Are Americans Welcome on Mars? A Dream?

NASA Photo

A DELEGATION OF MARTIANS ARRIVES ON EARTH. THEY LAND IN WASHINGTON, D.C. They have heard rumors about Americans wishing to move to Mars. The Martian delegation wants to figure out if Americans are qualified to be accepted on Mars. They find a few American citizens and a dialog ensues as follows. 

Martians: What kind of people you Americans are? 

Americans: We are a good people. 

Martians: What does that mean? 

Americans: We are committed to truth telling. We don't lie. 

Martians: Huh. So you elect a leader to represent you among nations of your Earth and in the galaxy who doesn't know what truth telling is. Right? What else? 

Americans: We respect each other, especially women among us. 

Martians: Huh. So you elect a leader to represent you among nations of your Earth and in the galaxy who has been convicted for abusing women. Right? What else? 

Americans: We are fair minded people. We are not consumed by revenge and retribution. 

Martians: Huh. So you elect a leader to repesent you among nations of your Earth and in the galaxy who is consumed by revenge and retribution. Right? What else? 

Americans: We are a decent people. 

Martians: Huh. So you elect a leader to represent you among nations of your Earth and in the galaxy whose language is often laced with obscneity and vulgarity. Right? What else? 

Americans: We are ...... 

Martians: Don't have to say more. We understand that you value lies, misogyny, revenge, and obscenity, among other human frailties we may not know about. Right? 

Americans: But not all of us are like that.

Martians: Maybe not. But the majority of you chose the leader whose qualities of character you admired. Right?

Americans: Perhaps you have a point here. 

Martians: Of course, we have a point here. The point is that we Martians do not want to be corrupted by you Americans. So just stay off our planet Mars. Don't pollute us.

Americans: But may be we will change in four years. 

Martians: We will keep our fingers crossed. Until then stay bound to your Earth. Mars is not for you.

The Martians then turn around, board their saucer and are gone in a jiffy. 

It is then that we wake up! Or do we?

Neck Collar or Breast Harness? Do Dogs have a Choice?

Wikipedia Image

I WAS SHOPPING IN A LOCAL STORE WHEN I NOTICED ANOTHER shopper with a service dog. The dog looked nice and calm as service dogs ususally do. I noticed that the dog had both a breast harness and a neck collar. The shopper had the rope attached to the neck collar and not to the breast harness. I wondered why. I wanted to askl the shopper why she didn't prefer the breast harness over the neck collar to restrain the dog. But I didn't, thinking that she might be offended.

For long I have been bothered by dogs being pulled around and restrained by a neck collar. I don't know how dogs feel about that, but I suspect they wouldn't be comfortable. A breast harness would be a much less painful way of being restrained. I notice around me that the use of breast harness is increeasing, but very little. Most dogs continue being restrained and pulled away with neck collars. I wish we could ask dogs how they feel.

I can't shake off the photo of one of our army pesonnel, paid byour tax dollars, dragging an Iraqi person by a rope around his neck in Abu Ghraib prison during our invasion of Iraq based on a false premise. And I wonder whether that particular action, subsidized by our tax dollars, was not a reflection of the neck collar around a dog's neck, letting the prisoner know that he was no better than a dog. Did the puller get that idea from the dog he had pulled or seen being pulled that way?

Yes, President George Bush did apologize on our behalf for that conduct, and for worse conduct, both in English and Arabic. He could have prevented the need for an apology to begin with.

Cruelty to animals is not a trivial matter.

There was a ray of hope that as a people we do have a feeling against creulty to animals. South Dakota governor Kristi Noem quickly lost her expected elevation to potential vice-president position when she revealed that she had shot her dog dead because she could not train the animal. But furor against her has not lasted long. She is now the incoming president's nominee as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

So much for symapthy for innocent animals.

We have about 90 million dogs in this country, most kept as pets in human households. I am sure that most of them are treated well. Yet, according to the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animanls, 50,00 animals (dogs and others) have beenn transported to shelters in the last ten years.

To conclude, I say to the dogs of the world: stand your ground if you are pulled by a neck collar.

Seriously, I think neck collars should be banned in favor of breast harnesses when retaining is required by law or common sense.

 

POST-MORTEM: Are We doing it the Right Way?

SPEAKING ELECTION-WISE THIS IS THE SEASON OF HANDWRINGING OVER THE RESULTS. Those who had expected a different results are perplexed at what happened. The pundits are engaged in a post-mortem of the results. That is normal.

What is not normal is the lack of focus on the true nature of what happened.

Let's examine the nature of the two campaigns and the messages of the two candidates. Let's grade them on what were obviously the key ingredients of their messages. This is what I heard from the winning side, roughly in the order listed.

Anger, Threats, Falsehood, Ignorance, Obscenity, Vulgarity, Promises, Policies.

