Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a public speaking event in Utah last Wednesday.  I am familiar with his work, and have loosely followed his career, via sporadic viral videos of his debates and conversations with people who disagreed with him.  I recently listened to a two hour interview he did on Jordan Peterson's podcast, and liked what he had to say.  My impression of him was that he was eloquently and lovingly sharing hard truths that many people didn't want to hear.  In ten years of speaking in public, he has apparently accumulated a number of 'troubling quotes' in the eyes of some, but that seems forgivable by those who generally agree with him, and not so much by those who find his overall views offensive.  The video I pulled, basically at random, to show my wife what he was known for, was a less graceful example of his style, based on the hostility of the people he was engaging with in that moment.  I have since found other videos that did fit the impression I had originally felt about him, recorded in slightly more respectful environments.  In that case he was having a well thought out and articulated conversation about his moral concerns with the IVF process, with twins who had been conceived via IVF, and I thought he did a fantastic job of balancing truth and love, and I believe they did too at the end of the talk.

The reactions to his death have been interesting.  Many people, likely in the hundreds now, have lost their job based on their public reactions to his killing, namely celebrating his death on social media.  Some might be concerned that this is an assault on free speech, which Charlie stood for, but it clearly is not.  Speech does need to be policed, and people should be held accountable for what they say.  It is just that the government, should not be policing that speech; we the people should be.  People who say inappropriate things, or promote harmful ideas should be held accountable by those around them, whether that is their boss, their friend, or family member.  I saw it very concisely communicated in an FB meme: if you think it is acceptable for someone to be shot for an opinion they hold, you shouldn't have a problem with being fired for an opinion you hold.  But it does seem to have brought a new level of divisiveness to conversations online, or further highlighted the existing problem.

I am curious to see how his memorial service goes this weekend, and if he is given a military style send off.  Some would argue that it would be offensive to those in uniform, since he didn't serve in that way, but an argument could be made that he died defending the freedoms of our nation, and in a fashion with known physical risks.  I think the large spectacle that his memorial is likely to become, is well deserved for one who was uncompromising in his stand for truth, while also loving those around him, even when they didn't agree with him.

His death has seemed to effect people more strongly than most celebrity passings, and on one sense that is logical, based purely on the facts.  He was killed very publicly, in front of a large crowd and a lot of cameras.  And it was obvious to anyone who was aware of the situation 'why' it happened.  Because those who believe that 'words are violence' can easily convince themselves that saying the 'wrong' thing can justify a physically violent response in 'self defense.'  But in another sense there was also a view to the future.  He was only 31, so who knows what else he could have done in the future.  He was probably the youngest serious advisor to the current president, and maybe could have been president himself someday.  But that view of the future is also why he was a target.  He was a minimal threat at this moment, how much real trouble can he cause spending his time arguing with college students?  But he was an inspiration to stand up for truth in the face of evil, and that was what his death represented a strike against.  And he was clearly just getting started.  He was also, in retrospect, one of the strongest Christians in the public sphere, probably surpassing most pastors in his outspoken promotion of the gospel and his faith in Jesus.  And in one sense, outspoken Christians like that are killed on a a daily basis around the world.  But not in America, so this is is concerning, at least from a selfish perspective, of a Christian, currently living in America.

As for who killed him.  I was surprised that it took over 24hours for them to even identify who it was, but he is now in custody.  I have my doubts that we will see much justice in that case, due to me belief in the principle that 'justice delayed is justice denied."  This is clearly premeditated murder without excuse.  We need to take the time to confirm that he isn't being framed, or that some other issue is not a play, but he should be tried within a month, which should only take a couple of days, and as long as 12 people agree that he is clearly guilty, he should be dead a month later, after his appeal is reviewed by a higher court or judge.  Instead, it seems likely that he will still be living in prison 20 years from now, waiting for various unnecessary legal processes to take place, profiting a bunch of lawyers on both sides, at taxpayer expense.  But at least they appear to have gotten his killer, both so he is off the streets, and so that his family can have some level of closure, instead of forever wondering what exactly happened.

