Redeeming the Future

Fires of hell.

When the tent preacher comes to town, he spreads a message of fire and damnation.  He leads us to think that we are all sinners who need to turn from our evil ways.  His use of fear of suffering attracts our attention.  He pulls on our mistakes, errors, and sins with his angry speech playing on our anxiety of not being worthy.  You can smell the sulfur in his thoughts.

Meanwhile, our local ministers continue to preach of salvation.  They quietly talk to us about grace and forgiveness.  Trying to remind us that we are redeemable, even lifting us to aspire to be better.  Their soft message of hope proclaims a sense of forward purpose, re-igniting the light in our souls of what we could be if we only try.

Angry preacher spreading fear

Eventually, people turn away from the hell fire revivalist and return to the comfort and hope of their local church.  Human beings cannot long live in fear without becoming depressed and run forth from the pain it engenders.

In the past two decades, the Republican party has become more like the tent preacher than the local minister.  We hear angry rhetoric that our country is becoming corrupt.  We are told that we will fail.  We are led to fear and even hate many things.  America is sinning.  We risk fire and damnation.

We become tired of fear

No gun control. No funds for storm victims.  No controls on health care.  No taxes.  No security net.  No gays.  No banking regulation.  No immigration reform.  No new civil rights.  No climate change.  No women combat soldiers.  No minimum wage.  No abortion.  No to unions.  No to even the federal nation itself, proclaiming doom.   Some even screaming for the states start to secede; tearing us apart from one and another.

Ike stood for good

I am not advocating or denying any one of these political positions. I am  instead trying to highlight the fear and negativity that are used in trying to guide our policies.  Having a desire to make us better is not the same as saying no, being negative, and resisting change just because it is change.

I became a Republican because of Dwight D. Eisenhower.  He was a pragmatic leader of men with a vision of direction that celebrated what the United States could be.  His leadership in war gave us hope we could campaign for better lives in peace.  I left my party and became an independent when it became clear that people like him would no longer be accepted in it.

For the loyal opposition, as the Republican party has become, to succeed it must leave behind the hell fire and damnation, the fear and angry words and start preaching a message of hope for our future.  Looking upward not backward: that is how my grand old party can find salvation again.

Ronald Reagan urged us on to “the shining city on the hill”.  His positive outlook reached into human's hearts triggered us to strive.  He pointed to the future, to a new beginning.  We, the people, responded with landslides of votes.  We, the people, built better lives.

Please, oh please; my Republican brothers and sisters, leave off this foreboding depression and begin to lead us upward again.  Find goals we can strive for.  Find motion that moves us on.  Reclaim your place with visions of the future that bring peace, progress, and prosperity to us all.

Sizing Sacrifice

Parental altruism.

I have met few parents who would not sacrifice their lives for those of their children. This basic act of altruism or selflessness is at the heart of our family unit and the survival of our species. It is a transforming moment for the adult when they feel that the welfare of their children is more important than their own welfare.

  

When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, we honor him for his sacrifice for us all. This too is a selfless act, although it is less likely to be born of love for the city.

Life for country

Soldiers at war serve the nation when they give their lives, but would more likely to tell you they did it for their band of brothers rather than good of country.

This generous act of giving one's life to others has a paradox in it that challenges our sense of morality.

Others city for our country

Would we sacrifice our family to save the city?

Would we sacrifice our city to save the nation?

Would we sacrifice our nation to save the planet?

We instinctively answer “no” to such questions, wishing to believe “there must be some other way”. We betray our own morality and live then in a cognitive dissonance assuming only our local sacrifice has value worth giving.

Morality does not scale.

How can we then say the needs of the many over weigh the needs of the few or one? We must not then believe its implications.

Flowers of the Field

Many kinds of blooms. 

Most humans, it would appear, seem to think they have found “the one true answer to meaning, life, and the universe”. Perhaps this is a part of the love of self we need in order to be mentally healthy.  We may all be wrong, we may all be right; most probably the answer lays in the middle where no one of us can see clearly.

Each of us is a product of nature and nurture that has grown into its environment from our genetic starting point, influenced by family and culture to become what we are. These two factors, nature and nurture, define a kind of limit of what each of us can be. It is difficult for a Utah Mormon to become a Southern Baptist, or a Sunni Pakistani to become an Iranian Shiite.

Human beings' beliefs can be thought of as a field of many flowers. Each plant breeds its own kind and prospers or not in the ground it finds itself. It is very difficult for any plant to become another kind, although it rarely does happen.

