Standing Alone

Hey All -- it's about that time again!

The big issue in the news -- besides watching my team's biggest rival digging a hole in the Stanley Cup Finals -- the release of a soldier held hostage in exchange for five terrorists.

As my regular readers know, I'm a big advocate of individualism and independence.  I value doing the right thing instead of conformity.  That means being comfortable in your own skin.

Most of the time, the right thing means doing what serves you the best, over what serves others.  However, once in a while it's right thing to do a little something to make someone else happy.  For example, let's say a friend of yours is throwing a party for someone else, and wants everyone to dress a little nicer than they ordinarily would.  So you bite the bullet, get some office dress-down clothes, and show up there.  And you see EVERY OTHER GUY THERE wearing the same jeans and boots they do every day, despite the assurance that "everyone" was going the khakis route.

A little annoying, of course.  Ironically, the intent was to conform, but the result was to stand out.  Still, if your host asks everyone to dress a little nicer just because it's a special occasion for a guest of honor, and you actually oblige, given the small effort it takes, it doesn't go unnoticed.  In that circumstance, standing alone and doing what you know is right is a good thing -- a very good thing.

But recently, we've heard about someone who followed his convictions to the detriment of those who needed him not to as a matter of life and death.  This man put on a uniform and took an oath to defend his country against "all enemies, foreign and domestic," and reconsidered that oath at the worst time possible.  Emails back home revealed his dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the army's presence in Afghanistan, and gives credence to the story that he voluntarily deserted his unit and was captured by the Taliban.  Reports indicate that while in captivity, he willingly adopted the language, religion, and worldview of his captors, and they eventually treated him less like a prisoner and more like a comrade.

Unaware of this soldier's all-too-willing conversion to the enemy's way of life, the Army made at least one attempt to rescue this soldier, resulting in the deaths of those who were loyal enough to seek out their captured brother.  While clearly aware of what happened to this soldier behind enemy lines, our executive leadership chose to negotiate for his freedom, in exchange for the release of five known terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.

We've all heard the story and the reactions.  But I want to concentrate less on the reasons why the White House made this choice, and on its likely ramifications, and to concentrate more on what this soldier thought and did.

The United States of America has the mightiest army in the world.  Sometimes it has been sent to engage in popular and justified actions in other areas of the world, and sometimes it has participated in less popular ventures.  However, it is not up to the soldiers to decide if they like it.

Our military is there to protect our freedom, and in doing so, they must give up their own freedom for a time.  This is why they are sent to boot camp, where they are trained to keep their heads under life-or-death situations and to follow orders without question.  This is why they are also trained in combat and firearms.  And this is why they take that oath to give the Army their utmost loyalty.  Every soldier is trained to back up his brothers and to act as teammates.  In this circumstances, the group is fundamentally more important than the individual.

If this soldier was unhappy with this Army's presence in Afghanistan, he could have done his job anyway, regardless of his opinion, and then waited until he rotated back to the world to tell us all how horrible he felt about that war.  Given recent history, that kind of timing might have gotten him appointed him as Secretary of State one day.

It is often said that before one can truly be an individual, one must first conform.  Stated another way, to be a leader, one must first be a follower.  Unlike the party and its guests I referenced above, Bowe Bergdahl had a duty to his unit, his superiors, and his country, and he violated this duty.  Voicing his opinion and following his conscience in the middle of a war zone was a horribly selfish and unbelievably dangerous thing to do.  Party guests have a simple duty to not kill one another.  Soldiers have a duty to remain loyal to each other, and not the enemy that they are fighting.  They have a duty to follow orders and to further their superior's objectives, and not expose their comrades to attack or ambush by seeking out the enemy.

Beta males are not subject to the rules of the alphaganda.  We have not been impressed into the Alpha Army, and we are not subject to their orders, and cannot be taken prisoner.  However, those who join the military actually are subject to something bigger than themselves, and put their own dissenting opinions on the back-burner.

Does this mean beta males should not enlist?  Not at all.  The party dress code might not be the best analogy, but it demonstrates that beta males are loyal.  We commit ourselves to principles that satisfy the highest good.  Sorry to disappoint the opposition, but the alphaganda ain't it.

So, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, here's the deal.  Despite your initials, you are not Bold, you are not Bulletproof, and you are certainly no Beta!  If anything, you may be a deserter or a traitor.  I hope you considered that as your good friends in Helman province indoctrinated you in their interpretation of the Koran.  I hope you consider it further as the Army decides what's to be done with you in the face of such disloyalty to the nation you swore to defend.  I hope you wake up and realize that you have made a most devious bargain with the most notorious alpholes the world has ever seen.

Then again, so did . . . no, I won't go there.

Night All!

Who Matters More?

Hi All:

Time for the weekly biblical analysis.

Remember that annoying nephew Abraham had?  Well, he stayed behind in the infamous Twin Cities.  And Abraham was told by a few messengers from On High that not only will his wife give birth to a son at a ripe old age, but those Twin Cities are gonna get flattened.

So Abraham bargains a bit to look out for his boy Lot.  Almost reminding G-D of His promise to Noah not to annihilate an entire population when not everyone deserves it, he persuades G-D not to drop the sulphur on them if there are just 10 decent people in both cities.  Apparently the quota wasn't met, notwithstanding these negotiations.

So the messengers from On High walk right into Sodom to warn Lot that it's all gonna go down, and the local gangsters and miscreants pick up on it.  Lot, in a sorry show of cowardice, offers to let them all have their way with his daughters, so they'd leave him alone, to no avail.  Those messengers, in a display not unlike Qui-Gon Jinn and young Obi-Wan in Episode I, blind the crowd so they can't bust down Lot's door.