You-Said

 This is intended to be a reminder of how things look in the moment, compared to how we may view them later.  Hindsight can be (but isn't always) 20/20, but it can also be distorted by time, and people forget what things were really like.

We are currently three weeks into the second Trump administration, and there have been all sorts of changes, from decreeing that the federal government only recognizes two genders, to cracking down on illegal immigration.  On the foreign policy side, there have been proposals to take control of Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even Gaza.  On the domestic side, Elon Musk has been set loose on the federal bureaucracy, in the form of DOGE.  The biggest news there has been the dismantling of USAID, the US Agency for International Development.  It looks like that process may get repeated at the CFPB (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau) and the Dept of Education, and who knows where next, but the USAID is the first iteration of that process, the one farthest along in the present day, and the one with the most backlash, as far as I can tell.

Now Republicans have been trying to scale back USAID for years, so this is not coming from left field, but it was probably not on the average American's radar.  As an organization that spends hundreds of billions of dollars, mostly to benefit non-Americans, it is easy to see how it would fall victim to an "America First" priority set.  But beyond the staggering spending on foreign needs, there appears to be high levels of corruption and waste in the organization itself.  Now Democrats are painting the attack on USAID as a catastrophe that will destabilize the planet, and that it is not within Trump's power to dismantle it.

But USAID was established by executive order by Kennedy in 1961, and while Congress eventually codified its existence into law, that isn't what created it.  It was started by the President, and Congress caught up to that change later, and there is no reason for that not to work in reverse.  Also, the House of Representatives controls the 'purse-strings,' but that is limited to allocating money to things to fund the government.  It obviously doesn't work in reverse, in that the president is in charge of executing the act of governing based on the specifications legislated by Congress, but either side can cut funding for something.  And there is enormous precedent for the president to shift funding for expenses Congress never even approved. (See Ukraine assistance)  So I see no legal reason that Trump can't get rid of USAID.

Then there are the moral implications.  The richest man in the world implementing the dismantling an organization ostensibly devoted to aiding the development of those who are poverty stricken in third world countries doesn't have good optics.  USAID is probably doing some beneficial things in certain parts of the world, although Democrats have come up with few compelling examples of that during this conflict.  But most of those would fall under the umbrella of charity related endeavors.  And a strong argument could be made that A: the government should not be involved in charity in any form, especially the federal government, and that B: it may be impossible for the government to 'do' charity, because 'charity' is a spiritual activity, that involves voluntarily sharing ones time or resources.  Everything the government does is inherently by compulsion, and the government is not a spiritual entity, (although the people who make up the government are, similar to corporations) so both those issues prevent true charity from taking place in that capacity.  Instead, all you have is the redistribution of wealth.  And in this case, due to the current federal deficit and debt load, anything in that vein, is stealing from our children, to buy goodwill in the present, in what must be the worst form of virtue signaling.  So it would be hard to come up with a moral objection to shutting it all down, even if the "good" didn't outweigh the bad.

But the bad clearly appears to outweigh any true benefit from the organization, and they aren't doing anything good that a true charity couldn't do better, and with voluntary funding, therefore making it actual charity, instead of a further extension of state power, which is what Democrats openly admit it is.  One of their biggest objections to eliminating it is that it is a valuable tool to influence (manipulate) other countries.  I don't want the US to be manipulating other countries, unless they are a threat to us, at which point I want the Defense Department to be our response.  It is hard to imagine how 'soft power' could be anything less than evil, working in secret, even if for America's selfish benefit.  And if not for America's benefit, then why be part of the US government?  Anyhow, I can imagine there being some negative consequences of eliminating most of USAID, but it looks at the moment like that action is worth it.  This what America voted for, to reform a government which has gotten out of hand, and lost touch with the people, as all oversized organizations do.

The Life of a Servant

The entire concept of servants, or being a servant, is looked down upon in Western society, even though it is widely acknowledged that service is important, and even that we all serve something.  But a servant is literally 'one who serves.'  While a server provides a particular service, a servant is a more general role, usually to a specific person or family.  So being a server is socially acceptable, but being a servant is not.