When we argue about the merits of being a rose versus an orchid, a Hindu versus a Buddhist, we are re-affirming ourselves. A rose may wish to convert the orchid into another rose, but it is improbable and very difficult as it challenges the orchid to disavowed being an orchid.

Perhaps it better for all flowers to understand the beauty of diversity of flowers in the field, to embrace the awesome nature of it all, and allow us each to grow and flourish.

Those who would by force, by reason, by coercion, or by destruction, attempt to change one kind of flower into another work against the good of the whole, like some disease upon the land. Does this make them then like a type of parasite?

Another view would be that even parasites add to the diversity of beauty of the whole, challenging each plant to become stronger. Then even the parasite has value to the whole, but not the individual.

Those who would make us all the same type of flower, damaging many, are hurting the great beauty of diversity that we all represent. In our diversity we unite to struggle against the mono-culture of the field becoming just one kind of plant.

As a daisy, I resist the parasites and try to remain a daisy.

For each of us to celebrate our own belief system is generally a good thing. As long as we do not threaten the whole field. To step outside what we are, even for a brief moment, allows us to see the great beauty of the field we all grow in.

Self Evident

Happiness's charm

The pursuits to which we all desire,
proclaimed so many years ago.
Life.
Liberty.
Happiness.

We need but eat to maintain life.
We need but family to partake happiness.
We need but serve to preserve liberty.
We need but exert to obtain and sustain them.

Life's joy

Sometimes storms give struggle to conserve life.
Sometimes unhappy events require our aid.
Sometimes liberty threatened engages us in conflict.
Often challenges un-required, allow us to be at our ease.

What then labor for money?
We strive in our desire to earn more.
We give that most precious asset time in its pursuit.
Obsessed with wealth's accumulation as if it alone were some great good.

Liberty's ring

We have known moneyed men.
Few have gained happiness
Most forget liberty.
Chunks of lives given to its' collection.

We have limited hours on the face of the planet.
We wish for meaning and value transcending our impermanence.
We build monuments to the future requiring great toil.
Yet in their construction, lose result's sight and are caught in cause.

Family's loved

Work for work's sake is not our object.
Work can bring joy in performance of good.
Work's process will stay the troubled mind.
The result of the labor used by many.

The rewards of life are simple indeed.
Life to be lived as best we can.
Liberty to be embraced as a shared vision.
Happiness coming from within and be given away.

Holy Foxes

When you're told to dig a foxhole the first thing that comes to your mind is the simple joy that you won't be marching anymore that day. Then the realization that you have hours of a different kind of manual labor sinks in as small shovelfuls of dirt begin to pile up. That was my perspective because, thankfully, I never had to dig one under enemy fire.

In movies, you rarely see the actual process. In movies you may see a few shovel fulls of dirt representing what can be an hours long process. In some ways it feels like digging your own grave while at the same time trying to make a way to save your skin.

Foxholes are defensive positions where you use the ground itself as protection from enemy sight and weapons. There are lots of rules about digging them. Simple holes they are not. If you have time to consider the terrain you are in and where the potential enemy fire might be coming from, you think in terms of intersecting lines of fire, placing each hole in your unit at tactically important locations allowing you to see and protect each other.

Foxholes are not all dug at once. Depending upon the conditions, the hole may be just deep enough to cover your body while you are lying down. If you plan to stay awhile, you dig deeper until your whole body can be under the surface of the earth. Room for grenade sumps at the bottom, slopes to allow water to drain, stones and sticks placed to give you a firm footing and avoid wet feet are just a few of the features one can add. For longer stays, you may even dig trenches to connect holes together allowing movement. Sandbags can add some height. Local fauna can provide camouflage to hide from prying eyes.

In modern warfare you need to be aware of body heat from infrared signatures; both by line of site on the ground and from aircraft and satellites looking down on your position. You must attempt to break up patterns formed by heat and shape so that eyes can not sense your presence. Finding ways to comfortably locate weapons for stable, secure and accurate firing positions becomes a temporary obsession of the foxhole maker.

Often there are only two or three of you in any given hole. If you are lucky you only spend a few hours in the hole as you take turns sitting farther away from the front line. If you are unlucky you remain in the hole for days, with breaks only to relieve your bodily functions or fetch some chow. Never being able to lay down, sleep is rare treasure.

