Where Conservatism Fails

I have reached the conclusion that Conservative ideology works well on the individual and group level, but develops serious, self-destructive flaws when applied universally, or on a geographic level.

Conservative pillars such as self-reliance, personal sacrifice, hard work, strong religious beliefs, avoidance of personal pleasures, and rejection of "secular" activites can lead to a harmonious, local community. However, inherent in Conservatism is a strong resistance to accept change. This, I feel, is where Conservatism fails.

To me, life is about change. Change is integral to life. We see it everywhere-- the change of seasons, a person's transition from grade school to college; the change in weather, ocean currents, fashion trends, technology, our jobs, and so on. In fact, the Chinese culture symbolizes change with the Yin and Yang symbol-- forces and counterforces constantly at work, shaping our world. Therefore, the key to a harmonious society is being able to adapt to change.

Now, not all change is good. But change is inevitable, so we must deal with it in order to preserve harmony. I believe it is better to engage the changing forces of life rather than ignore or suppress them. It is best to evaluate each situation pragmatically, with an eye towards justice and fairness. Tradition, religious-driven morals, and baseless prejudices obviously should not be the only standards in determining whether something should be accepted. Examples include homosexuality, interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, women in the military, Israeli occupation, the requirement of priests to be celibate, illegal immigration, and the list goes on. Historically, many of society's institutional changes were met with fierce opposition from conservative forces, but survived. Attempts to maintain laws or traditions supporting segregation, miscenegenation, and immigration eventually failed and gave way to justice. Homosexuality, stem-cell research, global warming, and abortion are the issues that are facing strong resistance from conservative forces today. It is uncertain which if any will prevail.

Conservatives are rigid in the face of life's changes. They are stubborn and slow to adapt. They need to understand that society is dynamic, not static. As we pass through time, new things are learned and adaptations and adjustments are made for the betterment of mankind. I am not suggesting an "anything goes" approach to life, as some far left liberals and anarchists might support. There are definitely situations where certain movements/trends need to be challenged and extinguished before they have a chance to destabilize society. One that comes to mind is racial hatred, whether it is white supremacy or muslim fanaticism, or anything similar. I know that if a conservative were to read this, he would say "precisely!-- that's why we are against homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, ...." and so on. So it's apparent that the country is divided on what constitutes harmful change. The best approach as I stated earlier is to do our best to be objective, and less judgmental and self-righteous.

More Thoughts on Religion

Lately I've been experiencing emotional conflict on the subject of religion. I have the proverbial little devil on one shoulder, and the angel on the other shoulder trying to win over my perception on the matter. It doesn't help the angel that my mind naturally leans toward pragmatism and objectivity, and less on faith. In an attempt to organize the debate on the merits of religion, my mind creates a courtroom scenario pitting religiosity against secularism. And I must say that secularism has more evidence to support its merits than religion; particulary during this day and age. My personal experience corroborates this, which I'll get into later. But, being a person who makes it a point to give both sides equal consideration, my mind doubles as a "public defender" for religion.

From what I can see, religion has the ability to divide people. It has the ability to divide families. It prevents family members from getting close to one another, if they all don't share strong religious beliefs. Religion by definition is exclusive. It has to be. In order to practice it correctly, you must make certain renouncements; for example, you must refrain from cursing, exhibiting sexuality, and sometimes dancing or drinking in public. Non-religious family members know this, and therefore act in a way that is not quite themselves when they are around religious family members. It creates a somewhat artificial, or distant feeling. One may be quick to say that the "behaviors that religious people renounce shouldn't be done anyways, from a moral standpoint." I suppose this is true. Then why do I, and others feel the way we do? The best answer I can come up with is, the religious method of behavioral restraint involves fear and punishment (of, from God) whereas the non-religious method does not. The religious approach is spartan and rigid; the non-religious approach relies on deity-independent self-restraint, which is quite possible, but perhaps less effective. I suppose that the religious approach is superior in this respect. Humans usually do need some kind of punishment in order to modify behavior, whether actual or perceived. It is a Pavlovian truth. But, for freedom-loving people, to willingly create a subconscious mental state of duress in order to keep oneself in line is an anathema. It is something we try to get around while trying to achieve the same result-- good behavior, good morals.

