Enough!

Hello again and please forgive my delay in posting a new blog. It has been a busy fall for the Self family.

Our oldest son Michael has a new job, our daughter Charlotte a new University back East and our son Christopher a new schedule with Drivers' Ed at the crack of dawn.

Today I can think of only one word to describe how I fell about the current public debates on the issues of our day: ENOUGH!

Enough blaming about the Katrina responses - how about more energy and thought into how to rebuild without bankrupting our economy?

Enough bluster about "Bush Lied, People Died" - how about some real solutions for a peaceful tranfer to just rule in Iraq?

Enough racial posturing and overheated rhetoric - who is going to call on all Americans, rich and poor, to show some moral responsibility and restraint?

Enough nonsense about security - until we enforce the rule of law and secure our borders.

Enough blathering about waste in government - a mere 11% cut across the board in State spending in California would create a surplus in two years.

Enough foolishness about dialogue with the downtrodden who want to kill the infidel - what is our plan to find and destroy terrorists who threaten every nation's security, not just our own?

Enough hypocrisy about the separation of Church and State - do we want the Salvation Army to go away or keep delivering the goods to those in need?

Enough about both global warming and "environmental wackos" - let's grow past the cliches and realize that good ecology is good economics!

Well, that is enough for now.

OK, one more thing: we need to tell ourselves, "Enough of talking, I am going to DO something to make my world better."

If we all did this, it would be enough.

A Principled Future

For half a century, our public square has been a cultural battlefield.

We have seen much progress. Millions of African American and other non-white groups can vote without fear because of the labor of Martin Luther King and thousands of hard-working folks.

Many farm workers now have living wages and reasonable conditions because of the efforts of Caesar Chavez.

Young adults can now vote as well as go to war for their country.

Our environment is cleaner today (in some regions) that 50 years ago thanks to public and private efforts.

We need to pause and be thankful for a land of freedom and opportunity that is always "in the making," always seeking to improve and live up to her highest ideals.

But there are ominous signs as well.

Religious and secular communities are engaged in a titanic struggle to define the values that will govern our future. In the early 60s, many of these folks (or at least their parents) cooperated to see the aforementioned changes. Now they are in a legal and verbal war that threatens to unravel the tapestry woven for 200+ years.

For the sake of this discussion, I am not going to refer to either extreme - theocratic cultists and communist/fascist enemies of all religion are not the focus here.

Most Americans want an environment of mutual respect and tolerance. What we are observing all too often is a kind of weird "McCarthyism" coming from both sides. The secularists lump together all "fundamentalists" and see bigotry and control behind every attempt to say grace in a public forum. The religiously observant are stunned by the callous attacks on their faiths and the militancy of those who want to change the public moral universe of America.

Is there a way forward?

Yes! But it is a "road less traveled", a principled thoroughfare that is not for the faint of heart and mind. We must return to the rich veins of moral gold mined by our Founders, who created the world's first major polis with complete freedom of conscience.

The beauty of our land is that we can be people of many faiths or none because of a common commitment to First Principles of personal virtue and civic responsibility. Not all our Founders were religious. But they all affirmed the necessity of moral rectitude that flows from adherence to Judeo-Christian values.

OK, great nostalgia, Dr. C, but this is the 21st century. We have gone beyond traditionalism and even modernity. No one has the right to impose any standards on anyone...

Here is nexus of our dilemma. Without First Principles, we can not have a cohesive society. Two centuries of civil religion and fifty years of defacto secularism leave us in vacuum.

What is the way forward? A fresh reffirmation of lasting values that move us toward a non-coercive future.

Here is my challenge: What are these principles? Can we build stability without Deity? What will define personal virtue, family cohesion and social responsibility for the next century?

For now, it is enough to know that we must find common ground before the center no longer holds.

Where Do We Go for "Facts"?

One of the challenges of our Instant Information Age is discerning the sources of relatively unbiased information. In my last blog I spoke of the "edutainment" problem and the ideological twist that seem to pervade so many sources. Even traditionally objective sources (New York Times or even National Geographic) can be fraught with bias.

Lest this appear to be another conservative rant against the "mainstream media", I hasten to add that the conservative movement is in a real crisis itself. The crisis is not necessarity one of basic values, but of facing the harsh facts about its icons and views of events and developing a more critical approach to substantiating its bold assertions.

OK, back to sources. Where do we go? My answer is everywhere - with a critical eye! The NYT remains an important source...but watch out for the loaded terms that can permeate any factual article. WorldNet Daily on the Rght and Truth Out on the Left both offer information that can help round out one's perspective. As we peruse sources, Let's ask these questions:

• Who is doing the polling and what kinds of methods and samples are used?
• Watch out for "wide-ranging" statistics; i.e., "It is estimated that between 2,000 and 20,000 have experienced..." what does this actually mean?
• Take note of words like, "alleged' and "unconfirmed" and "off the record". This does not mean the facts are wrong, just tentative.
• It is possible for two facts to be both right yet incompatible with different ideologies. For example, the 1980s Reaganomics were a boon for some and a total bust for many others, leaving a legacy of debt that has serious consequences. The Left blames the greedy Republicans; the Right the spendthrift Congress. The truth? A plague on both your houses! Until the pork is reigned in, the greed confronted, and social infrastructure honestly examined, we will stay in the wilderness of rhetoric.
• As we look at sources, we can discover the values behind the citations and assertions. For example, the book Freakonomics assets that Roe v. Wade may have had a salutary effect upon certain rates of crime because of a declining birthrate among the poor. For me, an ardent pro-life advocate, such a fact is not going to change my mind on abortion, but it will challenge me to find better ways to confront poverty and unwanted pregnancies.