Spending hours in a hole in the ground with other men gives plenty of time to talk. Conversation passes the time. You get to know each other very well in such close quarters. Body odors, physical quirks, and breathing patterns are the least of the intimacies shared. Quiet whispers are the sweet relief that keep you alert to what is going on in the world outside your hole. You share things about yourself no lover or parent will ever know. This time of bonding can be crucial to building mutual trust.

From personal experience, I can say there are many myths about these inglorious holes. I've spent nights talking with atheists in foxholes. Anyone who tells you it doesn't happen hasn't been in one. Members of my platoon were gay, but that didn't matter to any of us. We all knew each other and the idea that sexual politics of any kind mattered seems silly. Questions of religion, race, creed, sexuality, were meaningless for those who must have trust. We had to trust each other. We had to have each other's back. And we did.

One thing I did notice in foxholes. There were no corporations. I knew no rich man's son there, only us middle class and poor. We were volunteers slammed together at random. Some of us hoped to get college degrees with money provided by the government after service. Others were making a career of the army and this was just part of the job. A few where running away from bad homes or lives. One man from a foreign land had volunteered so he could become a citizen and move his family to our fair land. I even know one private who had a choice of joining the army or going to jail. While I guess we were all patriotic, we didn't talk about that much.

Any soldier who has been in a foxhole, knows of dirt. He knows of “hurry up and wait”. Of filthy hands and sweaty feet. Of frozen cold fingers and sweat streaming down his back. Of hours upon endless hours of boredom. Foxholes are unpleasant.

Whenever I see a soldier now, so many years on, the first thing I see is who they might be in a hole next to me. A kind of special respect, of brotherly love fills my soul. For this, I always try to make sure I tell them “thank you”. Thank you for digging the holes where none of us want to go. Thank you for your service where no one can see. Thank you for making me be in the land of the free.

Insurrection Erection

The beautiful lady liberty.

As far as we know, the Greeks where the first to attempt a democracy. A few individuals used force of arms to cease power and become a “tyrant”. A tyrant is one who "rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics against his own people as well as others". Tyrants did not have congresses or courts. Tyrants gain power and used power by raw force. In the United States, the closest we ever had to a tyrant was Abraham Lincoln because he issued orders putting aside many personal freedoms in a time of civil war. John WilkesBooth, who theatrically portrayed my namesake Mark Anthony, declared “Sic semper tyrannis” (thus always tyrants) before inflicting a mortal wound upon that president.

Factually inaccurate

To say our current president is a tyrant is incorrect in fact, theory, and ethics. No rational definition of Barack Obama's behavior can even remotely construe him as a tyrant. Staying within the boundaries of law, no matter how unpopular the action, does not make one a tyrant. There is no credible evidence that Barack Obama is attempting to use the power of our government for the betterment of himself or his family. We still have civil order and reports of the raw use of force upon our citizens are either lies or fanciful exaggerations.

There are many today who believe they have a right to keep and bear arms, our constitutions 2nd amendment, so that the general population can be armed to overthrow a tyrannical government. Talk in some corners has been escalating with angry words and fierce intention. Handguns, rifles, and other personal firearms and ammunition are selling out across the land. People dress in camouflage and train in militias, holding the desire to violently overthrow our constituted government.

Advocating armed revolution

There are those among us who are angrily considering an armed revolution. Using phrases like “the blood of tyrants” and “from my cold dead hands” they talk with one another angrily. Murmurs and rumors are reverberating in coffee cafe's and internet forums. Men speak of their handguns. Descriptions of how to make booby-traps and roadside bombs are written. Serious thought is even going on about how to wage a new civil war in some quarters.

Childish patriotism

This use of the word “tyrant” is similar to what children do with other bad words on an elementary school playground. A part of freedom is the right to dislike or even hate our current leader. A part of freedom is to hold non-factual opinions. A part of freedom is right to call out “bullsh*t” on those who have non-factual opinions. We do not, nor have we ever had, a real tyrant. Those who think we do, are ignorant of what tyranny is and I am calling “bullsh*t” on you.

Comparing our current government to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao has no factual credence. Hitler ordered the death of 6 million Jews and launched a war that sucked in the whole world. Obama has peacefully ended one war and is almost stopped another. Stalin forcibly relocated 20 million people, many who starved to death for the good of the “state”. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in our history. Mao forced his entire population to quit their jobs and wear the same exact uniform in his “Great Leap Forward”. Obama sends bills to congress and argues laws under a constitutional framework, soliciting the opinions of its citizens in a civil manner. I am no big fan of President Obama., but to say he is a tyrant and to compare him to men of great evil is to speak with ignorance and talk like a fool.