Religious people serve to act as a (Republican) voting bloc, and as a result can spawn change. They can, as a group change the quality of life in a way that is not acceptable to others. This has never been more true than in the Bush Years: whereas prior to the Bush administration I felt a sense of balance between the two ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. I believe that this is a healthy balance, a yin and yang existence of one force balancing the other to achieve harmony. But today, I feel that the conservative movement has broken loose. I feel that it's encroaching on my life on the personal level. I see an unstable future for the world, thanks to the actions of Bush (actually, the legions of conservatives who put him into office twice). They have opened a pandora's box, creating a "disturbance in the force," to borrow from Star Wars. I see financial hardship for local governments as federal dollars are spent paying for this and future wars. I see a weakening of our economy as we continue to slide into debt. I see global warming accelerating, due to conservatives' rejection and ridicule of the global warming theory. I see an increase in crime as unemployed and underemployed people resort to illegal means to make money. I see increased terrorism as the chasm between Christians and Muslims widens. I see stagnation in technology, especially green technology as resources are diverted to anti-terrorism campaigns. Basically I see a darker, more frightened, dangerous, polluted future.

I believe that overall, organized religion is a failure. I don't think that believing in god is necessarily bad; it's when the believers (the fundamentalists of the group) organize, achieve political power, and attempt to legislate their beliefs upon society.

Ode To James Kim

During the past week, people were riveted to the news of the San Francisco family who had gone missing from a Thanksgiving outing. James Kim, his wife Kati and daughters Penelope and baby Sabine did not return from their trip in Oregon as scheduled, and a missing persons report was filed by family and friends. Kim was headed towards Gold Beach, a coastal destination to the west beyond rugged terrain.

As the days passed with no word of the family, interest grew. Were they kidnapped? Did they get lost? Did they fall into a ravine? The uncertainty of the situation created intense drama. What made the story more urgent was the fact that a newborn was involved, and the fact that weather conditions in the area of travel were harsh. Five different agencies, including private helicopter service hired by Kim's family were busy searching for the lost family. It was like finding a needle in a haystack: vast wilderness and rugged mountainous terrain, with snow and rain hampering the search efforts.

Finally, Kim's family was located. Mother and daughters were cold and hungry, but in good condition. It turns out that they had turned off onto the wrong road: a long, windy logging road that basically led to nowhere. James had left the family a day or two earlier to find help. Now the search focused on finding him. People were very optimistic, because Kim was known as a very resourceful person. However; I had my apprehensions: a city dweller in rugged, remote Pacific Northwest terrain with inclement weather was not a good combination.

Well, yesterday hope turned to anguish: James Kim's body was found in an icy creek, just five miles from where he turned off from the main highway. It was determined that he made a circuitous route on foot, climbing through thick brush, over slippery boulders, and waded through an icy river in a desperate attempt to save his family. Rescue workers were devasted. It was not the ending everyone was expecting, or was hoping for. It seems that many were taken by surprise at the tragic ending.

I feel so sorry, so badly for James Kim and his family. A good man has died a senseless death. A woman is now widowed. And two girls will grow up not having a father around-- no dad around at graduation, holidays, and family outings; no dad to help with homework; no dad to give them away at their weddings. Only bad memories that are best forgotten. Their lives changed forever on that day. And San Francisco lost a fine neighbor.

There are lessons to be learned here:

1. Don't take your loved ones for granted. Make sure they know you appreciate them, every day. You never know if it's the last time you'll ever see them.

2. Realize that there is more to life than your immediate routine. Death can come any day, unexpected. Make sure there is balance in your life. Realize that the world is a playground that God has given us, to be explored and enjoyed and appreciated while you are alive.

3. Be prepared when you take long trips. Think worse case scenario. Play the pessimist role. Then, do what needs to be done to handle these scenarios should they arise. Here's what we all should learn from James Kim's sacrifice:

a) Research the weather forecast in the area of your destination. Go to weather.com. If snow and rain are in the forecast, bring tire chains, extra car battery, food to last a week, warm clothing, snowshoes, etc.

b) Tell at least two people your itinerary. Check in with them at each stop point.

c) If you will be traveling through rural roads, check in with the county sherriff and get as much info as possible on these roads. Check with locals; take notes of landmarks that will help you navigate to your destination. Use your odometer and correlate with your land map so that you can dead reckon your position at any time. Bring a compass (the navigation one and the geometry one).

d) If you have precious cargo (kids, wife) bring or rent a satellite phone.