But Jesus's followers refer to themselves as servants throughout the New Testament, and while an alternate word could be used in the translation, the idea of serving a particular subject (God) as opposed to a particular task, makes servant an appropriate word choice.  Jesus also told numerous parables about servants, and their roles stewarding the affairs of their master.  And while there are many hidden meanings to the parables, it is fairly clear that the master is God, and the servants are us, his followers.  So we are called to be servants, which is an idea that can intuitively rub us the wrong way from our contemporary perspective.  But that role didn't always have that connotation, and we have similar dynamics with different labels.

A king used to have all sorts of servants, and there was a very explicit hierarchy, with some serving the king directly, and others in lower roles.  But having any role in the king's household held some level of honor or prestige, compared to serving a family of lower status.  But there were three main routes to finding oneself in that position.  Being born that way/blind luck, being promoted to that position from elsewhere, or serving a household before it ascended to that position of prominence.  One could choose to serve someone, for a variety of potential motivations, but out of belief in them, and desire to support them.

This happens in politics all the time, with different labels.  A candidate's campaign manager becomes their chief of staff once they are elected.  Maybe they were serving that campaign because they believed in the policies and values that the candidate was espousing.  Maybe they just applied to work for the candidate they thought had the best choice of winning.  Regardless of their motivation, serving someone successful have potential benefits.  Similar to choosing to work for a company that becomes successful has it's rewards.

It seems less offensive or cynical when we talk about it in terms of a corporation.  One becomes a servant (employee) of a corporate startup, and if it folds, they are unemployed.  But if it succeeds, they rise in stature with the company, with growing financial rewards, and potential increases in position and responsibility.  But you are still a servant (employee) unless you rise to the very top.  It is hard to see the President or CEO as a servant, but they are responsible to a board, and the best ones serve their customers and their employees.  A king is responsible only to God, but in another sense should be a servant of the people.  This seems to be more explicit in European monarchies over the last century, while before that, it was rarely openly recognized.  So in a sense, we are all meant to be servants.

I serve at church in a couple capacities, I serve various camps, and I serve my family.  I have one primary employer or client I have worked with over the past two decades, among a wider variety of projects.  I have worked with that person across multiple projects and companies, and prioritize those projects in how I structure my work and schedule.  One could say that I serve him.  I did not deliberately pick him, I deliberately picked other things that led to us working together, and those other things I had picked eventually fell away, leaving me with him.  At first I was satisfied with serving with him, because I was proud of the work we were doing, and the projects I was involved in creating.  As those projects have changed over time, I have found what we are working on together to be less meaningful, and there has been on objective decrease in overall volume of work as well.  But that is who I was used to working with or serving.  I did discover someone else who was doing work that I found far more meaningful and inspiring, and I did attempt to connect with them, to serve there, but did not get anywhere with that.  That change likely (but not certainly) would have required ceasing service to the one I had been with for years, and probably would have led to greater personal success, had I made that transition early.  But if that opportunity was ever truly available, I did not move quickly enough to capitalize on it.

I do have trouble seeing myself as a servant, but I don't have an aversion using my skills and talents to help implement someone else's vision.  I have led my own projects, specifically a web series, but I usually avoid positions of ultimate responsibility, (which is a whole other topic to delve into soon) instead preferring to be second in command.  I like to come up with innovative solutions to problems, but don't necessarily want to be responsible for implementing them.  I have no problem letting someone else be in charge, to be the one responsible if anything goes wrong.  But that person needs to be someone I trust and respect.  There isn't much worse than being stuck serving a bad leader.  I have the good fortune of having some degree of control over who I serve in a workplace capacity, purely because I have the financial flexibility to quit, or pass up jobs that don't look promising in that regard.  

Other people may have fewer choices or options available to them in that regard.  But we can all choose 'what' God' we serve.  And ultimately, that is who we are serving to some degree throughout our life.  And presumably we will continue to serve him after we die, if we choose wisely.  And I don't mind the idea of serving God forever, that was the 'new idea' that prompted this post in the first place.  If God 'has a place' for me in heaven, I look forward to the role.  Presumably he made me for it, or vice versa, so it should be a good fit.  And I will be in the service of a good leader.  That is as much as most servants could ever hope for.  And Happy New Year '25!