isn't like there is a limited supply of bad guys, and you get to come home when you kill them all. You have to convince the local people there that you really are working and fighting for them. That is something that soldiers don't normally have to do. Of course it makes the whole situation even more dangerous for you.

What you are doing is more than getting shot at. You are keeping the fighting 'over there'. Being a target isn't easy and it isn't safe. Many of you are getting wounded. Some of you are getting killed. But if it wasn't you, if you weren't there, then it would be a whole lot more of us getting wounded and being killed over here. You are heroically risking your lives to protect ours.

Not everyone here agrees that you should be there. Not everyone here agrees with the orders you have been given, or the people who are giving the orders. Isn't that the nature of America? Please don't ever get discouraged and think our bickering indicates that you have anything less than all our love and support.

We are all praying that you stay safe, and that you are able to come home whole and healthy soon.

-a friend

About

2005-01-17T08:37:00.000-08:00

I Believe

America

1972

spouse

parent

white

ideas

plans

write

hope

September 11

2001-09-18T11:37:00.000-07:00

My Address to the Nation
(if I were President)

A Policy of Peace: The High Road

My fellow Americans, the horrible events of the past few weeks have brought us all up short and taught us more about ourselves than we could have imagined. We are spending more time with our families, evaluating our priorities. We have been giving our time, energy, money, and even our own blood to help the victims, in unbelievable numbers and with amazing generosity. As a nation we have remembered that our heroes are firefighters, paramedics, and police, who go where no one wants to be and do the most gut-wrenching and dangerous of jobs. We have learned new definitions of valor, in unarmed citizens facing down armed killers in the skies of Pennsylvania, and in the strength and courage of those who perform the unbearable work of sifting through the debris fields of Manhattan. I have been most honored to witness one of your finest hours.
Sometimes justice can be swift. The men most responsible for these acts of terror, the terrorists aboard the planes, perished in their crimes, robbing us of the opportunity of bringing them to justice. I have to believe that they are already facing their eternal judgment. No matter what your beliefs tell you of life-after-death, these men must be facing the very worst of judgments, the most fiery of hells. For them, we will have to trust that eternal damnation is punishment enough.
Justice for their accomplices on the ground will be less swift, but no less sure. Your government has been working feverishly, with the help of our allies, both old and new, to find out who committed such terrible and cowardly acts. These terrorists will be brought to justice. They will face trial, and the evidence of their guilt with be laid out before the world. They will be condemned for the vile murderers that they are, and they will be appropriately punished. The justice of our courts may be slower, and indeed significantly more difficult, but it is the price of civilization and its fruits are sweeter in the long term.
In the aftermath of the tragedy you heard me speak of war. Armies are preparing, citizens are preparing, politicians and the media are preparing. Tonight, I would like to discuss this war with you, so that you can prepare.
Some would probably argue that as a businessman come to this office I am ill prepared to lead a nation to war. But as a businessman I have prided myself in finding the best and the brightest and empowering them to do the jobs that they are trained to do. Our generals and planners and those of our allies are some of the greatest tactical and strategic minds who have ever lived. They have better intelligence data, better equipment, and better trained soldiers than any fighting force ever arrayed in human history. Surely no nation could stand against the incredible destructive power that we could bring to bear.
Unfortunately, we do not have a convenient target that we can point to on a map and send in our armies. This war is unlike any other in human history in that there are no nations to fight, if we examine nations with eyes of justice instead of blind eyes of revenge. Our enemy is a philosophy, not a nation. It is a belief system and a point of view. It is the perspective that we who have been prosperous are responsible for the poverty of the rest.
Whatever the religious verbiage of the propaganda being raised against us, we know the truth. The hatred of us that inspired so many to give up their lives to hurt us is not about God. Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, by whatever name you call God, all religions teach that He desires peace, not war, love and not violence. We recognize that the religion being invoked in justification of these atrocities is just like the religion that has been invoked by mad men of previous generations--empty. It is hollow and self-deceptive, a house of cards built by mad men to justify in their own consciences the evil that they choose to do. These mens' religion is worthless and fake. They have taken words of wisdom and twisted them to support selfishness and evil.
So our enemy is not a nation or religious group, but a small group of fanatics. They won't do us the service of gathering together in a single place. They hide in many nations, hiding their feelings and biding their time. Some of them may be in the United States right now. Rooting them out will be a delicate and dangerous job. We will surely not send tanks and armies into the neighborhoods of America, looking for a handful of individuals. And we will not send tanks and armies into other nations' neighborhoods if we can possibly avoid it. This is a job requiring a different touch. We are chasing rats, hiding in the sewers of the world. This is a job for police and lawyers, not soldiers.
