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!

Voluntarily Taking on Responsibility

Jordan Peterson argues that voluntarily taking on responsibility as the main source of meaning in life.  It is an interesting proposition, and is probably at least somewhat true.  That has drawn my attention to the fact that I seem to have been avoiding unnecessary responsibility for a long time.  At work I am (intentionally) the second in command in most positions I take, or a consultant, which involves even less responsibility.  I avoid the responsibility of a full time job to keep open the potential of working for Scott, or other movie projects.  At church, I help out where ever I can, without committing to do so (besides leading home group).  My main ministry to camps entails responsibility for the safety of the people who use what I build, but beyond that, I am a volunteer who takes on little further responsibility compared to a camp staff member.  But I use that ministry as an excuse to avoid other ongoing responsibilities locally, since I travel so much for that and work.  I obviously parent my own kid, but avoiding further responsibility is one reason we haven't further pursued fostering or adopting. (That also might require a larger house, which would cost more, which would require even more responsibility on the career front, etc.)

I handle the responsibilities that I have just fine (Family, Scott, Apple, Ropes Courses, Home Group) but I rarely voluntarily take on more or new responsibilities.  This is likely because no one taught me that principle growing up, and instead I associated responsibility with stress.  And stress was a bad thing to be avoided, so I have structured my whole life to minimize stress, relatively successfully, but possibly to my detriment.  Stress can strain relationships, which can already be challenging for me, and can harm one's health.  So I might live longer, but I would be living less during that time, if I wholly committed to avoiding stress.  So I need to make changes there, but I have 40 years of habits and inclinations pushing me in the wrong direction.  Small steps might be more responsibilities at church, instead of just 'helping out' when I happen to be available.  Then maybe some changes at the job level, since some things have been shifting in that realm for awhile, and the current trajectory isn't sustainable for long.   But one step at a time, and church seems like the initial move.

Assassinations, Elections, and the Media

 Apparently someone shot Trump in Pennsylvania tonight.  I am in Pennsylvania at the moment, but a different part.  The initial news stories about the incident were all over the place.  It is reasonable for some level of confusion during an incident, until the details are confirmed, but the media made fools of themselves in their initial reports of Trump falling on stage, and Secret Service interrupting his speech.

It is reported that he was shot from a few hundred yards away, and it hit him in the ear, narrowly missing the rest of his head, which would have surely killed (or at least incapacitated) him.  The difference of a couple inches at that range is a God thing.  Good marksmen can reliably hit targets at farther ranges, but ballistics has some level of incalculable variation.  If God is an interventionalist in national politics, and he wanted to remove Trump from the equation, Trump would be dead.  This doesn't necessarily mean that God wants Trump to be president again, just that he is still alive by the grace of God.  God apparently has further plans for him, or is at least just letting things play out, if that is how you view his role.  I believe God is sovereign over all things, but lets us deal with the results of freewill.  That bullet trajectory was not a free will issue.

I have expected major incidents to take place in the runup to this election, both domestically and internationally.  (China might invade Taiwan, the Russia-Ukraine conflict might expand, etc.)  I still think there is a 25% chance that one of the two main candidates might pass away before the election, or before inauguration, and we would never know if it was from natural causes. (Which is quite possibly as they are both around 80 years old.)  Today was close to that, and still shocking in a certain sense, but also comforting in another sense in that "we" (the American people) survived the incident. Trump is still alive, there aren't riots in the street, and this might actually strengthen his campaign.

Why would that be a good thing?  I believe having a clear winner is probably the best outcome for the upcoming election, compared to a 50/50 split with fights over every detail.  So we need a landslide, in one way or the other, where there is no question that 'the people' have spoken.  It is hard to imagine Trump doing something to alienate his base that badly, but easy to imagine Biden doing so.  Therefore from my perspective at the moment, a clear Trump victory seems like the best outcome for the country, at least in the short term, and the outcome of this event seems to be making that more likely.

So that begs the question: could it have been staged?  I think that is a perfectly reasonable inquiry in this day and age.  In one sense, in the video I saw, you hear some pops, Trump grabs the side of his head ducks behind the podium.  He eventually comes up with blood on him, and is rushed off stage to 'safety' after a triumphant fist pump.  He comes off (relatively) strong in the video and the story (Trump survives being shot in attempted assassination).  The claim is that the shooter was killed by the Secret Service immediately. (Presumably by over-watch snipers responding with high-tech shot-detection gear.)  It is just like the setup in the Mark Wahlberg movie Shooter.

My first reaction was that him being shot in the edge of the head would be too risky of plan. (No one wants to be killed in their own staged assassination.)  But what if he wasn't really shot, and just rubbed some blood on his face or nicked his ear when he ducked?  You would only need one or two body guards in on that part.  But then there is the shooter to be staged, which is more challenging, but an option is presented in that movie.  But in this case, tragically other people were hit by the stray bullets, and at least one was killed.  That becomes a little harder to justify as collateral for a publicity stunt, and even with only ten people involved, you'd never keep it a secret.  So based on the reports I have seen so far, it is just big enough of an incident to be undeniably real, without being big enough to tear apart the country immediately.  It will be interesting to see the further details as they are revealed, and what effect this has on the election.

But it won't increase trust in the media, and it is hard to imagine people trusting them any less at this point.  And if something bigger does happen, how will we know what 'really' happened, or if it even happened at all?