Let's face it. The losing side could not compete with this performance. They couldn't, and wouldn't, even try. The plurality of the voting public enjoyed this performance, clapping and cheering with obvious approval. No wonder in the voting booth, they chose the one who epitomized what they clapped and cheered for.

Now one might argue: "I am not like that. I condemn that kind of behavior and approach."

So, what? The end result of an election is not the doing of one individual. It is the voice of the collective. So, while individually we might be fine people, collectively we are the epitome of who won the race. Collectively, as a nation, we are represented among the nations of the world by how they see the winning side.

Perhaps we should not take all this so seriously. However, without accepting what this means and what won the day, we cannot reverse it. How can we take obscenity out of the character of our elections without recognizing the over-sized role obscenity played in winning the election?

It has been an American tradition to teach children to look up to American presidents as paragons of virtue and emulate them for success in their lives. This is a tradition we will have to break.

But, as the English theologian and historian Thomas Fuller is reported to have said 'the darkest hour is just before the dawn'.

This Election America Looked in the Mirror

THIS ELECTION AMERICA LOOKED IN THE MIRROR and liked itself enough to elect one of its own to the highest office in the land. The mirror couldn't tell lies, even if it tried to. 

The mirror showed us who we are, a society degraded into a culture of lying and deceiving smeared with a handful of obscenity for good measure. Words that could not be used in public by even un-cultured folks are now routinely used by "nobles" and parroted on public media with a thin veneer of abbreviations. 

When the mirror showed us who we are, we gladly celebrated and elected one of our own.

You might protest "I am not like that. I am a cultured individual with good character."  

Of course, you are a good individual. But, elections are not won or lost by individuals, regardless of how an individual votes. Elections are won or lost by a collectivity of individuals, representing the values - or the lack thereof - of the collective. 

Somewhere in her well regarded book "The Good Earth", Pear S. Buck has noted (and I paraphrase) that in a democratic society, people elect people like themselves. 

So, speaking as a society, we have elected one of ourselves. To the nations of the world, we declare this is who we are. There is no way of getting around it, however hard we may try to wash our dirty laundry.

So where do we go from here? Your thought?

Defining Our National Identity

THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. WE HAVE CAST THE LOT IN FAVOR OF ONE LEADER OVER ANOTHER. Does it matter which one?

Our collective decision is clear. As a nation we value arrogance. We value obscenity. We value lying. Should we go on? This defines our national character, chosen by the clear majority of voting citizens. Individually, we may be fine people, but collectively our national identity is clearly defined by our collective choices.

Some will protest. They will say we voted for lower prices, for example. Okay, if bread costs double the price of years past, we can eat less. If gas cost more, we can drive less. We can survive with less to eat and with less to drive, but less truth and more arrogance and obscenity will not only lower the quality of our life but may even kill us.

For the next four years we will hold arrogance, obscenity and lying as a model for our children to emulate and for nations of the world to aspire to achieve. We will accept that so we can eat more and drive more.

Maybe in 2028, we might reverse course, if we get that opportunity.

Trading Votes for Promises?

GROUPS OF VOTERS GENERALLY OVERRATE THEIR VOTING STRENGTH. They pay too much attention to promises that candidates for office make. They willingly trade their votes for promises. In this trade they pay first and may get nothing for that payment, no fullfilment of promises. The trader (candidate for office) has no care.

Neither political party can be expected to be truly influenced by the transitory impact of who voted for it. What the party leadership will be influenced by is their inner moral and ethical compass, or the absence of it, when the impact of those votes has faded.

So, what is the right strategy in selecting who to vote for? It is not who promises to address any specific community’s concerns. The right strategy is to select the one who has the character that enables humility, decency, truthfulness, a sense of fairness and social justice, and a record of the same.  Candidates with character are more likely to respect fair trade, delivering on the promises for which they have been paid by votes. They are the ones whose character can fortify any promises they make.

So, ignore the promises, pay attention to character in choosing our future leaders.

Let's not trade votes for promises. Trade votes for character. Trading votes for promises, without attention to character, is a bad bargain.

How do we Vote? How should we?

VOTE?

THERE IS NO DEARTH OF POLLS AND OPINIONS AND COMMENTARIES ON how we might vote in elections at any levels of government. National elections every four years, both at the head of the ballot and down ballot, attract the most attention, and cause the most frustration. How should we determine who to vote for? What are our criteria that can overcome the noise and the tit for tat of the campaigns? 

We can begin by recognizing that we don't actually vote for a candidate. We vote for ourselves, our own values, our own aspirations, our own expectations, our own dignity, our own honor, and for who we are. If we find a candidate that meets most of our crieria, we fill in the proverbial oval against his or her name on the ballot.

When I go to the voting booth, I vote for my values, not for a candidate, by asking these six questions.

I value being humble in my interactions. Which candidate exhibits more humility than arrogance?

I value being accountable for my actions. Which candidate exhibits more accountability than unaccountability?

I value speaking the truth. Which candidates exhibits more truthfulness than being untruthful?

