At its most basic level, conservatism is a respect for history and tradition, including traditional moral principles. I do not believe I am more moral, certainly no better, than anyone else, and conservatives who act “holier than thou” turn my stomach. So do some elite liberals. But I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, and chief among those is that man is fallen. The world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

And to think that Al Gore almost became President of the United States.

The phrase, "dodging a bullet" quickly comes to mind.

Many teachers are not convinced of the importance of providing more challenging tasks for their gifted and talented pupils.

Bright youngsters told inspectors they were forced to ask for harder work. Others were resentful at being dragooned into 'mentoring' weaker pupils.

...

Teachers feared that a focus on the brightest pupils would 'undermine the school's efforts to improve the attainment and progress of all other groups of pupils'.

I find it interesting that the students interviewed expressed frustration at not only the fact that they aren't getting more challenging tasks, but at also being forced to mentor their weaker (read: less adept) counterparts. Indeed, one has to wonder, if students are being asked to mentor other students, exactly what are the functions and responsibilities of teachers in U.K. schools?

Yet, I can't help but conclude that such nonsense is but an outgrowth of a socialist mentality. Socialism, per Wikipedia, may include,

...the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

I've noticed some common threads, among those with whom I've debated the actions of our current administration: For one, they think that we (whether referring to the U.S. or the world) need to work together for the common good. Also, evil capitalistic greed is what has driven us to the unequal state we now find ourselves in, as a society. And, we should expect the government to be the means with which to provide and regulate the so called common good.

Do you remember this statement?

It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

- candidate Barack Obama

When not reading from his carefully prepared text, Obama tends to reveal himself a bit more clearly. Notice that he thinks we need to make sure that other people behind a successful person (aka less gifted students vs. gifted students) get their chance for success. He also thinks that when the wealth is spread around (aka gifted students forced to mentor less gifted students) it is good for everybody.

As I see it, the problem with socialistic dreaming is that it promotes the notion that human depravity can be ultimately conquered by humans themselves.

The entire course of human history has shown us otherwise.

Christians, note this opportunity to share the Gospel, being handed directly to you:

Per CNN, Atheist ads to adorn New York subway stations.

The advertisements ask the question, written simply over an image of a blue sky with wispy white clouds: "A million New Yorkers are good without God. Are you?"

Take it from there...

A group of the French Resistance, including families with infants, are hiding from Nazi occupiers. One of the infants wails inconsolably and will, more than likely, alert the approaching Nazis. The infant's life is terminated - probably by smothering the child so it's not making noise... to improve the group's chances of survival. But a moral imperative: Murder is wrong, has been violated. A case for utilitarianism could be made. However, is this not a case of moral relativism and, even though it's horrific, something that's necessary?

Utilitarianism as a standard model of moral action is relativistic (the end always justifies the means, but the end isn't always a moral good). However, this does not mean that considering the means to an end does not entail legitimate considerations.

Facing the scenario as an objectivist: a decision has to be made, taking into consideration relative circumstances and utilitarian aspects.

This is a moral dilemma in that there are only two choices and each of the two choices, in isolation, would be wrong to do. Note: taking circumstances into consideration, in your moral decision making, is not relativism. If it were, there would be no moral dilemma in this scenario.

In the case of this moral dilemma, the guiding principle is that human life has transcendent value and should be protected. In this situation the obligation to protect one innocent life (the baby's) is in conflict to protect the lives of all the other people in the group.

Which decision does the greater good? The morally obligatory action would be to silence the baby, although difficult and tragic. The only other choice would be much worse (and the crying child's life seems to be forfeit anyway).

What would happen if the group consisted entirely of adults, yet one of them has a severe case of hay fever (anyone been in Oregon in the Spring? Ugh!). There the poor sap sits, sneezing and honking, obviously having forgotten to take his Claritin.

"Aaaa-choo! Aaaa-choo! Honnnk! Honnnk!"

And pity his poor neighbor suffering from a cold.

"Cough! Cough! Hack! Hack!"

At a certain point, I think, the greater good argument begins to crumble in on itself. It's one thing to offer one's self in sacrifice, and quite another to force an ultimate cost upon someone else. Is the good gained truly worthy of the act committed?

Twenty one feet.

One and one-half seconds.

The Tueller Drill was developed by Sgt. Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City Police Department, to demonstrate the amount of time it would take an assailant, armed with a contact weapon, to travel 21 feet (7 yards) to his intended victim. Based on the tests conducted, it was demonstrated that it only took 1.5 seconds for the attacker to reach his victim. The point of the drill was to illustrate the dilemma faced by an armed victim, namely, to be able to recognize the potential threat, determine that an attack is occurring, and respond appropriately (in self defense). Particularly designed for persons armed with a holstered firearm, the drill was contrasted against the time required to draw, aim, and shoot the attacker. Tests typically show that most experienced shooters can recognize a threat, draw their firearm, and shoot in around 2 seconds.

That leaves the victim in the red by about 1/2 of a second.

Thus, it is entirely possible for an attacker armed with a knife to move across 7 yards and make contact with his victim before the victim can take action to defend himself. The dilemma an armed person now has is whether or not he can recognize a real threat with a non-existent threat, and whether or not the aggressor is within his danger zone. If he makes the wrong decision, and kills the person representing the non-existent threat, he could be faced with murder charges. If he makes the wrong decision, and waits until the bad guy's attack is well underway, he could be dead.

What to do?

In Armed Response, David Kenik recommends running through various scenarios designed to instill the reality of how quick an attack could take place. For instance, he envisions a home invasion occurring while your family members are in various locations within the house. How much time would it take to get your family into one safe location and to retrieve your self-defense handgun? He thinks that the lag in time to accomplish so much dictates his being armed while in his own home. 

Is Kenik overreacting? Maybe, although his point is well taken that if an event (such as a home invasion) were to occur, time would be of the utmost essence. In my opinion, scenarios such as those recommended by Kenik are useful in helping to educate one on the need for alertness at all times. One of the key components of one's response time, to an attack, is to recognize that an attack is occurring or about to occur. Indeed, one of the tips given to women, regarding their responsibility in managing their own safety, is to always be aware of who is about in their surroundings. This is typically known as being in relaxed alert mode of Condition Yellow.

Apart from the fact that many people consider a lethal threat occurrence to be so unlikely as to negate the necessity for consideration, much less training, I have to wonder how such people view events such as house fires, car accidents, natural disasters, etc. As for my family, my wife and I have discussed with our children what to do in the event of a house fire. We've done this, despite the fact that none of us have ever experienced a house fire.

Owning a firearm, for the purposes of self-defense, opens up a myriad of responsibility issues for the firearm owner, not the least of which is the understanding of the Tueller Drill and its implications. Regardless of whether or not an attacker is 21 feet away, one's awareness of his surroundings is paramount. Self defense experts will reiterate that tactical training, with one's firearm, is critical and should include exercises designed to stimulate one's ability to make shoot or no-shoot decisions under stress.

Probably most important, is the decision one must make regarding whether or not they can shoot a firearm, in self defense, and potentially take another human's life. And that will be the topic of vol. 3 in this series.

All photos - © 2009, A. R. Lopez