"I, Mark Anthony Bloom, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

We are citizen soldiers

Since 1789, members of my family have sworn this oath. We have served in the Navy, Marines, and Army as enlisted men. My daughter's family arrived on these shores as pilgrims on the Mayflower. When we swear allegiance, we have some history. When we swear allegiance, we mean it. Those who would oppose our country by force of arms fit the precise dictionary definition of traitors; being “persons who betray a friend, country, and principle”.

In 1979, while most of my friends were either in college or working their first low paying jobs out of high school, I was sitting in a tank gunnery range close to the border of what was then Eastern Germany. We knew that Soviet observers watched us. It was a Cold War, where we were training in full view of our enemies so maybe they would not start World War 3.

Old fashion armor

If you have ever been near a main battle tank when it fires, you know that the biggest bang from a firework show is tiny pop. Fifty yards away you can feel the ground shake under your feet as high explosive race out of the 105mm barrels of the M60A3 weapon. Its laser rangefinder and ballistic computer made this weapon deadly accurate at over two miles. Young testosterone filled gunners often bragged “If we can see it, we can kill it.” The M60A3 has been out of service for many years now, replaced by the much faster, more accurate, longer ranged, and highly dependable M1 Abrams main battle tank.

Our armed forces then used what is called the “Combined Arms Doctrine”. This method of warfare integrated different branches of a military; infantry, tanks, and helicopters in combination, supporting each other in swiftly deadly fashion. This doctrine and its weapons have been able to overcome every military force that dared go against it. Most recently in Iraq, new weapon and information systems have reduced highly trained armies quickly and efficiently.

Apache helicopter

Since my time in the United States armed forces, the weapons and tactics, doctrine and planning have become highly experienced in waging war and controlling populations of armed citizens who oppose them. In Iraq and Afghanistan their ability to overcome insurgencies of armed militias has been tested with hard won practice.

Any person or group in our country who thinks that their second amendment rights are about the ability to overthrow our government by force of arms do not understand the nature of modern warfare. Even if some portion of the soldiers were to revolt and take military weapons with them, they would quickly overcome by loyal, oath abiding citizen-soldiers using drones, satellites, helicopters, aircraft carriers, submarines, and secret intelligence capabilities most do not know exist.

Musketted soldiers

The days of muskets, when a civilian population could overthrow their government by force are gone. The technology of war has changed so radically since the founders that their original intent is archaic in today's world.

Our honorable National Guard is the closest we can come to having what our constitutions framers meant when they wrote “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” for the purpose of overthrowing our government if it every does become tyrannical. Even the best commercially available automatic weapons and high explosives are inconsequential for the purpose of combating our own military.

The National Guard uses cast off weapons systems from our active Army. The National Guard is almost uniformly loyal to the constitutional power our voted in government. The National Guard is not capable of overthrowing the government by use of force.

The right way to change government

For change in our government, we must rely on civic and peaceful means. Voting, organizing, rallies, demonstrations, standing in the town square and yelling at the top of your lungs are all reasonable methods for us to change our government. Force of arms no longer works to this end.

To those citizens of our beloved land, who are angry and wish to take up arms against the current government I say; take a step back, calm down and rethink. Please do not take up arms against your homeland because you dislike its political direction. Please do not cause the death of innocents in your emotionally fearful state of mind. Please do not throw your life away against a machine you do not comprehend. Please find a way to get along and move on until the next election when we can together decide what to do next.

Gunning for You

I like guns. I shoot guns. I like wild venison and duck meat. I've had a gun near my pillow to protect me and mine from a perceived threat. I was a soldier who learned to operate, maintain and repair many kinds of weapons. I have been in the position where I had to consider taking another man's life away for a purpose. I never want to do that unless I have no other alternative. Nor, I hope, do you.

Hunting for food and sport

In my country we are now having a debate about restricting gun ownership. We can agree that we want to feel safe.  We can agree we do not want to be the victim of violent crime. We do not agree how to become safe and limit crimes.

The side against gun ownership is attempting to limit the access to certain types of firearms. To summarize their intention would be to say that guns do harm and that limitation of guns will limit the harm guns do.

The side for gun ownership wants to expand the number of guns. To summarize this position is to say that people need to protect themselves from crime and enemies domestic and foreign; more guns mean less harm.