These are a few first steps toward real research in todays insight-starved world.

We must be unafraid to face reality even while affirming our enduring values. My sadness with the hypocricy of so many conservative icons does not force me to abandon good ideas - it challenges me toward greater integrity personally.

In my next blog, I will confrom the issue of what the Left and Right mean by "freedom" and how we can move toward a principled, non-coercive future.

How Do We Know Anything?

I have joined the blogger revolution. I have the opportunity to express myself in a way that perhaps thousands (or at least family and friends) will read. I work hard to be clear, succinct and pleasurable to read.

There are some problems with this entire scenario. In an age of instant information, how do we sort out facts from "factoids", considered opinion fron instant spin and solid data from subjective impressions?

Our problem is compounded by the rise of "edutainment" that promotes ideological sparring at the expense of clarity and complete information. Whose statistics do we believe on any subject? Which poll is the least tainted? Here are some examples that cause sparks to fly:

• Everyone "knows that 10% of the population is gay/lesbian - right?
• Problem : Some reliable studies place the percentage of exclusively gay/lesbian men and women at 1-2%
• Fact or Fiction? "The 1980s were an era of unprecedented greed. The rich got richer and the gap between rich and poor increased..."
• Challenge: The 1980s saw the largest rise in per capita charitable giving, and an explosion of home ownership among African-American and Hispanic groups. So the situation is not so simple, is it?
• "Global warming is a serious ecological crisis and the Kyoto Protocols are an important step in protecting the planet."
• Some observations: We may be in the midst of a 500 year cycle that explains the current phenomena. Lest the conservatives gloat, however, recent histroy proves thaqt our actions can transform the environment for good or ill - just look at the cleaner air and water we enjoy in many places since new standards were adopted after 1970. My 'We Are the World" friends, please remember that Kyoto means nothing unless China, India and Russia agree...and the first two are exempt!

So how do we start sifting and sorting? In my next article I will talk about how do find reliable sources. For now, let's consider the following thoughts:

• We must be ruthlessly honest about our own conscious and unconsious biases that create the "lenses" though which we evaluate data.
• This does not mean that there are no objective facts and that we can not ever get to the truth of any matter!
• We must evaluate our sources carefully and NOT instantly dismiss insights from those who have a different ideology.
• We should strive to find solutions that create the greatest common ground possible.
• We need to find those "First Principles" that most can agree upon in order to build a sustainable future.

Visceral reactions are what they are - sometimes they reflect our deepest fears and prejudices; other times they are a wake-up call to defend what is enduring and precious. We must allow our affections to be the servant of discerning minds that are informed by our deepest values.

Will we choose the easy road of cliches and ideological caricature or the narrow road of "the pusuit of truth in the company of friends"? I pray we choose the latter.

Life, Liberty and Property

The title of this blog was the original phrase for the "inalienable rights" of humankind that governments must honor and protect. For a variety of reasons, including concern for the poor, Jefferson chose the broader phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Legally secure property ownership is the economic and social foundation of freedom. The freest nations in the world - Cannda, England, the USA and several in Europe - provide protection for their citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Today over 60% of Americans enjoy home ownership; In Russia the figure has just climbed to 6%!

The June 23, 2005 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo, et. al. v. the City of New London, CT. is a monumental break with Constitutional tradition. Expanding the rights of local governments to claim "eminent domain" and allow the property to go to new private owners without significant public use guarantees is a reckless ruling that will open the door to the exploitation of the poor by the politically-connected.

Until this ruling, eminent domain was reserved for things such as roads, parks, environmental restoration or publc/private partnerships that directly benefitted a large number of citizens. The 5th Amendment calls for proper compensation for those who are displaced, but history tells us that planning commissions and powerful interests will find was to "distress" land they desire.

My fear is that this will open the door to the seizure of more homes and - and I am not being paranoid, just cautious - the condemnation of churches and other non-profits who do not generate the tax revenue of condos or a strip mall.

Hopefully this ruling will stay limited; however, we must be vigilant and prepared to fight city by city and county by county. Ownership is NOT something bestowed by the government. It is a right protected by the government!

If we are not careful, we will end up with a new form of fascism, with powerful private interests in collusion with a corrupt government. Such alliances are not new, but until now we enjoyed reasonable protection for legally-titled land. Now we must battle to protect the foundation of our freedom.