Tag Archives: leadership

Monday Afternoon Ramblings

April 1, 2013 D.A. Adams Leave a comment

In 1801, at his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson faced a divided nation. The election had been highly contentious, the sides torn between those who wished to dissolve the union and those who wished to preserve it. After Jefferson won the election, thus saving the federal government, there were many who wished to run his opponents out of the country or in some way punish them for their opposition. In his address, Jefferson spoke these words:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions….If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

This is the guiding philosophy of my life, but unfortunately, today, too many Americans seem to have forgotten these principles of a democratic republic. Yes, the majority rules, but the minority deserves equal respect and protection under the law. Anything less is tyranny and oppression. Today, the words of Jefferson need to be heard and heeded more than ever. Even the most misguided fool deserves a voice in this country as long as “reason is left free to combat” them, but now as much as ever, we need to eradicate political intolerance from both ends of the spectrum and re-cultivate a culture of common ground. If the polar extremes continue to have their way, our democratic republic will die, and we will find ourselves under the yolk of a police state enforcing one side’s unbending rules.

Right now, the greatest threat to our nation is that the extremes are the voices most being heard. Those of us who still believe in the system set forth by our founders, those of us who still believe in true liberty, not a fascist facade prescribed by political allegiance, need to speak up. We must make our voices heard above the din of the extremists. Those of us who want to live in a country where we are free to worship as we see fit, speak our minds without fear of imprisonment, and live our lives as we best see fit must come together and demand that our elected officials and mass media stop promoting only the extremes. I still believe there is time to save our country, but we have to raise our voices now. We have to stop bickering over every divisive issue and demand elected officials who live up to Jefferson’s vision of following the rule of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. We have to shine the light of reason on the irrational. If you agree, make your voice heard.

General Posts

Friday Afternoon Ramblings

March 29, 2013 D.A. Adams 4 Comments

I know I’ll catch a lot of grief for this post, but here’s one potential solution to virtually all of our political divisiveness. Let’s turn the decision making on most, if not all, of these issues back to the states. If each state has the opportunity to decide for itself, based on the will of the majority, how to settle these issues, then we can find out in real-time and through real experimentation which paths work best. Through the free market, the states that enact the laws which best serve the will of the people will thrive, and the others will struggle. If people don’t agree with the path of their state, they have the freedom to move to one that best suits their world view.

For example, if New York wants tougher gun control laws, let them pass those statutes. If Texas wants every single citizen armed, so be it. Within a few years, we’ll know which one works best. Crime in each state will reflect the wisdom of their laws. If gun control advocates are correct, New York will become a safer place, while Texas will resemble a Mad Max movie. If gun rights advocates are correct, Texas will in fact have less gun violence. Either way, we’ll know definitively.

If the citizens of Tennessee oppose gay marriage but the people of Massachusetts want it, then each state, by the majority of its citizens, can make that choice. Homosexual couples have the freedom and the right to leave Tennessee for a state that accepts their lifestyle. Likewise, people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons can move to states that support their religious doctrines. Sure, people in Massachusetts may view people in Tennessee as backwards barbarians, and people in Tennessee may view Massachusetts as a godless land of heathens, but that wouldn’t be much different from how each views the other already. The difference is that citizens of neither state will feel as if the other is imposing its will on them.

If Kansas and Arkansas want to ban the teaching of science and evolution from their schools, let them. Let’s see how long their economies can survive without scientific thought. We will learn rather quickly, based on the free market, which world view has more validity. Companies and businesses can locate to each state based on the quality of education within its borders, and if Chik-Fil-A wants to leave states that ban religious doctrine from schools, and Starbucks wants to leave states that teach creationism, so be it. The people within each individual state can thrive according to their own beliefs.

Healthcare can become a state by state issue. Instead of sending money to the federal government, states can either create universal healthcare for its citizens or continue with our current system, based on the will of its people. We will learn very quickly which model works best. We can test in real time whether or not freeing individuals and businesses from profit driven insurance pushes up or down healthcare costs. We can test in real time whether or not universal healthcare can be sustainable. The states that thrive can become models for those that struggle.