I value being fair in exercising justice. Which candidate exhibits more fairness than partiality in exercising social and economic justice in the broadest sense?

I value being decent in speech and action. Which candidate exhibits more decency than obscenity in speech and action?

I value obedience to the rule of law. Which candidate exhibits obedience to the law more often than skirting the law?

Hmm. There seems to be a problem here. What about the cost of living, inflation, jobs, immigration, abortion, and what have you? In their esseence these are all different aspects of fairness in economic and social justice, at any level - local, national and international. Overall exercise of fairness in social and economic justice will lead to a rational and healthy sustainable balance in all these aspects in soicety at large. All I need to ask for is the exercise of fairness in justice.

The bottom line is this. When I mark my ballot, I vote for my values. I vote for whichever candidate personifies my values, or at least personifies more of them than other candidates. 

This is important. My vote defines me. I aspire to be defined by my support of my values, not by negelct of my values. 

Maybe all voters want to be defined by their values, and vote in support of their values. All power to them!

"Muslims are good people." What Does That Mean?

[Note: This first paragrpah is from a blog I wrote in 2014.]

In May this year, my wife and I were returning to Virginia from a visit to Arizona. On the plane across the aisle sat a woman who turned to my wife and asked if she was Muslim. Getting an affirmative answer, she volunteered that she was Mormon and that she was on her way to Virginia to attend the wedding of her son to a Muslim young woman. We congratulated her and wished them well. She explained that her ex-husband, who sat in the row in front of her, was against this marriage and did not want to go to the wedding at all. Then they decided to ask their church leader about this. The church leader told them, “Muslims are good people.” That changed the ex-husband’s mind, and now they and their two sons were headed to Virginia to attend the wedding of their newly converted Muslim son with a Muslim woman. It so happened that as we waited in the baggage area, my wife was even able to meet this young Muslim women who had come to pick them up. All because the good church leader expressed his sentiment clearly: “Muslims are good people.”

Lately, now in 2024, I have been thinking about what the church leader meant when he said, “Muslims are good people?” 

Our Bridge to the Future: Does Character Matter?

The other day my daughter and I were discussing a home improvment project. I asked her if she would recommend a contractor. She did, and added that her contractor was a little more expensive but he was honest. That is why she would recommend him.

She wanted me to swallow a little more expense in exchange of a charcater trait - honesty. Many of us would do that. Many of us would pay a little, or even a lot, more to a honest contractor than pay less to one whose honesty they weren't quite sure of.

What if the 'contractor' was the president of the country, a caretaker of our life experiences, a harbinger of our future? Would we pay him or her a little more, even a lot more, if we could be sure of his honesty?

Isn't it strange that much of the talk in these elections - polls, focus groups, and what have you - is about expense and not charcater? We are worried about the cost of milk and eggs, gas and toys, healthcare,  and so on, but not about humility, accountability, truthfulness, fairness in administrating justice, decency, obedience to rule of law? 

May be I wasn't paying attention, but this morning for the first time I saw a poll that asked about charcater preferences - perhaps an exception that proved the rule.

Think about it. Please read my preceding post: "Who Should I vote for? Here is a Thought".

Your comments are welcome!

POSTSCRIPT: In the past, have we ever considered character traits to be the overriding deciding factor in electing a president as we would surely consider in hiring a home improvement contractor, for example? Why not? Are they really that much different in their impact on our lives? Would you consider debating this issue?

Who Should I vote for? Here is a Thought

WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD WAS RULED by autocrats, dictators, and usurpers of different types, the only democratically elected leader of a polity of his time, Caliph Abu Bakr (ruled 632-634), laid out how he will lead and govern, without the benefit of direct Divine revelation. As the first Head of State and Government of the political community that the Prophet Muhammad had founded, Caliph Abu Bakr delivered his first (inaugural) sermon (khutbah) in a few sentences. Each sentence of his short inaugural address - his sermon - was a succinct expression of a timeless leadership paradigm encompassing a quality a leader should possess. 

"O People! I have been put in authority over you and I am not the best of you. So if I do the right thing, help me and if I do wrong then put me straight. Truthfulness is a sacred trust and lying is a betrayal. The weak amongst you is strong in my sight. I will surely try to remove his pain and suffering. And the strong among you is weak to me. I will, Allah willing, realize the right from him fully. No people abandon jihad in the path of God save that He strikes them with humiliation. When obscene things spread among any nation, calamities generally continued to descend upon them. As long as I obey Allah and His messenger, you should obey me, and if I do not obey Allah and His messenger, then obedience to me is not incumbent upon you. Now stand for prayer."

(Ibn Hashim's al-Sirah al-Nabawiyah about Saqifah bani S'ada - sermon of Abubakr - 2/661) 

I suggest that we consider using the structure below to determine who we should vote for in these upcoming elections. We can score the two main candidates on key relevant pronouncements of Khalifa Abu Bakr. Pretty easy.

HOW?