'Go to the ant, thou sluggard'

(Title: Proverbs 6:6) How do ants build vast underground cities without a chief engineer? How do bees build a hive and make honey without a leader? How do swarms of migrating birds or schools of fish seem to move as one organism? An article in the current National Geographic, “Swarm Behavior”, offers insights into the question of how the simple actions of individuals add up to the complex behavior of a group -- but this 2007 author reveals an economic blind spot about what Adam Smith understood as early as 1776.

According to this article, what appears to be intelligent, coordinated behavior is actually the culmination of individuals’ actions. A school of silvery jacks appears to be one organization. No one, however, is in charge; each fish fulfilling his responsibility to stay together, go the same direction and not run into another fish. Individual locusts by instinct align their direction with others creating an army of insects systematically mowing down acre after acre of crops.

Foraging ants “know” when to leave the nest in the morning when they have encountered a sufficient number of patrolling ants returning from the night guard. If the patrollers are detained by some threat to the nest, they don’t return and foragers don’t go out. Neither patrollers nor foragers know the “big picture” yet their individual actions create an orderly and beneficial system.

In humans, swarm behavior is something like wisdom of the crowd. Take for example, horse-racing odds are calculated from the all bets before a race. They are usually correct. Stock-market prices reflect the individual decisions of a lot of people and are usually a good indicator of value.

The article goes on to provide examples of applications of swarm behavior such as Google, which relies on the accumulation of web site hits to rank pages, and Wikipedia, which contains the cumulative knowledge of thousands of writers.

The article, however, misses the greatest example of beneficial swarm behavior or crowd wisdom in humans – the free market. In the free market, the culmination of individual choices determines the price and quantity of goods and services. Nobody is in charge, yet the market works to create jobs, goods, and unprecedented wealth for the greatest number of people.

Where the market is freest, the most people enjoy the greatest wealth. Where it is most constrained, people are poorest. Desired goods grow scarce while undesirable goods pile up and gather dust. Suppressing economic freedom is like throwing a net on a school of fish; individuals can no longer act and the group is tangled in confusion. Hillary, Barack, Sen. Edwards, Mr. Gore, Speaker Pelosi... call your office.

Don't let it become Dependence Day

By Brian Ochsner (baochsner@aol.com) As we again celebrated Independence Day this week, I've thought about where America is as a country, and how the spirit of 21st-century America compares to the spirit of '76. There are some good traits that have remained intact, but there's also some other characteristics that have gone away from the original intent of the Founders. In some respects America is more independent than ever. But it's also more dependent on government and American companies to provide them happiness, instead of enjoying the freedom to pursue their happiness.

Americans have always been for the most part rugged individualists. Through the first century and a half of our country's existence, our ancestors were God-fearing, hard-working people who thought (and usually worked) for themselves. They didn't look to the government or a company for their security. They generally knew the risks involved with exploration and new ventures, accepted them, and stepped out on faith for the possibility of a better life.

Today it's vastly different. More than a few Americans are looking to government or a company to make them safe and secure now and in retirement. Roosevelt's New Deal started and Johnson's Great Society reinforced dependence on government to fight poverty and increase American prosperity. Social Security, defined-benefit pensions, and farm subsidies have dulled the entrepreneurial spirit and industriousness that Americans were famous for in the early 20th Century.

If I could time travel, I'd love to be transported back to the offices of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, and get a taste of what they did, how they struggled, and ended up victorious in business.

Nowadays, children are educated through our public and private schools to be what I call 'Dilbert drones.' They're told: “Don't make mistakes, do as you're told, don't think outside the box. Look for that safe, secure job with generous benefits and you'll do fine.”

Unfortunately, today's education system is preparing students for a world that no longer exists. Blue- and white-collar jobs are being outsourced to China, India and Latin America. But too many Americans still believe it's their birthright – even their entitlement - to have that safe, secure high-paying job with good bennies. As a result, we're not as competitive or sharp on average as we used to be. The free market and competition are not just good, but still great things. They keep you on your toes and force you to make the most of your abilities.

And because we're in the Information Age, the rate of change is accelerating at warp speed. Even as a 30-something, it's difficult for me to keep up sometimes. But I know that my business and life will be easier if I can see, accept and adapt to these changes instead of ignoring or fighting them. Robert Kiyosaki, author of the best-seller Rich Dad, Poor Dad, goes into more detail on these ideas in his Yahoo column.

The life cycle of some companies and industries is now measured in years, not decades. You can't be certain that a company or your job will be the same five years from now. If you want to get and stay competitive, you'll need to stay on top of things – or work with a team to help you stay up-to-speed. I've learned the hard way that doing it all on your own is a tough, slow lonely road.