Does this mean that our coalition against terror is useless? Certainly not. These same great nations who are willing to stand with us in battle will be standing with us in court. They will be policing their own sewers, chasing down those rats. And we will work with them to stop the movement of these evil men from country to country by improving our data sharing on terrorist suspects. But this is not all of the weapons in our arsenal.
Just because these terrorists fight an unconventional war does not mean that they do not have goals that we can thwart or support bases that we can't drive away from them. The terrorists themselves are elusive, but just as a conventional army requires supplies, so too the terrorists are dependent upon certain supplies that we can deny them. In this war on terrorism, we will deny the terrorists safe haven in sympathetic countries. We will deny them financial support. We will deny them the easy access to their targets. And we will deny them the moral imperatives that they have used as their soapboxes.
The terrorists are dependent upon a small number of sympathetic nations. We can persuade those nations to provide protection no more. I intentionally say persuade instead of force or coerce. This cannot be done by force, it can only be accomplished through friendship and goodwill. We have traditionally had little friendship or goodwill in that region, and that will change starting now. At the same time that we are asking the nations of the Middle East to join our coalition against terror and terrorists, we will be sitting down at the negotiation tables with these nations and renewing our ties. We will not come empty-handed to the negotiation tables. We will bring an easing of sanctions. We will bring offers of support in humanitarian efforts--canals, schools, and hospitals. We will bring understanding of the special needs of these nations for respect of their religious beliefs--as many of the nations in the region are Theocracies instead of Democracies.
This is a sea change in foreign policy. No longer will the United States use economic isolation as a policy to cause change within other nations. We will use communication and trade to deal openly and honestly with the current governments. We will not turn a blind eye towards their policies that we disagree with, but we will communicate with them.
We have been criticized in the past for trying to make every nation like ourselves, not respecting their culture or history. That accusation is not unfounded. We are very proud that through freedom and justice we have built the most powerful economy and one of the highest standards of living that the world has ever seen. World history does clearly teach that Democratic nations, nations with strong guarantees of personal freedom do build economies and standards of living that can be matched by no other form of government. We will not cease to encourage other nations towards freedom and democracy, but we will do it by working with current administrations instead of trying to overthrow them.
This will require some fence-mending. Some of these nations will ask for reparations for wrongs they believe we have committed as a nation. We believe that every act they call wrong was in fact justified. In those cases where perhaps we were in the wrong, we will pay appropriate reparations. Some of these nations have complaints about the way that American businesses treat workers in their countries, this will have to be corrected. Some of these nations believe that we have worked insidiously behind their backs to thwart their economic success. We will not be able meet those accusations because we will not be able to prove the negative. In those cases we will only be able to prove current goodwill and future assistance. Again, these nations must meet us at the negotiation table to discuss these differences and agree on new paths of peace.
This will not be a quick path, but it leads to peace. The terrorists will certainly attempt to dissuade us from forming bonds of friendship with these nations, and we must be steadfast and determined to see this path through. When we have repaired our reputation throughout the region, these terrorists will be homeless and friendless. They understand that. Their attacks have been specifically calculated to cause just the opposite reaction, to draw us into armed conflict with those nations, and to further secure their safety there.
I have walked to the edge of that precipice, and I have looked over the edge and down into the abyss of perpetual retaliation. We can't kill enough other people to bring back those we have lost, and we will not try. I will not be responsible for leading this great nation into that turmoil. We will take the high road, justice and compassion. We are emancipated from revenge and retaliation. We are emancipated from being held in terror, or from soiling ourselves in the evil of murdering innocent people. We are emancipated from our own worst nature. This is indeed our finest hour.
We will repay evil with good. We will choose public justice over private murder. We will ask forgiveness of those who feel we have wronged them, and we will be gracious to them. For perhaps the first time in human history, a nation will rise up and demonstrate true leadership and true greatness, not with the power of our army--though it is great--but with the strength of our character and the might of our compassion. The word 'American' will become a badge of honor and laurel of praise in the every corner of the earth.
We will feed people instead of kill them. We will help instead of harm. We will educate instead of argue. We will work for the good of all nations. And we will be unbelievably blessed. We will sleep safely and righteously in our beds. And peace will pour forth like mighty rivers on this battered world.
My fellow Americans, this is our war. We will fight earnestly with those who brought this war to us. But we will not start down the path that they have laid, into widening conflicts and many more innocent people dead. May we find peace.

-Aristides
September 18, 2001