Just in time, Lot and his family escapes from Sodom before it's destroyed, although at least one member of his household just can't help but look back at the Strip one last time, only to be vaporized.  And then, feeling that they won't be able to find suitable mates, Lot's daughters get their father drunk so he'll perform a most unnatural act.  More on that below.

And what of Abraham?  Sarah tells him to boot Hagar and Ishmael out of the family for good.  This time, instead of blindly following her orders, he's actually feeling wrong about doing it.  But then G-D actually tells him to do what Sarah says, because Ishmael is not only going to survive, but be the father of his own "great nation," while Isaac gets the covenant.  So is a consolation prize meant to be enough?

And what does he do with the son he kept?  He almost kills him for G-D.  Volumes have already been written about that whole sorry affair.

What this selection shows is a major-league demonstration of misguided loyalty.  Prime examples of how not to respond to desperate times, even if the choices really are that difficult.

Abraham knew that his nephew, whom he already saved once, was going to be in worse trouble than before.  At that time, he had no problem bargaining with G-D to consider even the possibility of sparing the innocent.  He didn't know whether there were 10 people in Sodom and Gomorrah who were worthy enough to justify the cities' survival, but at that time, he wasn't afraid to ask G-D to reconsider a severe decree.  But that same urgency was gone for both of his sons.  His first son was getting evicted, and forced to fend for himself, with assurances from On High, that he'd be just fine, and not to worry about him.  He was already showing some strength of character by not merely accepting these circumstances without question, but showing real concern, as this was his son.  But where was his bargaining power then?  Why did he not ask G-D to just put Hagar and Ishmael in the Guest House?  Or maybe check out a new apartment for them?  Just to make sure he'd be OK by making the provisions -- how could he plead for Lot and not for his son?

Same issue with Isaac, but better known.  Where was his power of persuasion then?  He pleaded for Lot to be kept safe, but he didn't object when directed to slaughter his son on the altar.

And Lot's not that much better.  He was willing to let those low-lifes have their way with his daughters to prevent a worse rumble, and then later he allows his daughters to get him drunk and have him impregnate them?  True, the Ten Commandments had not yet come down at the time, so maybe it was technically okay to do that, but why did they have to get him drunk to make it happen?  And why couldn't he be a good enough father to say no?  It could be that his daughters had some corruption issues of their own, having grown up in Sodom, but this might have been his chance to set them straight now that they were out of that city.

It seems to me that we're taught to recognize lessons from these errors in judgment.  Unlike Abraham and Lot, we can use the right tactics for the right situation.  Abraham could have still stood up for Lot, there was nothing wrong with that choice, but he could have also stood up for both of his sons, and pleaded against the eviction and the sacrifice.  As gracious as it was of him to be a good uncle, he also needed to be a good father, because his powers of persuasion were needed by his sons even more than they were needed by his extended family.

Sometimes you have to think about it.  Consider the consequences and risks, and weigh which choice brings the greater benefit.  Don't waste your all of your smarts and arguments on issues that will effect you less, and don't "pass" or give up on issues that affect you more.  Just because some higher authority, divine or otherwise, demands that you do something that feels wrong, that doesn't mean you can't speak up and at least explain why you feel it might be wrong.  Choose your battles wisely.  Someone may thank you for it one day.

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.

You Deserve A Break!

Hi all -- now that all four football playoff games are done, and the Golden Globes are on, now's a good time to update the old blog!

It takes a certain amount of work to elevate yourself to new levels.  Accepting the Four Pillars, eliminating the parasites, saboteurs, and gangsters from your lives, and increasing your self-esteem are not as easy as our friends in the "I don't care" crowd would have us believe.  So what do we do when we're swamped?  Take a BREAK.

Last week, I had a break of sorts.  It was one I'd planned months before in order to run the Disney Marathon.  Away from my normal routine, I visited my parents down in Florida, went to Orlando for all three of us to enjoy the marathon, and was treated to a little extra rest and relaxation.  Once again, I thank my mom & dad for all their support! Not only did I use that weekend to compete in that marathon, I also used it for a little extra peace and introspection.

And this past weekend, I took another break.  I had a week off from running, and treated myself to a mini-junk food binge!  I'm not sure if the editors of Runner's World would agree, but most coaches will tell you that your body definitely needs to rest before you start running regularly again.  And so I have!  Of course, something tells me that by next week, that'll change.

The best thing about my breaks -- reconnecting with family.  Our past can only be our past, we can't live in it, and we can't go home again.  Even so, maintaining long-term relationships, especially with blood relatives, can still give us greater insight into who we are at present, and where we're going.  Your immediate family still knows you better than anyone else, and has the best perspective into the path you're taking, and can always advise you in the most supportive way.  You can still trust them more than anyone else.  So long as you remain true to them, they'll always stay true to you.

So I'd like to thank my folks for inviting me into your home recently.  I can assure you that those visits won't be the last.  The time I've spent with you has been rejuvenating, and I recommend the same to all my readers, to the extent it's possible to do so, no matter how young or how old you may be.  Through reunification and reflection with the family you grew up with, you're able to gain strength from the original source of life.  In doing so, you're able to rejoin the world stronger, more mature, and significantly wiser.

And it doesn't hurt to remind them, and yourselves, that:

I EXIST.  I MATTER.  I BELONG.  I DESERVE.

Feel free to comment!