Study with an open mind

A part of maturity and wisdom, in my opinion, is the ability to put aside my preconceptions and go seek information.  Researching facts allows me to become more educated and thereby have a more informed opinion. Below I try to share what I found. Maybe it can help you see better too.

This question of limiting access to certain kinds of weapons is nothing new. In feudal Japan there was an attempt to limit access to military grade weapons by only allowing Samurai to carry them. The British have long banned the carrying of firearms. Since the early history of the United States there have been attempts at limiting access to weapons starting at least with Andrew Jackson's presidency around 1830.

St. Valentines Day Massacre

During the Prohibition era, gangsters began to use some of the first automatic firearms with criminal intent. The Valentine's Day massacre became a public focus point resulting in the National Firearms Act of 1934 when fully automatic weapons became heavily regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Even with those provisions being stopped and started, strengthened and weakened over time, the United States is commonly understood to have the least limitations of weapon ownership of any modern industrialized country on the planet.

Chemical weapons
should not be common

There is ample history of weapons' bans to draw upon in order to understand its effectiveness. However, much of research being done has NOT been from the objective view of “what are the facts so we can form opinions” but rather from the subjective view of “here is my opinion and the facts I found to back it up.” This makes finding studies with true objective analysis difficult at best.

Perhaps the most widely accepted objective studies involved using statistical analysis comparing gun ownership, level of gun controls, and crime rates.  The study was conducted in 1980 on 170 cities with 100,000 or more people. The results of this study was reported in the peer reviewed Journal of Quantitative Criminology. The models covered violent crime which frequently involve guns: homicide, suicide, fatal gun accidents, robbery, and aggravated assaults, as well as rape. It found the following seemingly confusing results:

• The number of guns did not increase the number of violent crimes
• When crime rates increased, more people acquired guns
• Gun control did not decrease the number of guns
• Gun control generally has no effect on violence rates

From this study, it is possible to conclude that gun control doesn't operate like the pro-gun or anti-gun debaters think. Below is an attempt to outline the finding, not justify it, so that we can consider our actions to reduce violence with better data.

Capone was just violent

Guns do not cause crime – The finding suggested that limiting access to guns will not decrease the number of violent crimes. Crimes occur for reasons having nothing to do with the weapons themselves. Violent crimes will occur because of other factors. We cannot then take the view that if we take away the guns we will be safer. Our wish to become safer by removing the weapons simply doesn't hold up, no matter what our intuition tells us.

Fear desires protection

Crime scares people – When we feel threatened, we protect ourselves. Purchasing or acquiring a weapon of violence makes us feel safer. It doesn't matter if we know how to use it, but the knowledge that a weapon is available to us reduces our fear of violence. This is a personal, internal experience of how human beings react to threats.

Gun smuggling

People will get guns – Attempts to take away weapons from law abiding citizens or potential criminals does not work. Both the lawful and criminal citizens will find ways to subvert the law and acquire the weapons they desire. The number of guns in a population is not related to the laws governing them. This process works much like the bans on alcohol or drugs; measures of law do not stop us from obtaining the things we desire.

Shoot out

Violence happens for other reasons - Human motivation for doing crime comes from other factors besides guns. People can be greedy, mean, unbalanced, over-emotional, impulsive, hyperactive, sensation seeking, and risk taking. These internal reasons that are in people drive them to commit criminal acts.  These motivations have no relation to the tools for violence at their disposal. The gun does not cause the crime, the person does.

Learning non-violent methods

In summary, more guns does not work and less guns does not work.  Our feeling of being protected is important to us.  Stopping violence is not about guns.  It would appear that both sides to this argument are wrong and right. Our intuitions about guns and violence could lead us to make bad choices that will not get the result of reduced violence we desire.

I have not been able to find an answer to how to reduce violent crime. This would appear to be a much harder problem than the pro- or anti- guns sides think.  Perhaps violence reduction can be found in other laws or in education. 

Learning about the
proper use of weapons

We can to find ways to identify people who would commit violent acts.  We can then reduce their motivations and lessen the number of crimes.

Education may also hold the key. We can education ourselves to prevent violence.  We can educate ourselves on the proper use of firearms.

I like guns. I shoot guns. I want the right to own them. I also want to be responsible and practical and decent to my fellow man. I don't fear my neighbors, rather try to love them. Even the ones who are not so nice.