Page D26

PoliticsThe Town VoiceBalanced 

 

I Did Not Want This Job at First

By Arlon Staywell
RICHMOND  —   November 9, 2016 This article will not seem "journalistic" in that I am writing about myself, yet I intend to be as much a journalist as possible in the circumstances.  There appear some autobiographical notes I perhaps owe you and will present here.

I did not want work in politics at first.  I did not want to work in journalism at first.  I did not want to work in religion at first.  Notice the emphasis.  I always have preferred math and science, especially engineering.

As a quite young child I developed a profound respect for God and I had a perhaps noticeable piety, I suppose you could call it.  Yet I did not expect to work in religion at least not for pay.  When I started high school, science and engineering were still quite more popular than usual because of the moon landing, but I think I would have preferred them anyway, moon landing or not.  I always had, and to this day have, the nerdiest calculator on the market and still often use one.  Like many people in school I worked for pay in restaurants to further my other studies.

I did not ask to join the high school debate team.  They asked me.  A teacher did, actually.  I only agreed so as not to appear neglecting any civic duties.

I have always been somewhat of a conformist, especially in social customs.  Beyond ensuring modesty I never paid much attention to the way I dress.  I prefer the standard "uniform" what ever that is and family members chose most of my clothes.  Some people are annoyed by conformity because they think there should be more thought put into things.  I put plenty of thought into things, just not clothing styles.  I find that conformity contributes to the flow of society for everyone, not just me.

I have never been a "hippy" insofar as accepting sex outside marriage or other obviously irresponsible attitudes toward work or as already mentioned civic duties.

I was not convinced that the conflict in Vietnam was a proper concern for the United States, but I did not think that growing long hair was a sensible was to oppose it.  There are debates.

Although I kept the rules at the high school for hair length an assistant principal accused me of violating the rule about not covering any part of the ear.  He pulled the hair from above my ear about a quarter inch over the ear by moving the skin far enough from its natural position.  The hair did not cover any ear otherwise.  I complained.  That made me a sort of spokesperson for long hair on males.  I did not want that job, yet it stuck.

Later the school relaxed its rules about male hair length and quite many male students grew their hair long, but they were not "hippies" either.  They had jobs and other responsible social activities much like mine.  You can see in the high school yearbooks of those times how very many males wore long hair.  Yet I never saw a "hippie" except perhaps once when I gave a ride to a stranger at night.  The person had been living the style of the runaways to California heard so much about on television and it showed in the light.  It was disturbing.

After the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam Conflict ended and there was no war to oppose, most males forgot about long hair and preferred the convenience of shorter hair.  They began to associate short hair with a conformity they also found convenient.  Remember that I too am a conformist who appreciates the free flow of society that conformity helps.

Still I had to examine and defend various arguments for and against everything, having advanced in the art of debate.  I did not want the job.  I wanted to be an engineer and have someone else pick my clothes.

I did compile over the years much data and several arguments about longer hair on males.  Much of that appears on this web site for your convenience.  However much I like to admit it or not, there do not appear many good arguments for shorter hair on males.

It has also fallen on me to lead the case for an intelligent designer.  I developed the arguments to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover using my knowledge of science and formal argument.

Many often assume that I make the arguments from the standpoint of religion.  I do have a profound respect for God, but the arguments are from science and only the best forensic science.

I do read the Bible.  I often discuss it and humbly offer whatever clues I might have to its interpretation, but I generally prefer to leave official interpretations to people who have dedicated their lives and fortunes to that.

I enjoy reading about most religions and philosophical systems as a recreational activity.  I find most religions have more in common with each other than with atheism.  Some Christians are an exception in that they have more in common with atheists, but those are usually the novices.

My arguments for an intelligent designer do not employ any of those religious or philosophical arguments.  As much as I do believe in a god, I do not believe one has chosen me to be a religious leader, another job I do not want.

The job I do accept is journalist although it was not my first choice.  I have studied long and thoroughly with considerable associations with science, politics and religion.  I have developed some readiness for the tasks of the journalist at hand.

Having gained control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency, the Republicans are excited about the changes they can now bring to this country that has strayed so far from its founding and godly principles.

Their mistake in recent decades has been to attempt to use the military as a foundation for wisdom and goodness rather than godly principles being that foundation.  I suspect that will continue to fail.  The only proper purpose of the military is to stop other militaries.

I believe that they should return to godliness, help me overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, and then the other changes they want will win more support from their opponents and flow more naturally.

I rather suspect they will try to accomplish their goals without much notice of god.  That doesn't mean they are evil.  It means their specialty, the military and government's specialty, is force and they don't understand any thing but force.  Not all of them are persuasive forensic specialists with great debating skills.

Perhaps you have noticed that not all their goals are even very godly. I hope no god punishes them for misusing his name.

The reason health costs are so high is probably that so many people have turned to a "science" they believe can force decisions on people.  Science doesn't do that.  Science persuades.  Government has misappropriated science to force government's ways on people.

The Republicans will probably easily "repeal" the health care law.  They don't need Donald Trump for that.  With health insurance costs rivaling the rent, Donald Duck the cartoon character could repeal them.  The "replace" phase will likely be more successful when people put less faith in science and realize that is a faith similar to their faith in a god, and no good substitute for their faith in a god.

Although most people would describe me as "very conservative" and I can be annoyingly conformist, I am actually in a "middle" that most of you have lost track of it.  I think you'll find I'm qualified to serve as a journalist.