Politically Incorrect Implications of Evolution

The idea that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms is the prevailing scientific view.  Asking where that first single cellular life form originated is where it gets more entertaining, but let's set that issue aside for the moment.  There are various levels to which this idea of evolution is seen to conflict with the biblical worldview, in regards to time spans and divine intervention, but the 'theory of natural selection,' or 'survival of the fittest' is a fairly agreed upon idea, regardless of what degree you might believe it might have impacted the resulting life forms we currently find on earth.  But if you believe that that principle is responsible for 'all order and advanced life on the planet,' that should only strengthen the value that you have for the principle.

But the logical conclusions of any belief that 'survival of the fittest' has been the primary mechanism that drove development of all life on earth are in stark contrast to the values that most people who hold that belief espouse.  Just to be clear, I am not necessarily in support of any of these ideas, I am just pointing out that they are the logical conclusions of the idea that the theory of natural selection is responsible for the undirected development of life on the planet, and therefore all biological order.

First off, the endangered species list should be hugely offensive to anyone who believes that advanced life developed by the less suitable variants dying off.  By protecting less well adapted animals (or plants) we are weakening the entire ecosystem and planet.  If they can adapt to survive in the changing conditions, great.  If not, the planet is apparently better of without them.  But to try to modify the environment to better suit their needs, would be the height of sabotage of the evolutionary development process.

Regarding humans, healthcare should be relatively minimal if it existed at all.  It is imperative that the weak and sick die off, ideally before they have the opportunity to reproduce.  This strengthens the species as a whole.  So the logical course of action would be to refuse to date or sleep with anyone with any identifiable defect of any sort.  This would be especially important for females as they have fewer reproduction opportunities, while males aren't as negatively impacted if one of their offspring is from a genetically inferior partner.  I hesitate to point this out, as we are seeing this beginning to actually happen in Europe with the increasing popularity of euthanasia, but it needs to be discussed in its most extreme forms to highlight what we are really dealing with.  Any form of mercy stands in opposition to the cold ruthless process of natural selection.

And then there is the issue of race.  Among humans, the theory of natural selection is basically a justification for 'might makes right.'  If you have the strength to dominate someone else, you can justify doing so for the good of the planet.  If one culture is particularly dominant, then it must be the stronger option, and the propagation of those ideas and values at the expense of other cultures is for the good of the planet.  It appears historically that over the past 500 years, white Caucasian cultures have developed the technology and means to colonize and subjugate most of the rest of the world, specifically Africa, Asia, and the Americas.  It each of these places, the existing inhabitants were marginalized by the stronger newcomers, and their land and resources shifted to be exploited in new and more effective ways.  In America the native peoples were nearly wiped out, and have been nearly entirely replaced with decedents of the Europeans.  The peoples of Africa and Asia are still numerous, but have largely adopted European methods of achieving success.  Colonization was by no means perfect, but it is today viewed as an unpardonable sin, while 'natural selection' would indicate that it is a moral good.  It cleanses the planet of less effective and efficient cultures and civilizations, and assimilates what is left into the 'superior' system.

It would be more logical for Christians to have a more mercy-based social justice and environmental view, and for atheistic evolutionists to want to see natural selection run its course without intervention.  But that is not what we see, in regards to the strongest supporters of protecting endangered species being biologists.  And the view that evangelizing to foreign peoples is a form of erasing their culture is primarily held by atheists who should see the process of dominant ideas replacing weaker ones as a positive step in the process of strengthening civilization as a whole.  Artificially propping up weaker species or cultures would weaken the entire planet and hinder further development and progress.

The converse proposition is not necessarily as hypocritical, because if you don't believe natural selection is the primary mechanism driving the development of life on earth, you are free to hold all sorts of different values about life, and various Christians do.

Interesting Implications of Chess

Chess is an interesting game that has been around for hundreds of years.  Unlike modern games with stylized artwork and backstory, chess feels very plain, with a few key identifiers in piece design on an otherwise plain board. It is all strategy and no luck via random chance, but complex enough to have nearly limitless possibilities. (There is no single approach to winning that can't be overcome with the correct response.)  In one sense it is a very straightforward game of strictly defined logic and planning, but it is actually thematically skinned.

The pieces all represent members of a royal court, with of course the king and queen in the most important roles, surrounded by bishops and knights to help them, and a bunch of little pawns arrayed before them.  The king is the most important piece, but he doesn't actually do much himself.  Keeping him alive is the point of the entire game, and you lose if he dies.  The queen is an important piece, that can move in unpredictable ways (relative to the other pieces which are more restricted) and run circle around the king and other pieces.  It is the most effective solution for trapping the opponents king, but if the queen is lost, the game goes on.  It is even possible to replace the queen, you just promote one of the pawns.  Which pawn?  Any one that can survive the gauntlet, and make it to the other side of the board.  Heck, you don't even need to lose your first queen before you can promote another piece to the position, resulting in having more than one queen simultaneously.  But not the king; you can't get a second king, and you can't promote a pawn to a king at all.  That is actually the only role they can't be promoted to.

Checkers appears to have been created purely as a rebellious response to these limitations, where any piece can become a king by reaching the end of the board, you can have multiple kings simultaneously, and they have the fewest movement restrictions.  But these characteristics do not reflect historical realities in the same ways that chess does.  Its interesting to think about the messages implicit in the game of chess: most people are just pawns, and if you work hard and with a little luck, you could be promoted to a bishop or knight, or even become a queen, but you will never be king.  And if you do become queen, watch out, some other pawn behind you might be striving for your new role as well.  That is actually a lot of cultural context and messaging overlaid on a game that otherwise seems very straightforward and logical.