The free-market, capitalistic system we're blessed to have in America isn't the easiest road to travel. Trust me, I've hit my share of speed bumps and potholes along the way. And it's still a struggle even today. But from taking this road less traveled, I've gained wisdom and confidence tempered with humility. That's a pretty good combination to be successful and happy in business and life.

Contrary to what the media tells you, most businesspeople I've met are the most generous folks around – not the most selfish. Before someone will part with their hard-earned money, you have to give them what they want and treat them well. For every self-serving Joe Nacchio you hear about, there are dozens of down-to-earth business owners who are good people to deal and be with.

Having said all this, I believe you should stay true to your morals and principles. My preference is the Judeo-Christian ones. It's some of the best wisdom around, and they transcend time; in other words, they apply to daily life no matter whether you lived in the 1st century, or you're alive in the 21st.

That's my Independence Day 2007 wish for Backbone America readers and all Americans: To discover and make the most of your talents; for confidence and wisdom tempered with humility; and for the company of good friends and family to help you enjoy the journey.

Dog doo ruling further twists meaning of free speech

By Karen Kataline (kaykat73@aol.com) I know it’s a stinky subject but the recent acquittal of Kathleen Ensz, of a criminal charge, for filling a political mailer with dog feces and returning it to Marilyn Musgrave’s office, got me thinking. Underneath the sheer entertainment value of reporting on the extent of political “dung-slinging” lies a profoundly serious issue. Ensz was acquitted on the grounds of free speech. But what exactly does that mean nowadays? We are living in a time when words are increasingly punished and seen as "violence" -- while actions, which used to be the only thing punishable by the courts, are now defined as speech and protected accordingly.

Is it any wonder that many of us are scratching our heads and wondering when it was that words lost their simple and direct meaning? Was it when Clinton made famous the phrase, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”? Or was it when Sunday morning pundits began celebrating how cleverly a politician could use words to obfuscate what he really thinks? Regardless of when it happened, I don’t think I am alone in my concern that the basic principles on which I grew up are being turned upside down.

Would the jury have voted for acquittal if say, Ensz had chosen to burn a cross on Al Sharpton’s lawn and called it free speech? I doubt it. Without clear principles that transcend personal tastes, we are up dung’s creek.

There is a well developed movement that has coined the phrase “verbal violence”. Barak Obama used the term when asked about the horrors at Virginia Tech in April. Obama went on to say that “much of the problem is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other.” Frankly, there is a limit to which I am willing to recognize myself in another—particularly a mass murderer. The blurring of distinctions between who is a victim and who is a perpetrator is another great contributor to this upside down thinking.

Today, the perpetrators of horrific crimes are characterized as victims and the victims of those crimes are asked to master the art of “forgiveness” in order to heal. What’s going on here? Erasing the line between what we think about doing and what we actually do is to ultimately erase personal responsibility for the choices we make. When those distinctions are lost, our safety and civility are at stake. Thought is action, action is thought. Criminals are victims, and victims are criminals.

The growing confusion about the simple and clear definition of free speech itself is also contributing to the problem The First Amendment protects you from being punished by the government for what you say. It does not protect you from being criticized by those for whom you work, clients you serve, or those who choose to watch your movies.

It occurred to me that one of the reasons so many people have trouble with this definition, is because they think of the government and all other private institutions as one in the same. We must stop moving in that direction. Protecting that distinction protects us all.

The right to be offended and the right to disapprove didn’t used to have to be explained and protected. Now, apparently it does. Making clear distinctions and respecting that words have specific meanings, is one of the ways we can turn the world right side up again.

Apologizing to Jerry Falwell

By Dave Crater (crater@wilberforcecenter.org) The passing of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, someone at whom many of the glitterati and literati even among ostensible conservatives still love to scoff, has, as passings often do, led many others (myself included) to engage in some real soul-searching concerning what this man was about and what we all should learn from him and his legacy. Consider this more a confession than an argument.

I’m ashamed to say – and this is my confession – that I once unthinkingly accepted much of the common claptrap about Rev. Falwell. I heard it so often, and from members of the glitterati and literati who were so well educated and well placed and well dressed that they couldn’t possibly be misguided, that I assumed it was at least partially true:

Not intellectually respectable; prone to saying stupid things in public; representative of everything wrong with Christian America; front man for how silly and hopeless fundamentalist America is, and how autocratically governed by slightly-overweight white males it is; impediment to real Christian influence and respectability in the American public square; etc, etc.

This same claptrap is repeated all the time even by people claiming to be followers of Christ – and insinuated by still more who offer the lame but perfunctory “I didn’t always agree with him” qualifiers as they eulogize Falwell in public statements – but who, if they are indeed Christians, I began some time ago to suspect are at least less familiar with Christ’s actual life and teaching, and certainly less willing to bear Christ’s cross, than Rev. Falwell was.