That's it. You can never be too prepared.

So, to James Kim-- I didn't know you, but your terrible incident has shook me a little out of my state of monotony. You died too soon. I will say a prayer for you. I am not big on faith, but it's during times like this that I really, really hope that good prevails and there is some sort of heaven; and that there will be a reuniting of you and your family one day.

dp

It's Tough To Get Along With Those With Opposing Views

Relationships between people are psychologically complex. We are, after all sentient beings with infinitely different identities. What makes us the way we are is coded in our genes and our exposure to the environment. That being said, what is the best way to relate to people? Do we be ourselves, or do we subtly modify our behavior to accomodate others? I seriously doubt that most people act the way they would in private the same way they would act in front of: their spouse, their boss, a friend, their parents, etc. There is always that reservation that keeps us wanting to impress, or not look bad. Perhaps it's the civilized way to behave.

Here's the conundrum that is causing these thoughts tonight: I have family members whose political and philosophical views are in direct opposition to mine. For example, the majority of my immediate family, and relatives on both sides of the family support G.W. Bush. Consequently, they approve of and continue to support the Iraq war, a war that I feel is wrong from a moral, judicial, religious and practical standpoint. They view global warming not as a scientifically sound theory, but rather a liberal conspiracy. They embrace conservative, traditional views while I embrace progressive views. They interpret situations without giving much thought other than what they see and hear on TV (from sources like Fox News, O'Reilly Factor, etc.). In summary, they possess the traits that turn me off to conservatism: close-mindedness, rigidity in beliefs, rejection of the scientific method in favor of gut feeling, and hostility to those who question their beliefs.

So, when I meet with my relatives, there is an unspoken understanding not to engage in political discussion. I try once in awhile just to get some dialogue going, but in the Conservative fashion, I am met with silence. It seems that one does not challenge a conservative's beliefs without getting some spite in return; often in the form of the cold shoulder. Some people would say, "They are your family, family comes first"; or "These political issues should not drive a wedge between you and your family; put them aside." But when you are a person who is concerned about global issues and how they may affect the future, this becomes a problem. It is difficult to suppress the desire to engage. To not speak out is to not be yourself, and it is quite uncomfortable. Sadly, it damages my relationship with my family. It relegates it to a "casual acquaintance" relationship. We talk about superficial things like summer vacation, sports, etc. and leave out the big, important issues. It's almost like we're estranged.

Religion Inaction

Religion is a double-edged sword. It can help a person feel settled and secure. Faith in a higher power is reassuring because it convinces the individual that, despite all the bad things that can happen in life, there is something much greater to look forward to. Faith can help keep a person in line, serving to create a guilty conscience when intentions lean towards wrongdoing. And finally, faith can cause people to be nicer to one another, and to do good deeds.

But here's the problem: religion is an institution created by and comprised of humans. When an institution relies on human participation, it is subject to the fallibilities of man: greed, hypocrisy, and even downright evil. It basically is open to the seven deadly sins, just like an individual being. Take for instance the downfall of leader of one of the biggest Evangelical churches, the Rev. Ted Haggard. He admitted buying metamphetamines from a gay masseuse, who claims they had drug-fueled, gay sex. When he was not committing these acts, he was preaching against gay marriage and homosexuality. He exemplifies my point precisely. The Revs. Jim Baker (extortion and adultery) and Jimmy Swaggart (solicited prostitution) fell years before him.

But one does not have to go to the highest leadership of our religious institutions to make this point. What I want to know is, if all these religious organizations in this country are worshipping the same god, why is it that you don't ever hear of inter-faith fellowships, ministries, or simple get-togethers? We have the Church of Jesus Christ, the Chinese Christian churches, the Korean Christian churces, The Japanese-American Christian churches (by the way, I have attended all of these churches), Catholic churches, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Unitarian churches, Bible churches, Mormon churches, "non-denominational" churches, mosques, and so on. From what I can tell, these churches' congregations, despite sharing in common worshipping God, don't even bother to knock on each other's door to say "hello." They don't take field trips together and pray together. They don't join forces to help those who suffer. What does this translate to? To me, it says that church life is more of a sub-culture than it is a body of worship. People go to church to interact with like-minded people. Then they go home.