We can apply this principle to virtually any issue, and by observing in practice which paths work and which don’t, develop long-term courses of action that best serve the country as a whole. We can simplify the tax code by returning the vast majority of tax revenue to each state. We can appease all members of the political spectrum by creating real-life laboratories for their political beliefs, and if they prosper, they can crow about it. If they struggle, they can adapt or perish. Whatever the case, individuals will no longer feel as if the beliefs of others are being forced upon them. If they don’t like the direction of their individual state, they can move somewhere else. I don’t expect this solution to ever be taken seriously or enacted, for starters because it would dismantle the federal juggernaut, but also because it makes rational sense. However, I believe it could solve a lot of our problems within a generation or two.

General Posts

Wednesday Afternoon Ramblings

January 16, 2013 D.A. Adams 3 Comments

Ever since the tragedy in Newtown, the gun control debate has intensified to an unbearable cacophony. I’ve tried to stay out of it much like I tried to stay out of the election. There are already too many people spewing too much bile for the opinions of one insignificant hillbilly to make much difference either way. For the record, I’m for responsible adults having the right to own as many guns of whatever size and type they want. I’ve seen the kinds of weapons criminals carry, and responsible, law-abiding citizens of this country should have the ability to protect themselves and their families from people who would do them harm. But the purpose of this post isn’t to argue about guns. Larry Correia and Sam Harris do a far better job of spelling out the fallacies of gun control than I can. For me, the parts of this debate that’s being missed, the crucial parts, are the underlying causes of mass violence.

First and foremost, our mental health system is a deplorable sham. It’s simply inaccessible to many of us, mostly because of costs but also because of the attitudes and behaviors of many within the profession. Since my shotput accident in 1989, I’ve battled depression. Most of the time, I overcome it and function well. However, back in 2003, I fell into a deep depression that nearly crippled me. I recognized that I needed help and sought out a professional. First, getting in the door was tedious and challenging. Just getting face to face with a therapist was nearly more of an obstacle than I was able to overcome. Then, when I finally did get to see someone, I was greeted by an incompetent person who laughed when I explained the accident. No, really, she laughed at a person in the depths of a crippling depression. Here I was fully aware of my condition, actively seeking help, and stifled by the so-called professionals who were supposed to be there to help. Fortunately for me, I already knew enough about depression to look elsewhere for assistance, but imagine for a moment if I had been slightly more despondent or more unhinged. I easily could’ve slipped off the edge and done something horrific. That’s just one example of the absurd state of our mental health system. Those of you, our president included, who are so vehement that guns are the issue, why are you not equally looking at mental health, or more accurately the lack of it, as a culprit?

Also, why isn’t anybody talking about the problems in our society that create such deep feelings of disenfranchisement and alienation that people feel compelled to murder strangers? Is it just simpler to point at guns and say they are the problem than to dig for the root causes? I know plenty of people who own guns who’ve never even aimed them at another person, so I find it hard to believe that the weapon itself is the issue. What pushes a young man to walk into a school and murder over two dozen people, most of them under the age of seven? What drove him to that point of disassociation? Is it economic inequality? Is it the failure of inclusion (that’s another post for another day)? Is it the endless bombardment of propaganda that we’re exposed to daily? These are the questions we should be focusing on more than whether or not lawful citizens should be allowed to own a rifle. Why isn’t the president asking these questions at least as much as looking at guns? It seems to me if economic inequality is a culprit, he would then at least have some leverage for his economic agenda.

We’re already a polarized populace. After the election, hundreds of thousands of citizens signed petitions to secede from the union. If the president pushes for more gun control in this climate, his actions could ignite a powder keg, literally. I’d much rather see the left asking the deeper, harder questions right now than using Newtown to push a political agenda that 1) doesn’t work and 2) might spark a civil war. Just as the Bush administration dropped the ball after 9/11 by telling us to go shopping, the Obama administration has dropped the ball after this tragedy by focusing on guns instead of the underlying causes, and this time, things could get bloody and ugly rather quickly.