For some strange reason this uneducated fundamentalist hillbilly’s legacy includes a 22,000-member evangelical church that he started in a basement, a major evangelical university and law school, and a national Christian activist infrastructure that was a major force in American politics for the decade he was leading it, but which has dwindled to much less since he left. For anyone else, this kind of organizational and influential legacy would be the very definition of respectable worldly success.

Imagine, for example, the glowing reports from the glitterati and literati we would be seeing if Barack Obama had started and led for decades a 22,000-member center-left church, founded a center-left university and center-left law school the size of Liberty University, or developed a center-left national grassroots network the size of the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition. The choruses of anointed hallelujahs out of Washington, New York, and Hollywood, and the star-power in attendance at his funeral, would ring for years.

Imagine, in turn, the soothing flatteries you would whisper to yourself if your own life had resulted in even a small portion of these accomplishments – albeit center-right and respectable accomplishments, not too right and certainly not too evangelical. For Rev. Falwell, this enormous legacy seems to be most prominent when it provides the visible, obvious evidence why we don’t want to be like him or even give the appearance of being like him, or, if we can help it, be involved with anything he created. That lawyer is a Liberty University grad? Well (snicker), I guess we know how that case will turn out.

I have spent many hours pondering this paradoxical curiosity since Falwell died. In hindsight, I think this visceral, nameless dislike resulted from Falwell’s unflinching, fearless adherence to a robust, worldview-sized faith that transcended right and left, entering irrecoverably and inevitably-controversially the ancient realm of right and wrong. You know, good and evil, angels and demons, and all that.

I further think the fact that the visceral, nameless dislike was and is so widespread among so many says more about the many than it does about the man. Certainly I confess it said more about me when I believed it than it did about him. Now I think it well illuminates the Apostle’s lament that the spiritual man judges all things rightly while he himself is judged rightly by no one (I Cor. 2:15).

So I say publicly and sincerely to all of you my witnesses – lest I allow too much time to pass between Rev. Falwell’s death and my confession and repentance regarding what I once thoughtlessly and sinfully believed about him – that I have asked God’s forgiveness and prayed He would be so clement and gracious as to raise up a few more heroes with the understanding, courage, and faith of Rev. Falwell, to sustain them against all the vitriol and ignorant hatred we will hurl at them in our pursuit of intellectual, social, and political respectability and success, and, just as a crowning, excessive grace, to also raise up a few stalwarts with the deep and spiritual kind of wisdom to ignore the vain, foolish praise and criticism of men and to instead judge these heroes rightly while they are yet alive on the earth.

An ambitious prayer, I know. But I still believe in miracles. Thank you for taking the time to witness my confession.

What's meant by 'rendering to Caesar'?

I’ve been struck by two thoughts lately, one thought expands on my April 1 post concerning the political leanings of Jesus, the second asks to what extent faith and politics can or cannot accompany each other. It may not be fashionable to say, but it is certainly true; you can legislate morality. In fact I'd actually contend that every law adopted from seat-belt laws to smoking bans to insurance mandates is morality codified, heck the most morally telling law we pass is the budget – “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). When I say that we can legislate morality, and then I give the examples above, I am not talking about philosophical morality but rather, I mean that we can "impose by law our moral code on others and make them behave as we expect." It is far more difficult, maybe impossible, to use the force of law to compel the conscience of someone else to believe as we do. Society creates and encourages behavior it deems moral precisely through the force of law, but we cannot – and do not expect our laws to change the heart of another person. We can stop a man from murder, but we cannot stop a man from thinking murderous thoughts.

From birth through death we are constantly searching for who we are, and our individual identity - how we see ourselves - is closely tied to who we are in community and how we live our lives in relation to others. Our relationships with each other and with the greater community around us shape who we are and how we see ourselves. How we choose to be involved in the lives around us often defines us not only in the eyes of others, for a man is known to those around him by his actions, but also defines us to ourselves, for who but God knows our hearts and minds as well as we do. In other words, how I see myself is determined by what I do.

So what about political involvement? As an individual in relationship to Christ as well as to one’s fellow man, politics would seem a natural extension of living in a community. For Christians, there is some good in being politically involved, but that is not the good, or even the key ground to fight over in this world. What is Good is to live lives that draw others to Christ - and draw ourselves ever closer at the same time. Some good comes from politics and social action, and from pursuing and advocating for policies that strengthen the moral fabric of society - the founding ethics of biblical Christianity and Judaism.

To live Christianly, to have my actions truly reflect my heart, must lead to some difference in our world, some "rendering unto Caesar.” It's important to create laws that protect the innocent and punish the guilty, it is important to vote, and to use our God-given freedom to create a country that seeks liberty and justice, a country that loves and encourages what is right and true. But more than working to affect the country, Christians must realize that it is when Christians seek to act like Christ that they most inspire their community. It is the heart that influences one to follow laws, though laws will always be necessary.

I guess my point is that people don't find that out by simply following laws.