What I would like to see is leaders of the major churches, including the pope get together and make a joint statement about the millions of people in the world who are suffering from hunger, poverty and oppression. They should fire up their congregations and fulfill their roles as leaders to urge volunteerism, philanthropy, and altruism. Ask this of the public at large, not just church members. Put a rest to the sin and damnation sermons for a minute, and focus energy on the present situation. Focus on similarities between the multitudes of faiths, not the differences. Create unity. Buy television airtime and put out the message on a mass communications scale. This doesn't violate separation of church and state as long as the government doesn't foot the bill. But alas, I do not see this happening. There is a widening divide between the Muslim and Christian faiths not seen since the Crusades, and our religious leaders are strangely silent. It just proves my point that religion is not what it is made out to be.

So, as long as religious institutions fail to do their jobs, my advice is NOT to discredit faith or abandon the belief in God; but rather, worship and practice your faith on your own, in private. Keep faith that good will prevail over evil. Be wary of false prophets, including clergy members. Look within to find goodness; do your part in spreading it. Say a prayer, and mean it.

The War Against Terror Cannot Be Won

People: Terrorism is an ideology, not a country, not an army. It exists in the minds and hearts of misguided extremists. It is invisible. It has no mass. It cannot bleed. You cannot militarily defeat an idea; it lives as long as the fuel that feeds it remains. So wake up, and change your strategy America.

Illegal Immigrants

Just the sound of these two words invokes strong, emotional sentiments. Illegal immigration has once again found itself at the forefront of national debate. How shall we decide this issue? Is it one that should be decided by the Supreme Court? By popular vote? Is there a pragmatic and fair way to handle this problem?

Illegal immigrants come to this country in hopes for a better life. The vast majority of them perform manual labor-- jobs that very few Americans would take. Dishwashers, construction, farm laborers-- you name it. Some apply for social security numbers and pay taxes while others get paid under the table. Many send money to their families they left behind. It is estimated that there are over 20 million of them here in the US, mostly from Mexico and Central America. They work for below minimum wage. For businesses that rely on unskilled labor, this is a good thing. It enables businesses to save costs and expand, and helps keep certain goods and services at a low cost. It is widely quoted that, if it weren't for migrant/illegal farmworkers, produce like lettuce would cost up to 10x as much.

On the other side, illegal immigrants are just that-- illegal. They came into this country illegally. They consume our resources. Many have children, which adds to the strain on local communities' resources. They consume government services and even get welfare payments without having paid taxes. Resources are spent on Spanish translation to accomodate the illegals. So the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide to our economy is not without costs.

While I understand and sympathize their motivation to come here, I believe that the law should be observed. A country without laws is a country without order. A country without order is a country without a promising future. In addition, I believe that a liberal immigration policy is not good for our society. Let's face it, once the IIs get accustomed to life in the US, they will want more--it's human nature. One cannot escape the seduction of the American way of life. The IIs will do their hard day's work, and will see American citizens driving their SUVs and Lexuses, buying all kinds of neat consumer goods, and living in spacious homes. In other words, their point of reference will change. The joy of having made it across the border and landing a job that pays minimum wage will quickly fade, and the II will once again see himself as a pauper. He will not be accepted by his fellow country-members. Without a college degree and mastery of the English language, he will realize that there will be no opportunity to move up. Resentment will build. He will see himself as "disenfranchised." The next course of action: violence. A lashing out against "the system." At this point, society will suffer, and it will be an awfully difficult, if not impossible, task to reverse the problem. It's already happening in places like Salinas, CA. The Norteno and Sureno gangs have established a foothold. Their members chose to join because to them, there was nothing left to do. Many are children of IIs.

This is the problem that is bound to happen with illegal immigration. The lawmakers who crafted the original laws were right to "meter" immigration into the US and set entry standards for those wishing to get a visa. We should sever our dependency on cheap labor and stick to the law. It offers the fairest solution to the problem.