Batman predicts 2008 Election…
I Want to be John Adams
For the most part I love meeting new prospective friends. New friends represent new possibilities. They offer new ideas and conversation, and a fresh audience to laugh at my stale jokes. At the same time, new faces make me horribly self aware of my own flaws. The flaw I fret over most is my apparent antagonism.
My goal isn’t to cause strife, so what is the source of this impression I leave with people? When I think about things, I understand them by debating with myself. The topics change but the internal dialog never stops. It’s how I process all information, from a Sunday sermon to weekend plans. The debate even extends to topics I already firmly and passionately support. Although I crave black and white explanations, I often wonder if I hold such a confident stance because I lack understanding. A small measure of uncertainty and shades of gray comfort me. Ironic, I know.
I feel compelled to extend my internal dialog to others. It often manifests by playing devil’s advocate to different degrees. Resisting the urge to share is as difficult as ignoring an itch. I am compelled because deep down I have difficulty accepting people are not like me. They may not process information as I do. They may not care as I do. My joy and anxiety are amplified when I am asked to discuss and explore a topic with shy people. It’s like taking a recovering alcoholic to a wine tasting. It taunts me with the promise of what I love most, but then requires I exercise painful restraint.
I could not tell you how prominent the problem is anymore than my daughter could tell you how prominent her frizzy hair is. We both lack perspective because we are too close to the problem. I can tell you that I dislike people that resemble the “antagonistic” side of me. I liken this part of me to Socrates, who was a total douchebag. Yet despite how I resent this part of me, I can’t change. It isn’t something I do. It is who I am.
My ego is being healed by the new direction I’ve found for my social flaw. My inspiration comes from another historical figure, Mr. John Adams. Mental_Floss encouraged me to give the new HBO series a try. Slowly I’m starting to connect the historical facts that frame the person.
As I recount what I know, I won’t bother to separate historical fact from HBO’s embellishment. Hell, you may find I’ve read a bit into what I watched, possibly inflating Mr. Adam’s accomplishments and character. Those details matter little when looking for inspiration. In the words of Jebediah Springfield, “A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man.”
That said, consider the first episode. In it, John agreed to represent the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, despite how it would damage his reputation. Justice was more important than politics and his family’s well being. He defended them to the best of his ability, and 6 were found innocent. John defended the crown right to levy taxes, pointing out the reason they were levied and reminding people most were repealed. His low key but clear voice of reason doesn’t deter the cruel mob demonstrations that sought independence. Few things are scarier than resisting a mob. Few feats show greater commitment to an ideal. By the end of the episode King George had repealed many of the colonists basic rights. John was humble enough to recognize that this (and not petty taxes) was an issue weighty enough to defy the crown. He was pragmatic enough to support a group he did not perfectly agree with, all the while attempting to assert his righteous influence among them. Although he sounds decisive, the show focuses on the internal conflict and doubt. Does his commitment to justice supersede his commitment to his family? What use is it to support a hopeless rightous cause? How does he support the colonists without supporting their despicable actions?
I want to be John Adams.
08.12.08Shame
I’ve done a great deal of thinking this year about shame. Is it counter productive or harmful? Is it ever appropriate? This past Sunday the brain cogs fell in place and the machine in my head finally turned out something worth sharing. My epiphany involves the relationship between shame and repentance.
First a few definitions: Shame comes from feeling unworthy, embarrassed, disgraced or responsible for an offense. Repentance means to be motivated by shame to change one’s mind. It implies an effort to avoid or counter the shameful act in the future. To clarify, repentance does not imply success. It merely implies effort.
Be definition shame must precede repentance, if only momentarily. Yet the two are meant to be mutually exclusive. A repentant soul shouldn’t be ashamed. In fact, any shame that remains in a repentant heart is the unhealthy sort meant to destroy us from the inside out. There is no truth or value to those internal accusations.
Shame can blind people to their own worth and obfuscate the most obvious solutions. It is our job to help guide ashamed people so they find quick and free release through repentance. We are also obliged to help people let go of residual shame once they have repented. People that deny or disbelieve heartfelt apologies seal shame and repentance in the same heart and are responsible for the damage done within.
It is silly to expect repentance from someone who feels justified or proud of their actions. I propose it is better to convince them of their shame first. If a child lies without remorse, shouldn’t we tell them they are a liar and treat them as untrustworthy. The goal isn’t to destroy their ego. Repentance is quick and free, even if it isn’t always easy. Sometimes I get the impression society expects us to preserve our children’s egos at the expense of their souls. If shame doesn’t come naturally and we can’t push them towards it then how will they ever learn and grow?
07.17.08The Tytler Cycle
I was reading something a friend wrote about the rise and fall of empires. Most of it revolved around a quote attributed to Alexandar Fraser Tytler. I thought we would all do well to meditate on it a bit:
07.11.08A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Iranian Missile Tests
